OfficiaUournal - Archive of European Integration

!88t tE &Ofl

Annex

No 243

May 1979

English edition

OfficiaUournalof the

European Communities

Debates of the European Parliament

Contents

1979-1980 Session

Report of Proceedings

from 7 to 11 Mry 1979

European Centre, Luxembourg

Monday, T May 1979

Resumption of session, p. 2 - Documents, p. 2 - Urgent procedure, p. 4 -Order of business, p. 4 - Speaking-tim., p. 8 - Procedure without report, p. 9 -Action taken on Parliament's opinions, p. l0 - Company taxation, p. l0 - Air-traffic control, p. 12 - Misleading advertising, p. 2l - Next sitting, p. 27 -Annex, p. 28.

Tuesday, 8 May 1979

Minutes, p. 32 - Documents, p. 32 - Urgent procedure, p. 33 - Constructionproducts, p. 34 - Agenda, p. 43 - Urgent procedure, p. 43 - Community transit,p. 43 - Individual rights and data-processing, p.44 - Supplies of raw materials, p.50 - Transfer of appropriations, p. 56 - Question-time, p. 55 - Votes, p. 53 -Equal pay for men and women, p. 65 - Tripartite Conference - Council of Minis-ters of Social Affairs, p. 65 - Procedural motions, p. 72 - Tripartite Conference

- Council of Ministers of Social Affairs (contd), p.73 - Agenda, p. 83 - Urgentprocedure, p. 83 - European Centre in Berlin, p. 83 - Discrimination in Franceagainst migrant women, p. 85 - Agenda, p. 85 - Financial Regulation, p. 85 -Next sitting, p. 87.

Vednesday,9 May 1979 88

Minutes, p. 90 - Documents, p. 90 - Agenda, p. 90 - Tribute to Aldo Moro, p.90 - Requests for early votes, p.9l - Urgent procedure, p.92 - Motions for reso-lutions amending the Rules of Procedure, p.92. - Employment policy, p. 93 -Protection of the Rhine, p. 104 - Enlargement of the Communiry, p. 106 -Agenda, p. ll2 - Question-time (contd), p. ll2 - Statements marking the last

(Continued overleaf)

fi ;""

ffffitrH I

kjh62

Text Box

Contents (continued)

NOTE TO READER

Appearing at the same time as the English edition are editions in the five other officiallanguages of the Communities: Danish, German, French, Italian and Dutch. The Englishedition contains the original texts of the intewentions in English and an English transla-tion of those inade in other languages. In th,se cases there are, after the name of thespeaker, the following letters, in brackets, to indicate the language spoken : (DK) forDanish, (D) for German, (F) tot French, (I) for ltalian and (NL) for Dutch.

The original texts of these interventions appear in the edition published in the languagespoken.

part-session, p. I l8 - Enlargement of the Community (contd), p. 122 - Votes, p.

123 - Enlargement of the Community (contd), p. 125 - Human rights in

Ethiopia, p. 130 - Accident at Harrisburg, p. 132 - JRC programme 1980-83, p.

134 - Draft estimates of Parliament for 1980, p. 143 - Cooperation with deve-

loping countries in the field of energy, p. 144 - Speaking-time,p. 147 - Electri-city production, p. 147 - Energy situation in the Community, p. 150 -Protecting the interests of members and others in .toci4tit dilotty-tttt.t, p. 152 -Urgent procedure, p. 158 - Agenda, p. 158 - Inclusion of a document in theagenda, p. 158 - Next sitting, p.159 - Annex, p.160.

Thursday, l0 May 1979

Minutes, p. 164 - Documents, p. 164 - Requests for early votes, p. 165 - Urgentprocedure, p. 16.5 - European Parliament estimatesr p. 155 - Amendment of theRules of Procedure, p. 170 - Protecting the interests of members and others intoci4tds anon)'trrtt (contd), p. 174 - Question-time (concluded), p. 185 - Votes, p.192 - Protecting the interests of members and others in .tocihi.r tt,,o,t-l',,,re.\ (contd),p. 200 - EEC-New Zealand economic and trade relations, p. 204 - Agenda, p.210 - Agricultural Committee's seminar - Review of the CAP, p.210 - Speak-ing-time, p.218 - Agricultural Committee's seminar - Review of the CAP(contd), p. 218 - Market in wine, p.223 - MCAs in the wine sector, p. 223 -Isoglucose, p. 223 - Milk sector, p. 224 - Fisheries and fish-farming, p. 225 -Leukosis among cattle - Nervous diseases in pigs, p. 228 - Procedure, p. 221| -Perustitza and Erzegovina varieties of raw tobacco, p. 229 - Protection of animalsduring international transport, p. 229 - Community citrus fruit, p. 229 - Oil-production register, p. 229 - Aids to hop-producers, p. 229 - Forestry policy, p.230 - Fisheries auxiliary vessels, p. 230 - Development and training in rural life,p. 231 - European Cooperation Agency, p.231 - Vorking conditions, p.232 -European Youth Forum, p.235 - Own resources, p.237 - Adult bovine animalsfrom Yugoslavia, p. 237 - Next sitting, p. 237 - Annex, p. 238.

Friday, ll May 1979 24t

Minutes, p. 245 - Documents, p. 245 - Petitions, p. 245 - Procedure withoutreport, p. 245 - Votes, p. 245 - Sabata trial, p. 253 - Appointment of anOmbudsman, p. 254 - Draft supplementary budget No 2 f.or 1979 (vote), p. 255

- Appointment of an Ombudsman (contd), p. 256 - Auditing of accounts of

Resolutions adopted at sittings of 7 to 11 Llay 1979 alltear in tbc Official Journal oJ

the European Comntunities C 1a0 of t. 6. 1979.

t6t

Sining of Monday, 7 May 1979

SITTING OF MONDAY, 7 MAY 1979

Contents

l. Resumption of tbe session

2. Documents receioed

3. Urgent procedure .

4. Order of business

llrl.r Notenboom, on bebalf of tbe Christian-Democratic Group (EPP); Lord. Castle;Lord Bruce of Donington ; A[r Broeksz;lllr Fletcher-Cooke ; lllr Sbaat; Il4r Adams ;)Wr Sieglerscbmidt; ItIr Nyborg on bebalfof tbe Group of European ProgressioeDemocrats I Lord Castle;llIr Nyborg

5. Limitation of speaking time .

6. Proced.ure witbout report .

7. Action taken b1 tbe Commission on opin-ions of Parliament:tVr Broehsz;llIr Burke ; lVr Broeh,sz

8. Compary taxation - Interim report by*Ir Nyborg on bebalf of tbe Commiuee onEconomic and lllonetary Affairs (Doc.r 04/7e) :lVr Nyborg rapporteur)Vr Starke, on bebalf of tbe Cbristian-Democratic Group (EPP); lllr Burke,lllember of the Commission

9. Air traffic control - Report b1 illr Noi,on bebalf of the Committee on Regional

Policy, Regional Planning and Transport,(Doc. 105/79):

tVr Noi, rapporteur

Lord Bruce of Donington, Chairman of tbeCommittee on Regional Poliq, RegionalPlanning and Transport; Mr 0sborn, onbebalf "f tbe European ConseroatiaeGroup; lllr Albers; lVrs Dunwoodl; lIrJung, on bebalf of tbe Liberal and Derno-cratic Group ; lllr Burke, lllember of theCornmission; ,foIr Osborn; hlrs Dunwoodl;lWr Burhe

10. Directiae on misleading aduertising -Report by Lord Kenne4 on bebalf of tbeComrnittee on tbe 'Enaironment,

PublicHealtb and Consumer Protection (Doc.36/7e):

Lord Kenne\ raPporteur

Mr Schwiirer, on bebalf of the Cbristian-Democratic Group (EPP); ltlr Siegler-scbrnidt, on bebalf of the Socialist Group;Mr Noi; -iVr Burke, lWember of theCommission; Mr Jung on behalf of tbeLiberal and Demouatic Group; illrSieglerschmidt; Lord Kennet I hlr Siegler-scbmidt ;Mr Noi; Lord Kennet

ll. Agenda for next sittingAnnex

t2

2

2

4

l3

2t

4

8

9

l0

22

27

28

l0

ll


IN THE CHAIR: Mr COLOMBO

President

(Tbe sitting u'as opened at 5.05 p. m)

President. - The sitting is open.

l. Resrrnption of thc .rcs.tiort

President. - I declare resumed the session of theEuropean Parliament adjourned on 27 April 1979.

2. Docuntents receircd

President. - Since the adjournment of the session Ihave received:

(a) from the Council, requests for an opinion on :

- the proposal from the Commission of the EuropeanCommunities to the Council for a regulationamending Regulation (EEC) No 154175 as regards thefinancing of the register of olive cultivation (Doc.t33179\

which has been referred to the Committee on Agricul-ture as the committee responsible and to theCommittee on Budgets for its opinion;

- the list of requests for the carry-over of appropriationsfrom the 1978 ro the 1979 financial year (non-auto-matic carry-overs) (Doc. 135/79)

which has been referred to the Committee onBudgets ;

- the proposals from the Commission of the EuropeanCommunities to the Council for :

I. a regulation amending Council Regulations (EEC)Nos 1408/71 and 574172 on the application ofsocial security schemes to employed persons andtheir families moving within the Community

II. a regulation amending the Annexes to Regulations(EEC) Nos l40817l and 574/72 on the applrcatronof socral security schemes to employed personsand therr families moving within the Community(Doc. 137179)

which has been referred to the Committee on SocialAffairs, Employment and Education ;

- the proposal from the Commission of the EuropeanCommunities to the Council for a regulationopening, allocating and provrding for the adminrstra-tion of Community tariff quotas for certain wineshaving a registered designation of origin, fallingwithin subheading ex 22.05 C of the CommonCustoms Tariff, originatrng in Tunisia (1979180) (Doc.t3817e)

which has been referred to the Committee onExternal Economic Relations as the committee respon-sible and to the Committee on Agriculture and theCommittee on Development and Cooperation fortheir opinions ;

- thc proposal from the Commission of thc' EuropennCommunities to the Councrl for a rcgulationopenrng, allocating and providrng for the administra-tron of a Communrty tarrff quota for fresh or chilledtomatoes fallrng within subheading ex 07.01 M ot tlreConrmon Customs Tariff, originating rn the African,Carrbbean and Pacific Statcs and rn the overseas cour.r-

trics and territorres (1979lU0) (Doc. l.l9l79)

which has been referred to the Committee on Deve-lopment and Cooperation as the committee respon-sible and to the Committee on Agriculture for itsopinion ;

- the proposal from the Con.rmissron oi the EuropcanCommunrties to the Council for a directrve amendingfor the second time Directive 74l.129/EEC on rhcapproxrmation of the laws of the Mc.nrber Staresrelatrng to emulsif iers, stabilizers, thrckeners anrlgelling agents for use rn foodstuffs (Doc. l4.l/79)

which has been referred to the Committee on theEnvironment, Public Health and Consumer Protec-tion ;

- the proposal fronr the Commissron of the EuropcanConrmunities to the Councit for a rcgulation layrngdown, rn respcct of hops, the anrount of tl.rc arcl toproducers for the l97tl harvest (Doc. 144l7tl)

which has been referred to the Committee on Agricul-ture as the committee responsible and to theCommittee on Budgets for its opinion ;

- thc proposal from the Con.rmission of the EuropeanCommunities to the Councrl for a regulation tempor-arily and partially suspendrrrg the autonomouscommon customs tariff duties on ccrtarn types of fish(Doc. 145179)

which has been referred to the Committee onExternal Economic Relations as the committee respon-sible and to the Committee on Agriculture and theCommittee on Budgets for their opinions;

(b) from the Parliamentary Committees, the followingrePorts :

- report by Mr Nielsen on behalf of the Comn.rittee onAgrrculture on the proposal from the Commrssron ofthe European Communrties ro the Council (Doc.a6179) for a regulatron on invcstment ard for themarketing and processing of ntrlk prodrrcts (Doc.127 179\ ;

- report by Mr Caillavet on behalf of the Committee orrAgriculture on the conclusrons to be drawn from thesemrnar held by the Committee on Agriculture atEchternach (Doc. 128179) ;

- report by Mr Brugger on behalf of the Committee onAgriculture on the proposal from the Commission ofthe European Communities to the Council (Doc.620178) for a directive establishing measures for theimplementatron of Directive 77l489|EEC on rheprotection of animals during rnternational transport(Doc. t29l7e);

Sitting of Monday, 7 May 1979

President

- report by Mr Lemp on behalf of the Committee onAgriculture on the proposals from the Commission ofthe European Communities to the Councrl (Doc.26179) tor

I. a regulation allocating catch quotas betweenMember States for vessels fishing in Faroesewaters

II. a regulation allocating certarn catch quotasbetween Member States for vessels fishing in theNorwegian exclusive economic zone

lll. a regulation allocating catch quotas betweenMember States for vessels fishing in Swedishwaters

IV. a regulation laying down for the period I Januaryto 3l December 1979 certain measures for theconservatron and managenlent of fisheryresources applicable to vessels registered in theFaroe Isles

V. a regulation laying down certain measures for theconservation and management of fisheryresources applicable to vesiels flying the flag ofSpain for the period I January to Jl December1979 (Doc. 130179);

- report by Mr Kasperert on behalf of the Committeeon External Economic Relations on the proposalfronr the Commission of the European Communitiesto the Council (Doc. 14179) for a regulation openrng,allocating and providing for the administration of a

Conrmunity tariff quota for fresh table grapes fallingwithin subheading ex 08.04 A I (a) and (b) of theCommon Customs Tariff, originating in Cyprus (Doc.t 3t l7e);

- rcport by Mr Zagari on behalf of the Political AffairsCommittee on the respect of humarr rights in Ethi-opia (Doc. t32179);

- report by Mr Schmidt on behalf of the Legal AffairsCommittee on the proposal from the Commission ofthe European Communities to the Council (Doc.187172) tor a fifth directive to coordinate the safe-guards which, for the protection of the interests ofMembers and others, are required by Member Statesof companies within the meaning ol the second para-graph of Article 58 of the Treaty, as regards the srruc-ture ol .sotidtit d,tott.l'ntc.t and the powers and oblga-trons of their organs (Doc. 136179);

- report by Mr Fuchs on behalf of the Committee onRegronal Policy, Regional Planning and Transport onpossible measures to improve the situation in theinland waterways sector (Doc. la6l79);

- report by Mr Albers on behalf of the Committee onSocial Affairs, Employment and Education on thecommunication from the Commission of the Euro-pean Communities to the Council on the improve-ment of relations with the social partners in thecontext of the Tripartite Conferences (Doc. 147179);

- report by Mr Pisoni on behalf of the Committee onSocral Affairs, Employment and Education on the

proposals from the Commission of the EuropeanCommunitres ro the Council (Doc. 137179) for:

l. a regulation amending Council Regulations (EEC)Nos 1408/71 and 574172 on the applicarron ofsocial securify schemes to employed persons andtheir families moving wirhin the Community

II. a regulation amending the Annexes to Regulations(EEC) Nos l408l7l and 574172 on the applicatronof social security schemes to employed personsand their families moving within the Community(Doc. 148179);

- report by Mr van der Gun, on behalf of theCommittee on Social Affairs, Employment and Educa-tion, on actions in the educational field specifically topromote contacts between the citizens of the Commu-nity (Doc. 149179);

- report by Mr Caro, on behalf of the Committee onSocial Affairs, Employment and Education, on theactivities of the European Youth Forum (Doc.t st 79) ;

(c) the following oral questions with debate :

- by Mr Fellermaier, on behalf of rhe Socialisr Group,to the Council on employment polrcy (Doc. 125179);

- by Mr Fellermaier, Mr Pisani and Mr Lange on behalfof the Socialist Group to the Commission on employ-ment policy (Doc. 126179);

- by Mr van der Gun on behalf of the Committee onSocial Affairs, Employment and Education to theCommission on preparations for the meeting of theCouncil of Ministers of Socral Affairs and Labour on1.5 May 1979 (Doc. l4ll79);

(d) the following oral question without debate :

- by Mrs Squarcialupi to the Commission on discrimi-nation in France against migrant women (Doc.t2a/7e);

(e) f.or Qtestion Tinte on 8,9 and l0 May 1979 (Doc.142179), pursuant to Rule 47A of the Rules ofProcedure, oral questions by Mr Fitch, Sir Geoffreyde Freitas, Mrs Dahlerup, Mr Seefeld, LordKennet, Lord Bethel, Lord St Oswald, Mr Howell,Mrs Ewing, Mr Osborn, Mr Kavanagh, Mr Herbert,Mr Nod, Mr Schyns, Mr Dondelinger, Mr McDo-nald, Lord Bessborough, Mr Radoux, Mr Howell,Mrs Ewing, Mr Osborn, Mr Kavanagh, Lord Bess-borough and Mrs Ewing;

(f) from the Commission:

27 Altril 1979

- a request for an opinion on the proposal for a transferof appropriations between chapters in Section III -Commission - of the deneral Budget for the Euro-pean Communities for the financial year 1979 (Doc.t 34t79)

which has been referred to the Committee onBudgets;


President

2 l[,r.y 1979

- a request for an opinion on the proposal for a transferof appropilatrons berween chapters rn Section III -Commission - of the General Budget for the Euro-pean Communrties for the financial year 1979 (Doc.t40/7e)


4 hla.1' 1979

- a rL.quest for an opinion on the proposal for a translerof approprrations between chapters in Section V -Court of Auditors - of the General Budget for theEuropean Communities for the financial year 1979(Doc. I s2l7e)


Since the proposed transfers concern expenditure notnecessarrly resulting from the Treaties, I have consultedthe Council on behalf o{ Parlrament in accordance withthe provisions of the Financial Regulation;

- the Twelfth General Report on the activities of theEuropean Communrties in 1978: Eighth report oncompetitron policy (Doc. 150/79) which has beenreferred to the Committee on Economic and Mone-tary Affairs ,

- a report on the financial situatron of the Communr-ties at 3l December 1978 (Doc. 153179)

which has been referred to the Committee onBudgets.

3. Ilrgcnt procedttre

President. -

I have received with request for urgentdebate pursuant to Rule 14 of the Rules of Procedure:

- a motion for a resolution by Mr Fellermarer and MrPrsani, on behalf of the Socialist Group, on the reviewof the common agricultural policy (Doc. 155179\;

- an oral question with debate by Mr Van der Gun, onbehalf of the Committee on Social Affairs, Employ-ment and Education, to the Commlssron, on prepara-tions for the meeting of the Council of Ministers ofSocial Affarrs and Labour on 1.5 May 1979 (Doc.14t 179).

The reasons supporting these requests are set out inthe documents.

I have received from the Council a request for urgentdebate on

- the proposal from the Conrntissron to the Councrl fora directive amendrng for the second time Directive74l329|EEC on the approximation of the laws of theMember States relating to emulsifrers, stabilizers,thickeners and gellrng agents for use in foodstuffs(Doc. ta3/7e).

The Council gives as it reasons for requesting urgentdebate the fact that the regulation expires on I Julyand must be therefore renewed.

I shall consult Parliament on this request at the begin-ning of tomorrow's sitting.

4. Order o.f bnsinc-s-s

President. - At its meeting of 27 Aprtl 1979 theEuropean Parliament adopted, pursuant to Rule l9 ofthe Rules of Procedure, on the basis of a proposaldrawn up by the enlarged Bureau at its meeting of 25April 1979, the draft agenda for the present part-ses-sron.

I would remind the House that under this rule theagenda, once approved, cannot be amended except byapplication of Rule 14, on urgent procedure and Rule32 on procedural motions or on a proposal from thePresident.

Availing myself of the powers conferred upon me byRule 12 of the Rules of Procedure I propose that thefollowing items be added to the agenda :

- Sitttng o.l lYcdnc-tda.1', 9 .14a1':

After the Zagan rcpoft (Doc. 132/79), a statement by theCommrssron on the Harrisburg accident.

- Stttinig ol Tbur:dct1, 10 Ndl':

At the end of the agenda:

- Albers report on relatrons with the social partners inthe contexr of the Tripartite Conferences

- Caro report on the activities of the European youthForum

- Bruce report on the discharge lor the 1977 financralyear

- Shaw report on non-automatic carry-forwards ofappropriations frcm 1978-1979

- report on own-resources (the Committee on Budgetswill decrde on this report at rts meeting that after-noon)

- report on imports of adult bovrne animals fronrYugoslavia (the Committee on External EconomrcRelations will decide on thrs report at its meeting onTuesday)

- Srtttng o.f Frtdt.l', 11 fuLt.1' :

At the end of the agenda:

- Van der Gurr report on contacts between Communitycrtizens

- Pisoni report on socral security fordebate)

- oral question without debate onlanguages in the Community.

workers (withotrt

the teaching of

These amendments take into account the requestswhich have been made,

I call Mr Notenboom.

Mr Notenbo (NL) Mr Presiderrt, on behalf ofthe Christian-Democratic Group I would like to tellyou that we do not find it right that the very impor-tant report by Mr Schmidt on behalf of the LegalAffairs Committee should only be debated on Friday.!7e know how it is with Fridays in Parliament: too


Notenboom

much haste and too few Members. But these are

important problems of co-determination. Ve do notbelieve that this is a Friday report although we do verywell understand the Bureau's agenda problems. !7ewould, however, like to try to obtain mutual agree-

ment among the groups that this report should be

debated tomorrow or 'Wednesday with a large atten-dance in the House which will ensure that it is givenmuch greater attention. Should it not be possible toreach agreement here, something which I wouldregret, our chairman, who is not able, to his regret, tobe here for a few hours, will attempt to raise this pointonce again in the Bureau to see whether it can be

taken on Thursday, but we would prefer it to be

debated tomorrow or on rUfednesday.

President. - I call Lord Castle.

Lord Castle. - Mr President, I was disappointed that

you made no mention of a report for which I amresponsible and which has been assigned a place onFriday. Of course I have the usual obfections of peoplewhose reports have been assigned to a Friday; thosehave already been mentioned ; but in this case, sir, Iam responsible for a report on New Zealand, and a

great deal of time has been spent not only by thecommittee but my myself and officials in compiling a

pretty comprehensive report. I now find that insteadof having it on the Wednesday when, I was originallyinformed, it would be taken, it is to be taken on theFriday. It is impossible for me to be present on theFriday morning. I shall very much regret it. I am notthe only person interested in New Zealand, and I amsure other people can make themselves responsiblefor the report, but I would have liked to have theopportunity of putting my own point of view. I have,

however, got myself somehow entangled in direct elec-tion

- not for myself (Laugbter)

- but to be of

general help to people in my group and I cannot extri-cate myself from that obligation. So I would be glad ifsympathetic consideration be given to my request thatit be taken on another day.

President. - I call Lord Bruce.

Lord Bruce of Donington. -

Mr President, I wellunderstand the very difficult position in which theBureau and yourself must be placed in arranging thebusiness for this, the last part-session before directelections. Nevertheless, Sir, I would draw your atten-tion to a most important item which, as I at presentunderstand it, you wish to leave to the end of theThursday sitting. In this I speak with the full supportof my chairman, Mr Lange, who is unable to be herefor the moment because of other urgent business, andI would therefore invite your consideration for thereport which will be considered tonight by theCommittee on Budgets on the discharge of the 1977

income and expenditure accounts.

Mr President, this, as it will emerge, raises questions ofvery great importance affecting the rights of Parlia-ment and the rights of Members of Parliament, and Iwould respectfully suggest to you that this item

- not

so much the report as the item itself -

being of suchcardinal importance to the rights of Members of thisHouse and the rights and powers of Parliament, oughtto be discussed either on 'Wednesday or very early onThursday, because when the rights of Parliament arein question it is desirable, and I am sure you willagree, Sir, that the maximum number of Members are

present to defend their rights.

President. - The proposals I intended putting to

the House included that of entering Lord Bruce'sreport on the discharge for the 1977 financial year onthe agenda for Thursday, 10 May. I think that it couldbe entered at the end of the agenda for that sitting.Do you agree, Lord Bruce ?

Lord Bruce of Donington. -

Well, Mr President, Imyself have been present late on Thursday nights ona number'of occasions over these last 4 years, and Iam well aware of the degree of interest that items verylate on the agenda, conflicting as they do with thetime when one normally takes refreshment, provokeand the effect they have on the attendance of thisHouse.

Now in some instances this is tolerable when items ofnot quite so considerable importance are under discus-sion. But as I shall submit, the whole question of the1977 accounts, particularly of the Commission, raisesmatters of such fundamental importance to everyMember of this House, and to the House as a whole,that some degree of priority ought, in fact, to be

accorded to it.

President. -

I call Mr Broeksz.

Mr Broeksz. - (NL) Mr President, as actingchairman of the Legal Affairs Committee I would liketo express warm support for Mr Notenboom's pro-posal. rUTe have now at last finished dealing with thisFifth Directive and it is a matter on which quitedetailed discussion has taken place in the LegalAffairs Committee, and understandably so, since thisquestion of co-determination in firms is an extremelyimportant matter ; we would therefore particularlyappreciate it if this were not taken on Friday but, ifpossible, on \flednesday in the late afternoon, or onThursday. rW'e therefore support Mr Notenboom'sproposal so that we can be sure that this report whichcould give rise to considerable discussion

- I do not

claim that it will necessarily do so - can be dealt

with sufficiently thoroughly and deeply.

President. -

I call Mr Fletcher-Cooke.


Mr Fletcher-Cooke. - Mr President, I am sorry tostrike a discordant note about Mr Schmidt's report onthe Fifth Directive. I entirely agree with Mr Noten-boom and Mr Broeksz that this is a very importantmatter and to a certain extent a controversial matter,but the truth is we have not yet had the final docu-ment : it has not yet been distributed, and it seems tome quite wrong that a matter that unfortunately hasbeen, I think, held up for years rather than monthsshould now be discussed tomorrow or even!(ednesday before the final document has been distri-buted and when Me(nbers who have not yet consid-ered this have not had an opportunity of doing so. Itis all right for Mr Broeksz, myself and my colleagueMr Shaw, who have been working on this in the LegalAffairs Committee, but with regard to other Membersof the Parliament who have not yet seen the docu-ment, to take it tomorrow or Vednesday seems to mewrong.

President. - I call Mr Shaw.

Mr Shaw. - Mr President, whilst supporting whole-heartedly the words of my colleague, Mr Fletcher-Cooke, may I also raise a question. It was not quiteclear, Mr President, whether it was your suggestionthat my report on the non-automatic carry-forwardsshould be taken on Thursday evening. Were that so,may I respectfully suggest that, as far as I know, thematter is non-controversial. I have another reportcoming up on Friday morning, and it would certainlybe convenient for me, and I hope it would be conven-ient for the House, if this item were slipped in aftermy report, Item No 125, on Friday. That wouldrelieve the congestion on Thursday evening and Ithink we could take it very happily on Friday.

President. - I call Mr Adams.

Mr Adams. - (D) Mr President, in the draft agendabefore us, the report by Mr Albers on behalf of theCommittee on Social Affairs, Employment and Educa-tion has been put down for Tuesday. You have justproposed that the second Albers report should beconsidered on Thursday.

I am speaking now on behalf of the chairman of theCommittee on Social Affairs, Employment and Educa-tion, Mr van der Gun, who is not yet here, and sinceMr Vredeling will be here on the Tuesday, I would askyou to permit the second Albers report, and the oralquestions by the Committee on Social Affairs, Employ-ment and Education concerning the Council of Minis-ters' meeting on 15 May to be considered on theTuesday, after the first Albers report. In other words,we should like both Albers reports and the oral ques-tions of the Committee on Social Affairs, Employ-ment and Education to be considered at the sametime on Tuesday in a joint debate.

President. - I call Mr Sieglerschmidt.

Mr Sieglerschmidt. - (D) If I may return to thequestion of consideration of the report by mycolleague, Mr Schmidt, on the Fifth Directive, whilstappreciating the objections raised by Mr Fletcher-Cooke and Mr Shaw, I now understand that the reportcan be distributed tomorrow, so that all Members willhave a chance to get to grips with the details of theamendments - I stress the word amendments, MrPresident - by lUTednesday evening or Thursdaymorning at the latest. After all, we have been debatingthis subject for years in the House, and all Membersmay be assumed to be familiar with the essentials ofthis important subject ; all they need to do now isfamiliarize themselves with the amendmentscontained in the recent draft report by the LegalAffairs Committee. I should therefore like emphati-cally to endorse the proposal to consider the Schmidtreport on the Fifth Directive on 'Wednesday eveningor Thursday morning at the latest.

President. - I call Mr Nyborg.

Mr Nyborg. - (DK) Mr President, I should like tosay on behalf of my group that, although we fullyrespect the obiections expressed by Mr Fletcher-Cooke, we wish to support Mr Notenboom's proposalto transfer Mr Schmidt's report to 'sTednesday's orThursday's agenda, as we believe that a report of suchgreat importance to Parliament should be given itsproper place on the agenda.

President. - Consult the House on Mr Shaw's andMr Adam's requests which I shall first summarize.

Mr Shaw has requested that his motion for a resolu-tion on the non-automatic carry-forwards should beheld over until the sitting of Friday, 11 May 1979,after his report on limited liability companies.

Mr Adams has requested that the Albers report on theTripartite Conference which it had been proposed toenter on the agenda for Thursday, l0 May should beentered on that of Tuesday, 8 May for joint debatewith the Albers report (Doc. 3l/79), in which debatethe oral question Doc. 141/79 would be included,provided Parliament agreed to consider it by urgentprocedure.

As there are no objections, that is agreed.

Mr Notenboom has requested that the Schmidt report(Doc. 136179), entered on the agenda for Friday, I IMay should be brought forward to !7ednesday,9 May.

As differing views have been expressed on Mr Noten-boom's request, I put it to the vote.

The request is approved.

The Schmidt report will therefore be entered on theagenda for lTednesday, 9 May.

Lord Castle has requested that his report on NewZealand (Doc. 107179), entered on rhe agenda for


President

Friday's sitting, should\Tednesday.

As \Tednesday's agendapropose to Lord CastleFriday's agenda. If he isFriday, the chairman ofcan deputize for him.

I call Lord Castle.

be brought forward to

is already very crowded, Ithat the item be left onunable to be present on

the committee responsible

'Lord Castle. - I am informed, Sir, by somebodywho knows him more intimately than I do - I thinkit is his personal assistant - that he will not be here

on Friday.

President. - I consult Parliament on Lord Castle's

request.

As there are no objections, the request is approved.

The report will therefore be entered on the agenda forrJ(ednesday, 9 May.

Lord Castle. - I am very much obliged. I hope to

see you in the early hours of the morning;

(Laugbte)


Mr Nyborg. - (DK) Mr President, my group has

made a written request for a minor amendment to theagenda for Tuesday : we have requested that the tworeports for which I am rapporteur, namely items 23

and 86, should be dealt with as the first and second

items on Tuesday, with Mr Bayerl's report becomingitem three. I have commitments in Denmark on

Tuesday evening and must therefore leave Luxem-bourg on Tuesday afternoon. I would therefore like tobe sure that we will have finished,,with my two reportsbefore my departure. Only a minor amendment, as I

say, which we have submitted in writing.

President. - I consuit Parliament on Mr Nyborg'srequest that both his reports (Docs. 30179 and 103/79)be taken at the beginning of the sitting of Tuesday, 8

May, before Mr Bayerl's report (Doc. 100179).

As there are no oblections, that is agreed.

As the agenda for this part-session is particularlyheavy I have directed that, in the case of the Howellreport on the milk and cheese sector and the Corriereport on fish-farming as well as of other documentsto be debated by urgent procedure, only the motionfor a resolution should be pri,nted and distributed and

that the explanatory statements should be printed and

distributed later.

The order of business will therefore be as follows :

Tola.1' ttnttl 8.00 /t. m.

- Procedure without report

- Statement by the Commission on action taken on theopinions and proposals of Parliament

- Interrm Nyborg rcport on conrpany taxes

- Noi report on arr traffic control

- Kennet report on misleading atrd ttnfatr advertrsrng

Tuttda.l', I tVa1 l979

l0.00,t.ttt. ttili 3.00 1t.ttr.:

- Nyborg report on constructloll protltrcts

-- Nyborg report on Conrmunity transit

- Bayerl report on the rights of the individttal ttr thcface of data processing

- Oral questron with debate to the Conrnrtssrorl ollComnrunity supplres of raw materials

- Dunwoody report on equal pay for mcn and wonletr

- Jornt debate on two Albers rcport on the TrrpartrtcConference and an oral qucstron to thc Conrntisstolton the CounciI of Mrnrsters of Social Affairs and

Labour on 1.5 May 1979 (thrs qtrestron wrll be takcnprovrded that Parliament votes ln favour of urgency)

- Bertrand report on European Centre rrr llerlin

- Oral question without debate to thc Conrntission on

discriminatron in France against nrrgrant wontel't

- Possrbly, Ripamonti report on thc draft strpplemcn-tary budget No. 2 for 1979

- Rrpamontr report on the draft estimatcs of Parlinnrtntfor 1980

- Shaw report on the Financral Rcgulation

3.00 p. n.:

- Question Time (questrons to the Conrnrission)

3.45 p. n.:

- Voting time

lY'ulnctda.l', 9 rlltr-1' 1979

10.00 a. m. Ltild 3.00 f. n.:

- Oral question with debate to the Council on employ-ment policy

- Oral question wrth debate to the Counctl orl the

protection of the Rhine

- Pintat report on enlargement of the Community

- Zagari report on human rights in Ethropra

- Statement by the Commission on the Harrisburg acci-dent

- FlAmig report on cooperation with developing coun-tnes in the field of energy

- Flamig report on the JRC multiannual programmcl 980- l 983

- Browrr report on electrrcity production

- Flamig report on the energy situation in the Commu-nity

- Schmidt report on the protection of the interests ofMembers and others in :ctciitit .t,1o,t-l',ttt.\

- Castle report on economic and trade relationsbetween the EEC and New Zealand

3.00 f. n.:

- Question Time (questions to the Council and ForeignMinisters)


President

4.30 1t. nt.:

- Voting time

Tbur-sday, 10 lVay 1979

10.00 a. nr. and 3.00 lt. n. until 8.00 1t.n. (ltostibly fronte.00 p. n)

- Caillavet report on the seminar held by theConrmittee on Agrrculture at Echternach

- Pisonr report on the market in wine

- Hansen report on the calculation of monetarycompensatory amounts in the wine sector

- Tolman report on isoglucose

- Joint debate orr Howell and Nielsen report on themilk sector

- Joint debate on Lemp report on fisheries and Corriereport on fish farming

- Joint debate on Hughes report on enzootic leukosisamong cattle and Hughes motion for a resolution onnervous diseases in pigs

- Br6g6gdre report on Perustitza and Erzegovrnatobaccos

- Brugger report on the protection of animals duringinternational transport

- Ligios report on Communiry citrus fruit

- Hansen report on the oil production register

- Friih report on hop producer aids

- Possibly, Albertini report on forestry policy in theCommunity

- Kavanagh report on fishing

- Sandri report on the creation of a European Agencyfor Cooperation

- Nyborg report on working conditions

- Caro report on the European Youth Forum

- Bruce report on the discharge tor the 1977 financialyear

- Report on own resources (if adopted in committee)

- Report on adult bovine animals from Yugoslavia (ifadopted rn committee)

- Report on the accesslon of Saint Lucia to the Lom6Convention (without debate)

3.00 p. m.:

- Question Time (questions to the Commission)

3.45 p. nt.:

- Possibly, vote on draft supplementary budget No. 2for 1979 and on the motion for a resolutioncontained rn the Ripamonti report

- Vote on the draft estimates of Parliament for 1980and on the motion for a resolution contained in theRipamonti report

- Voting time

Fridt.l', 1l tl1,t.1' 1979

9.00 a. n.:


- Votrng time

- Possibly, continuation of previous day's agenda

- Valker-Snrrth report on appointnrent of a Commu-nity Ombudsman

- Possibly, Shaw report on limrted liability companies

- Possibly, Shaw report on the carry-over of appropria-tions from 1978 to 1979

- Sandrr report on trade agreement wlth Uruguay

- Baas report on commercral and econontic coopera-tron agreements between the EEC and the ASEAN

- Kaspereit report on table grapes from Cyprus

- Corrie report on peripheral coastal regions of theCommunity

- Schyns report on transport of passengers and goodsby road

- Fuchs report on inland waterways

- Jrng report on EEC-COMECON relations in thefield of maritime shipping

- Brown report on plastic materials

- Lamberts report on edible caseins and caseinates

- Bethell report on ionizing radiation

- Jahn report on environmental carcinogens

- van der Gun report on contacts between the citizensof the Community

- Nod report on the quality and nutritive value of food(without debate)

- Lamberts report on fresh poultrymeat (wrthoutdebate)

- Pisoni report on social security for employed persons(without debate)

- Oral question without debate to the Commission orrlanguage teaching in the Community

End o.f sitting:

- Voting time

5. Limitatiort o.f'-tpeaking tine

President. - Pursuant to Rule 28 of the Rules ofProcedure I propose to allocate speaking time for thefollowing items on the agenda of Tuesday, 8 May1979 as follows :

Nyborg reports, Bayerl reportcertain economic problems :

Rapporteurs :

Author of the question :

Commrssion:Members :

broken down as follows :

and oral questlon on

30 mirrutcs(.] x l0)

l0 miuutes.50 minutes

150 minutcs


President

Socialist Group :

Christian-Democratic Group(EPP Group):Liberal and Democratic Group :

European Conservative GrouP :

Communist and Allies Group :

Group of European Progressive

Democrats :

Non-attached Members :

Rapporteurs :

Author of the question :

Commission:Members :

broken down as follows :

Socialist Group :

Christian-Democratic Group(EPP Group):Liberal and Democratic Group :

European Conservative Group :

Communist and Allies GrouP :

Group of European Progressive

Democrats :

Non-attached Members :

Dunwoody, Albers and Bertrand reports and Squarcialupi

oral question on social problems :

II. a regulation amending Regulation (EEC) No2727175 on the common organization of themarket in cereals

(Doc. 48/79)

which has been referred to the Committee on Agricul-ture as the committee resPonsible, and to the

Committee on Budgets for its opinion ;

- proposal from the Commission of the European

Communities to the Council for a directive

prolonging, in respect of brucellosis, tuberculosis ancl

swine fever, certain derogations granting to Denmark,

Ireland and the United Kingdom (Doc. 68179)

which has been referred to the Commitee on Agricul-ture ;

- proposal from the Commission of the Etrropean

Communities to the Cotrncil for a regulatrort

amending Regulation (EEC) No 471176 as regards thc

period of suspension of the application of the condi-tion on prices governing the rnlPortation into the

Community of fresh lemons originating in certain

Mediterranean countries (Doc. 9a179)

which has been referred to the Committee on

External Economic Relations as the committee resPorr-

sible, and to the Committee on Agriculture and the

Committee on Budgets for their opinions;

- proposal from the Commission of the Europearr

Communities to the Council for a regulation temPor-

arily and partially suspending the Common Custonrs

Tariff duties for certain tyPes of fish (Doc. l4-5/79)

which has been referred to the Committee ol1

External Economic Relations as the committee respolr-

sible, and to the Committee on Agriculture and the

Committee on Budgets for their opinions.

I remind the House that unless any Member asks

leave to speak on these proposals or amendments are

tabled to them before the opening of the sitting on

Friday, I 1 May 1979, I shall at that sitting, declare

these proposals to be aPProved Pursuant to Rule 27A

(6) of the Rules of Procedure.

I would point out that the Committee on Budgets willdecide on thesc three proposals at its meeting today.

Provided the committee does not object to Procedurewithout report, they will be considered at the sittingof Friday, ll Ivlay.

7. Action taken b1' tbc Contntission on opiniont o.f

Pctrlidnent

President. - The next item is the communication

from the Commission on action taken on the opin-ions of Parliamentl.

I call Mr Broeksz.

44 minutes

J6 minutesl9 minutesl5 minutesl6 minutes

l4 minutes5 minutes

30 minutes(3 x l0)

l0 mintrtes40 minutes

120 minutes

34 minutes

28 minutesl5 minutesl -J minutesl3 minutes

l2 minutes5 minutes

Since a report and an oral question have been added, a

further l0 minutes for the raPPorteur and l0 minutes

for the author of the question will be added tospeaking time.

For all other reports and motions for resolutions on

the agenda, I propose, in keeping with our normal

practice, to limit speaking time as follows :

- 15 minutes for the rapporteur and I speaker on

behalf of each group;

- l0 minutes for other sPeakers.

As there are no objections, that is agreed.

As this is the last part-session before direct elections

the number of items on the agenda is considerable

and indeed greater than usual. I therefore earnestly

request all Members to keeP their speeches as short as

possible and I remind the House that after 7 p. m. the

President is empowered to reduce speaking time.

6. Procedurc tuitbout rePort

President. - Pursuant to Rule 27A of the Rules ofProcedure, the following Commission proposals have

been placed on the agenda for consideration withoutrePort :

- proposals from the Commission of the European

Communities to the Council for

L a regulation amending Regulation (EEC) Nol4l8l76 on the common organization of the

market in rice lSee Annex

l0 Debates of the European Parliament

Mr Broeksz. -

(NL) Mr President, I was pleased toread in 3 (a) and 3 (b) that Parliament will be norifiedof the Commission's decisions. But this is not true ofpoint 3 (c) ; 3 (c) does state that it is important, andthat a number of amendments have arisen which willbe approved in the next few weeks; but why does itnot state that Parliament will be kept informed ?

I consider it extremely important that that should beso and I would greatly appreciate it if the Commissionwould add that Parliament will be informed.

President. - I call Mr Burke.

Mr Burke, tVenbtr o.f the Connul..riol. -

Mr Presi-dent, the work has not yer been sufficiently completedto enable us to give the same information in thisregard as we have given in regard to the other twopoints mentioned by the honourable Member, bearingin mind particularly that we have had only fourworking days since the last session of Parliament.However,'having heard his request I shall get in touchwith him personally about the latest state of thematter.

President. -

I call Mr Broeksz.

Mr Broeksz. -

(NL) Mr President, I believe there isa slight misunderstanding here. I am quite satisfiedwith the promise that Parliament should be informedas soon as possible. If the Commission is prepared togive such a promise that is quite enough for me.

President. - The Commission's statements are in

line with your wishes.

8. ConPLtrt), tct:adt ion

President. - The next item is the interim report by

Mr Nyborg (Doc. 104/79), on behalf of the Committeeon Economic and Monetary Affairs, on the harmoniza-tion of systems of company taxation and of with-holding taxes on dividends.

I call Mr Nyborg.

Mr Nyborg, rLlpporteur. - (DK) Mr President, the

harmonization of company taxation has been debatedhere in Parliament on many occasions, and since 1970an established feature of the European Parliament'sposition has been its disagreement with the Commis-sion's view that the first step towards the harmoniza-tion of company taxation should be the harmoniza-tion of tax rates.

Ve believe that this is the wrong way of looking atthe problem. The aim of harmonization is to elimi-nate the distortions of competition caused by the exist-ence of different taxation systems in the MemberStates. That means, in the opinion of the EuropeanParliament, that we must first of all attach importanceto the creation of transparency in this field and setour sights on genuine fiscal neutrality. None of these

objectives can be attained, as long as widely differingrules continue to exist in respect of the calculation ola company's taxable profits. This' point of view wasexpressed by Parliament in the early 1970s. It wasmaintained in the Van Aerssen report at the end of1977 and it is the view which has predominated inmost of the numerous and lengthy discussions heldon this subject. \J7e are able to note today rhar ourviewpoint is now being adopted by the Commission.Both Commissioner Burke and senior Commissionofficials have said in discussions that there must beharmonization of the basis of calculation.

The only point on which we disagree is the mannerin which that harmonization should be carried out.There was literally unanimous agreement in thecommittee that we cannot today implement theharmonization of rates of taxation and tax rebates,unless we have a clear understanding of how weshould harmonize the basis of assessment.

As rapporteur, therefore, I drew up a series ofproposed amendments to the Commission's proposalfor a directive, the main objective of which alieadyfigured in the previous proposal for a directive, inother words, the fixing of a strategy for the overallharmonization of company taxation and the basis ofassessment. Part of my intention was to delete fromthe proposed directive those measures, such as thespecial rates, which we could begin to harmonize at alater stage. I would add that those Members of parlia-ment who might wish to examine the practical amend-ments which we feel must be contemplated, can findthem in the revised draft report (PE S4.929lrev.).

In the meantime, the Commission was unable to takethe question of rates out of the proposed directive.The explanation for this seeins to be that the Commis-sion is frightened of giving the impression that it ismoving towards a comprehensive rebate system ratherthan a partial rebate system as the basis for a commonsystem of company taxation. I fail to understand thispoint of view. If the Commission agrees with parlia-nlent that the basis of assessment must be harmonizedat the same time as rates, then the Commissionshould draw up the necessary proposals for directives,instead of adhering

- clearly, it would seem, forreasons of prestige

- to a proposal dating from 1975which, as the Commission knows full well, has nochance of getting through the Council.

It is therefore incorrect to claim -

as the Commis-sion does

- that Parliament's position is delayingharmonization in this field. On the contrary, the latestproposed directive will come to grief in the Council,and the harmonization of company taxation will bepostponed indefinitely. If the Commission were totake our advice on this matter, and let the harmoniza-tion of tax rates wait until we are also able toharmonize the basis of assessment (the real precondi-tion for fiscal neutrality), then we could get harmoniza-

Sitting of Monday, 7 May 1979 ll

Nyborg

tion under way relatively quickly. It would not take

long for the Commission to secure the adoption of a

directive laying down the principles of and guidelinesfor a common company taxation system. This wouldrapidly make it possible to abolish the provisions incertain Member States directly aimed at ensuring thatresident and non-resident shareholders are treated

differently.

The harmonization of the various tax systems is a

particularly sensitive field. Every harmonizationinvolves restrictions on the Member States freedom ofaction - that is indeed the aim of harmonization. IfMember States agree to yield this freedom of action inthe field of company taxation, we can only assume

that these States are convinced that this restriction ontheir freedom of action serves a useful purpose. TheCommission's latest proposal does not inspire any

such conviction. If we implement it, we will of course

be able to stand up and say that the EEC has nowtaken a considerable and important'step forward. Part

of the electorate and many small and medium-sizedcompanies will possibly believe this at first, but thenational authorities and the big internationalcompanies will cherish no such illusions and willcongratulate themselves on this result - the creationof a new set of rules with a mass of loopholes whichthey can play about with.

If we wish to ensure transparency and fiscal neutrality,we must first of all harmonize the basis of assessment

and not, as the Commission proposes, the rates. Ishould have liked today to have presented, on thecommittee's behalf, a final report stating exactly onwhich amendments in the proposed directive theCommission and ourselves could agree. However, ourcommittee decided to submit an interim report, and Iwould emphasize that this has been done to Preventthe Council from beginning work on the Commis-sion's proposal. I would warn the House against

believing that progress can be made in the present

situation.

In our committee, we are convinced that, if we are toget harmonization under way in this field - and the

urgency of the matter dictates that we must - theCommission should embark upon the course

proposed by the European Parliament. Our aim insubmitting this interim report is formally to demon-strate this view to the Commission, the Council and

the public, and for the Members of the future directlyelected European Parliament. W'e wanted to say thatthe Commission's arguments for carrying out, at the

present time, a harmonization of taxation and taxrebate rates are unconvincing, and we wanted the newParliament to benefit from our experiences in thisfield during the 1970s.

\Dfle do not consider this the best possible solution.\(e would have preferred to have seen Parliament and

the Commission reach agreement on action to be

taken in this field. The fact that this did not happenwas not due to any lack of flexibility or imaginationon the part of the committee as regards ensuring paral-

lelism between the harmonization of rates and thebasis of assessment. As I have already mentioned, we

have drawn up extremely detailed proposed amend-ments. The problems in the committee arose from thefact that the Commission would only agree to intro-duce a five-year transitional period for the formulationof provisions for the harmonization of rules governingthe calculation of companies' taxable profits.

!7e could not be satisfied with this, as we do notbelieve that this harmonization of the basis of assess-

ment can be achieved in the course of a five-yearperiod. The result of the Commission's proposal willtherefore be that the harmonization of rates will enterinto force irrespective of whether or not the basis ofassessment has also been harmonized.

The Commission's text opens up the possibility ofparallel progress without in any way guaranteeing it.\Ufe wish to ensure this parallelism. If we do not do so,

our credibility with the public will suffer. On thecommittee's behalf, therefore, I recommend the adop-tion of the motion for a resolution contained in theinterim report. Adoption of the resolution in this case

would not mean that we have completed our consider-ation of Commission's proposal, but would underlineour view that more must be done if we are to achieve

transparency and fiscal neutrality in the field ofcompany taxation. The closer the Commission comesto accepting that, the sooner we shall reach our objec-

tive.

President. - I call Mr Starke to speak on behalf ofthe Christian-Democratic Group (EPP).

Mr Starke. - (D) To be brief, Mr President, the

Christian-Democratic Group endorses the motion fora resolution in the interim report. We agree with therapporteur's comments, reservations and proposals.


Mr Burke, -fo{ember o.f the Conntission' - May I at

the outset thank the rapporteur and the Committeeon Economic and Monetary Affairs for their carefulexamination of this very complicated proposal oncompany taxation. I feel that by their detailed debates

they have given an acknowledged importance to thismatter. The proposal is designed to abolish existingfiscal distortions in the field of taxation of companiesand their shareholders' and as such it has importantimplications for economic, regional and social policiesin the Community.

May I say that the last time I had the honour ofspeaking at this topic during a part-session - in 1977

- I spoke on the basis of a positive report to the parli-amentary committee. At that time, the Committee onBudgets report was rejected, it seemed to me, for very

t2 Debates of the European Parliament

Burke

divergent, if not indeed, contradictory reasons. May Ijust make a few points on this very important matter.I feel that if this state of affairs continues, it may haveadverse effects on the essential elements of Commu-nity policy, on regional policy for example, and onthe transfer of resources. I would put it to the Housethat there is not much point in the Community deve-loping policies intended ro encourage invesrment inparticular areas, if the effects of the differing tax struc-tures in the Member States is to pull the availablefunds even more strongly in a different direction.

May I very briefly say that the distortions of capitalmovement stemming from the existence of differentcorporation tax systems in the Community will, in myjudgement, become increasingly strong in the future.In the present situation, we still find a considerableamount of exchange control restriction on cross-border transactions and securities. But there is now a

much better chance of swift progress towards liberali-zation, and I am here of course thinking of the benefi-cial consequences of our European Monetary System.I believe that the next few years will show a rapiddevelopment in this monetary field which will have a

direct bearing on the fiscal problem before us. It willbecome abundantly clear that we must move aheadand harmonize our corporation tax systems and theirrules on tax credits, in order to prevent progresstowards monetary integration in the Community fromleading to increased fiscal distortions. I would appealto Members of the House to give attention to thepoints I have made, not only in the Committee but inpublic speeches and indeed in the House inDecember 1977. I would conclude by thanking theMembers who have addressed themselves to thisproblem, and to hope, as Mr Nyborg says, that whenthe new parliament comes to discuss this matter, theremay be a basis of consent between us which willenable us to make better and more rapid progress inthe future.

President. - I note that there are no further requests

to speak. The motion for a resolution, as it stands, willbe put to the vote tomorrow during voting time.

The debate is closed.

9. Air traffic control

President. - The next item is the report by Mr Nod(Doc. 106/79), on behalf of the Committee onRegional Policy, Regional Planning and Transport, oneffective air traffic control.

I call Mr Nod.

Mr Noi, rapporteur. - (I) W President, Mr Burke,colleagues, even before 1970 this Parliament dealt ontwo occasions with the problems relating to the

conrrol and organization of air traffic. In I 970 theCommittee on Transport took the initiative of submirting a report on ways to improve the general organiza-tion of the sector and thus coordinate the activities ofthe various national airlines operating in Europe.Unfortunately, opposition from the airlines preventedits work from bearing much fruit. The report wasconcluded in January 1973 when our first Englishcolleagues came to Parliament ; I remember thisclearly because they tabled several amendments. Twomonths later the report, for which I was rapporteur,was adopted. Last year I was also rapporteur for anown-initiative report which the Committee on Trans-port decided to draw up after the Zagreb disaster inwhich two aircraft collided in mid-air killing 150people and which was shortly followed by anothercollision in Tenerife in which over .500 people werekilled.

That report was discussed in this House ; in paragrapl.r20 of the resolution the President of the EuropeanParliament was asked to organize a hearing at Euro-pean level with the participation of the Council ofEurope. Lord Bruce, chairman of our committee,subsequently made arrangements for the hearingwhich was held two months ago in Paris. Todaytreport, Mr President, is merely intended to add to andimprove on some of the conclusions of the 1978report. In view of the President's request to be brief, Ishall not go into great detail but shall confine myselfto the points which emerged at the very interestinghearing in Paris.

There are three main points which I wish to mention.The first is connected with the title of today's reportwhich refers to air traffic management and control.Although the last report dealt only with control, thehearing made it clear that satisfactory air trafficcontrol cannot be divorced from satisfactory manage-ment. However, it will be for the next Parliament toconsider this question in greater detail.

The second point is related to the first and it is anextremely important one from the operational pointof view and in the light of the objectives to bepursued : it clearly emerged from the hearing thatwhile control in general is fairly satisfacrory withinthe individual Member States there is no coordinationbetween them as regards the organization and manage-ment of this control. A remark made by one speakerwas particularly revealing : 'Vhen I need to speakwith someone in another country I take up the tele-phone and call him but there is no official link.'lVhen, for example, it happens

- and this is not by

any means an unusual occurrence - that an aircraft

has to circle an airport for half an hour beforelanding, this is because its departure from an airportin another country was not coordinated.

Sitting of Monday, 7 May 1979 l3

Nod

'\tr7e are therefore asking in the resolution - and prac-

tically speaking I think this is the most importantpoint

- for the immediate setting up of a centre

charged mainly with improving European air trafficflow so that the situation cannot arise where a 'plane

leaves one airport without knowing whether the

airport of destination is congested. I could expand onthis point but I wish to confine myself to the essen-

tials. Let me say straight away that I have already had

indications that certain Member States are Soing toraise objections on this point.

Thirdly, in the 1978 report we drew particular atten-

tion to meteorological phenomena which are not yet

completely under control since they can cause delays

or threaten flight safety. Of these phenomena - and

this is a cheering piece of news which I only learntmyself two months ago in Paris -

the most undesir-able is wind shear. This consists of a sudden variationin one of the components of the wind in clear,cloudless air, which ordinary radar is unable to detect,with the result that an aircraft may find itself caughtin wind shear shortly before landing and be unable toget out of it because of the short distance from theground.

'We were informed in Paris that at the end of Aprildifferential anemometers capable of detecting windshear would enter into use on an experimental basis at

twenty American airports.

I should like to mention an interesting point whichclearly illustrates the problem of circulating informa-tion on technological developments.

The pilots' representative, a captain whose name Icannot recall but who appeared to be extremelycompetent, was not aware of this development and

asked - and his request remains valid for the future

- that aircraft be equipped with devices to detect

these variations in the components of the wind whichare the cause of turbulence. This solution would obvi-ously be more satisfactory since it would permit the

detection of variations which at present can only be

detected from the ground by means of differentialanemometers. This solution has not yet been deve-loped but for the moment at least, the first one shouldallay our fears to some extent.

These are the three new points which we have incor-porated in the resolution. Mr President, although Ishall try to be brief, I must say a few words aboutEurocontrol. I must do so because in the past, theprospect of dismissals and similar trade unionproblems suddenly forced us

- and indeed it was our

dury - to consider the matter. I do not think it is

good policy to wait until a difficult situation has deve-loped before doing anything about it. Prevention is

always preferable, and this option is now open to us.

This Parliament has already drawn attention in the

past to the need for cooperation between the Member

States with a view to harmonizing their airport equip-ment on the basis of general regulations. Responsi-

bility for coordination of air traffic movements could

be given to Eurocontrol, not merely to create new iobsat all costs but because the situation offers the possi-

bility of combining real needs with work opportuni-ties for people of considerable professional abiliry.Since it *itt be for the future Parliament to deal withEurocontrol, I have simply considered it appropriateto refer to this possibiliry now.

The resolution is divided into several sections and

covers organization, control, technological develop-ments, social aspects and management. I have already

n.rentioned some of these ; as regards the others, Ishould like, Mr President, to make iust two points.

The first is that controllers are often reluctant toreport incidents which could lead to collisions in case

they might be blamed and have to face disciplinaryaction. Frank reporting is in everyone's interest and itshould not render controllers liable to criminal prose-

cution. There are also social aspects of which we are

all aware and which we discussed on the occasion ofthe controllers'strike in France. Provisions should be

drawn up as regards working hours and, in some cases,

early retirement, since a controller's work is extremelydifficult and should be compensated by adequate

conditions.

To conclude, Mr President, I would like to thank LordBruce not only for organizing the Paris hearing butalso another one on the Amoco Cadiz which was heldlast year. Both hearings were a success and provideduseful information, so I think that we can proPose

that the new Parliament should organize further hear-ings of this kind about once a year. This Parliament'swork on civil aviation is only a start and much moreremains to be done. I hope that, in the interests oftravellers throughout Europe, the new Parliament willbe able to carry through what we have begun.

IN THE CHAIR: MR MEINTZ

Vice'Pretiden t

President. - I call Lord Bruce.

Lord Bruce of Donington, Cbainnan of tbe

Conrmittee on Regional Poliry, Regional Planningand Transport - Mr President, I am greatly obligedto Mr Nod, as I am quite sure the whole House is, forthe report that he has given us this afternoon on airtraffic control, and I thank him for the kind remarkshe was good enough to make concerning'the functionthat I had the honour to perform on behalf of mycommittee in presiding over the conference that tookplace in Paris in March of this year.


Lord Bruce of Donington

It may be of interest to Parliament to know of thenature and extent of the representation that we thenheard. There were present not only the Commission,of course, on whose good offices we always rely, butthe Assembly of the \(estern European Union andEurocontrol, to which Mr Noi has referred ; we hadindustrial representatives of the makers of the equip-ment used by air traffic controllers ; we had the Inter-national Air Transport Association (IATA), the Inrerna-tional Civil Airports Association (ICAA), the Interna-tional Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), the Interna-tional Federation of Airline Pilots, the InternationalFederation of Air Traffic Controllers Associations, theItalian Military ATC Authoriry, the North AtlanticTreaty Organization (NATO), the ParliamentaryAssembly of the Council of Europe and last, but notleast, the trade union section of the Eurocontrol, partof the European Communities. It is perhaps a pitythat the verbatim report of the proceedings is not yetavailable. But as and when it becomes available I feelquite sure all Members of the House will agree thatthe efforts to bring these responsible bodies together,to put their points of view and indeed to argue withone another, is a development to which the futureParliament should give even more attention that hasbeen given in the past.

Mr President, on the question of air traffic controlitself: if there is one area of activity covering theCommunities, surely the achievement of someuniform and systematic air traffic control over Europeis of paramount importance. As Senator Nod says inhis report, quite clearly it cannot be confined to thenine nations of Europe ; it should extend to include,probably, altogether 21. Nevertheless, a beginningought to be made to endeavour to bring somestandard form of control over the air traffic of Europe.One is well aware that certain states are inconven-ienced perhaps more than others by air traffic acrosstheir territories which does not always benefit themeconomically. I speak specifically of France, whoseterritory is probably overflown more in the summerand the holiday months in transit from my owncountry, from Germany, from Denmark and from therest of the north-western side of the Community overto Spain. It is quite clear, of course, that this trafficdoes present ^n enormous problem for France.Indeed, one of the reasons that prompted the holdingof this enquiry at all was the fact that last year the holi-day-makers of Europe did have considerable diffi-culties, suffered very considerable delays and inconven-iences indeed, precisely because of the air trafficcontrollers' dispute in France.

No state can escape the political consequences of thisbecause, as we well know, the people that are held upin airports sleeping there overnight, and possibly for48 hours, tend not to blame the air traffic controllers,but their own governments. So all countries have got

an interest in this. It is a matter of some regret, MrPresident, that during the course of the hearing, theairline controllers' international association gave uswarning that unless some steps were taken, Europefaced this coming holiday season exactly the sametype of problem rhat it had last year, and this isindeed very ominous. One does therefore hope that atCouncil of Minister level in the Community someendeavour will be made to ensure that the appropriatenational and international action required to producesome state of harmony within the air traffic controlsystem in Europe, is in fact adopted in good time.

One of the points that emerged, Mr President, wasthis : the efficiency of the equipment used by airtraffic controllers in various parts of the Communityvaried considerably, and indeed in one or two stateswas at the root of the industrial trouble that has bede-villed certain parts of this particular public service. Airtraffic controllers have very grave responsibilities.There must always be the gnawing anxiety while theyare performing their responsible task of guidingaircraft over Europe that perhaps they might conceiv-ably make a mistake. It is all very well for politiciansand civil servants to shrug these responsibilities aside,but it was made quite clear to us in the evidence giventhat this is an ever present anxiety which dogB thewhole life of an air traffic controller from the momentthat he commences his duties, during his rime ofhand-over and re-takeover and during the time thathe departs at the end of his duties. They did ask, and,Mr President, thay are entitled to ask, that the publicof Europe pay some attention to this aspect of airlinetraffic control affairs. Industry itself, Mr President,when taxed with the question as to whether they canproduce the efficient equipment required, said that ofcourse they could, but that the take-up of this equip-ment in certain Member States was, to put it at itsmost complimentary, distinctly patchy.

Now, Mr President, it is of no comfort to thetravelling public of Europe, aside from the question ofinconvenience due to industrial troubles, to know thatcertain parts of Europe over which they travel andcertain airports at which they land are really not yetequipped to the correct and the acceptable standard.Members of the International Airline Pilots' Associa-tion were good enough to confirm this. \Ve as parlia-mentarians, have to remember that the safety of thetravelling public in Europe depends upon these twobodies. It depends on the individual pilots, who alsohave their continuing anxieties, as well as upon the airtraffic controllers themselves.

If ever there was an area which called for the standar-dization of equipment up to the proper standards,surely it is this. Parliament, in presenting this report,Mr President, may be baying at the moon, becauseone Member State and I'll name it - France - has

Sitting of Monday, 7 May 1979 t5

Lord Bruce of Donington

already said that its own air space is its own, and Ihave no doubt that this nationalistic attitude is

adopted not only by France, but also, I believe, by the

United Kingdom. I care not. If there is going to be a

satisfactory and safe air traffic control system over the

whole of Europe - one in which the travelling publiccan have complete confidence, one which will make

for complete harmony within the industry itself, one

which will remove the gnawing anxieties of those thatbear the heaviest responsibiliry -

surely it is for the

Community to begin to originate action. Because, MrPresident, if the Community cannot take the initiativein this field - surely one that stands out as being inthe common interests of the people of Europe -

one

wonders in what field they will ever take initiative.

President. - I call Mr Osborn to speak on behalf ofthe European Conservative Group.

Mr Osborn. - Mr President, I would like, not only

on behalf of the Conservative Group, but Personally,to give a warm welcome to this very excellent resolu-

tion and report presented by Mr Nod and commend itto this House. Issues such as air traffic control cannotbe dealt with by governments and national parlia-ments in isolation.

This present motion for a resolution arises, of course,

from Mr Nod's previous report on the Promotion ofefficient air traffic control and from the fact that Parli-

ament agreed that a public enquiry should be held inorder to follow up and develop the suggestions

contained in that report. This line of action was putforward in my opinion following the Zagreb disaster,

and I very much hope that the proceedings of theenquiry in Paris will soon be circulated, because the

two must be taken together.

You, Mr President, or the President acting on yourbehalf, entrusted this task to the Committee onRegional Policy, Regional Planning and Transport,

which set up a sub-committee consisting of its

chairman, Lord Bruce, Mr Nod and myself - I had

given, on behalf of the Committee on Energy and

Research, an opinion for incorporation in Mr Nod'soriginal report - with the task of making the detailedarrangements for this hearing in Paris on 19-20March.

'We were fortunate enough to assemble around the

same table for this hearing rePresentatives of all the

bodies and organizations most concerned with airtraffic control, both at international and at European

level. \7e had the very great advantage of the participa-tion of members of the Council of Europe and of'\)Testern European Union and also of a spokesman forNATO, Air Vice-Marshall Pedder, who is chairman of

CEAC.

I should say straight away that the hearing was a

success, not only for what we learnt as Parliamentar-

ians but also for the opportunity it afforded thevarious experts to come toSether in the same roomand to thrash out the various problems in the field ofair traffic management. To the best of my knowledge,this was the first time this had been achieved in the

European context.

I would stress the expression 'air traffic management'referred to this evening by Mr Nod, because hismotion for a resolution makes it quite clear that one

cannot regard air traffic control as such in isolationfrom the generality of considerations ranging from the

long- and medium-term planning of traffic manage-

ment to the procurement of air traffic control equip-ment.

In this connection, paragraphs 22 to 28 of the motionfor a resolution are of particular importance, because

it is there that Mr Nod deals with the need to set uP a

single traffic management agency with executive powers

in the freld of long- and medium-term planning and the

implementation of all air traffic services facilities.

This, of course, must rePresent the ideal : it is one

which we must strive for in Europe, and not, in myopinion, only within the Community of the Nine butwithin that larger Europe which consists of at least

some 2l Member States covered by the Council ofEurope. In fact, I have in mind the whole of European

air-space. By its very nature, air traffic management, ifit is to be efficient and cost-effective, cannot be tieddown to national European boundaries. \7hen we

look at the effectiveness of the Federal AviationAdministration of the United States, we can, I think,see a model which may serve us in developing some

pan-European agency. This agency will not be

concerned with the immediate and short-term ques.

tion of air-traffic control but with the medium- and,

longer-term problems concerning capacity, routingand so on.

'S(hen I was over in the United States and again at

their branch in Brussels, I was able to see somethingof the scope of the Federal Aviation Administration :

it is concerned with safety, with specifications and

standards ; it takes a responsibility for testing; it has

good contact with the manufacturers and the airlines.There is no equivalent body within Europe.

As paragraph 26 points out, we have to recognize thatlack of political good will has effectively destroyed

Eurocontrol's originally envisaged r6le of assuminginternational executive responsibilities not only forthe short term but also for the all-important questionof air traffic control itself. Even if we can understandsome of the reasons that have led to this failure by the

signatories of the Eurocontrol Convention in

achieving their originally avowed aim, we must urge

the desirability of Eurocontrol's being given its orig-inal executive functions after the Convention is

amended in 1983.


Osborn

But in saying this I would not wish to claim that Euro-control should necessarily provide the institutional ororganizational framework for the general European airtraffic management agency of the sort Mr Nod sugg-ests in paragraphs 23 and 24.

I fully agree, however, that if it proves impossible forthe present signatory states to agree on giving Euro-control executive functions, it is essential, as para-graph 28 srates, thar the expertise which Eurocontrolhas acquired should be incorporated into the Euro-pean traffic management a1ency and should not bewasted. And I would like to pay a warm tribute to theadmirable work which the staff of Eurocontrol havecarried out over the years

- and I have been to Karls-

ruhe and Maastricht -

and the extraordinarily hightechnical level of their skills.

One of the most interesting things which emergedfrom the hearing, at least when one is considering theproblem of air-traffic control as such, was the stronglyexpressed feeling that it is quite intolerable that airtraffic controllers should find themselves in the posi-tion of being criminally liable for human error, and Iam glad that this point is spelt out in paragraph 5 ofthe resolution. There was an ITV film in Britain called'Collision Course', where this point was brought outdramatically. And there are many other issues, such asrates of pay, social conditions and types of equipment,and effects on air traffic controllers, which must belooked at.

Finally, Mr President, I would say that, in my opinion,the European Parliament cannot regard this matter ashaving been struck off our agenda and permanentlyresolved when we agree, as I am sure we will, with thismotion for a resolution tomorrow. We are only on thethreshold of bringing about some concerted action atthe European level, and I do not think we should foolourselves that we are going to find solutions over-night. Nor do I think these solutions will be foundwithin the Community of the Nine or, it may be, ofthe Twelve ; we shall therefore, as I have already indi-cated, have to look to this larger, more completeEurope, and the Community will have to work inconiunction with international bodies. I do believethat the present fragmentation of air traffic manage-ment in Europe is of benefit neither to the consumer

- that is, the passenger, and I had an example of itwhen leaving London this morning

- nor to the avia-

tion, aircraft construction, electronic and avionic indus-tries, nor to those employed in air traffic control. Allthree sections can, in my opinion, only benefit froman attitude which is no longer based on purelynational considerations but which consideri theproblem of European airspace as a whole and endea-vours to find common solutions. The President-in-Of-fice

- and I regret he is not here at the moment -and the Council of Ministers have a responsibility, as

Lord Bruce has pointed out. National aviation minis-ters must be made to galvanize their own civilservants, their own national agencies, to work togetherand not in isolation. A European solution is the onlysolution capable of avoiding waste of scarce aviationfuel, reducing flying costs and, above all, reducing theinconvenience to holidaymakers and the travellingpublic. _Holidaymakers and the travelling publicexpect Europe as a whole to play its part. This is acentre of discussion for these issues in a Europeancontext, and I very much hope that we shall goforward and find a European solution, and notlanguish in our own national backward habits, whichin this field have gone on for too long.

President. - I call Mr Albers.

Mr Albers. - (NL) Mr President, I feel the need to

say that I am also very impressed by the way in whichthe Committee on Regional Policy, Regional planningand Transport has organized these hearings. I refer inparticular to the hearing on the Amoco Cadiz seadisaster and on the hearing concerning air trafficcontrol. I would like to pay a big compliment to thechairman of the committee, Lord Bruce, who himselfregretted that he had to leave the House to attend ameeting of the Committee on Budgets. I would like tomake use of the last opportunity in the non-directly-elected Parliament to say that the chairman personallydid a lot to make this hearing a great success; I wouldalso like to include in these words of appreciation thesecretariat of the committee. I believe that this will bean example to the new parliament of the way inwhich use can be made of the knowledge of manyexperts who are fully conversant with the matter inhand. It was also very gratifying that so many peopletook the opportunity ro express their opinion.

I would also like to compliment Mr Nod on hisreport. It is an excellent report, especially that partwhich deals with the great dangers which still exist foruncontrolled entries into controlled areas, the use ofdifferent kinds of apparatus, and difficulties inlanguage, etc. I would like to give strong support, onbehalf of my group, to the improvements which therapporteur would like to see. There must indeed beharmonization of the laws of the states concerned.

It is of course true that there is more air space thansimply that over the European Community but therewould be some considerable progress if the Councilconcerned with these matters were to attain unanimityand, on the basis of a common transport and trafficpolicy, put the case for more harmonization and coor-dination in the appropriate bodies.

Also concerning Eurocontrol I completely agree withthe rapporteur that if it should transpire that the agree-meflt cannot be renewed satisfactorily before 19g3,then there should be an investlgation into ways and

Sitting of Monday, 7 May 1979 t7

Albers

means of using the knowledge acquired in Eurocon-

trol elsewhere within the European Communiry.

Finally, one remark on the social conditions. Ourgroup fully recognizes the right of the employees

ioncerned to take action to draw attention to theirsituation. The European social charter Suaranteesemployees the right to act in suPport of their interests.

But that same European charter also contains the prov-

ision that the authorities should be able to intervene ifsituations become dangerous. I would like to make a

plea to the effect that affairs should not be allowed togo this far. If there is indeed a threat of difficulties inihe coming tourist season there should be a very great

effort to find out where the problems are. And we

should try to solve these problems in order to Preventlarge groups of people, who have nothing to do withthe situation but who are dependent on Sovernmentdecisions, being made the butt of new actions. I wouldtherefore like to appeal to the Council to look at this

problem and to find out what can be done by the

Community.

President. - I call Mrs DunwoodY.

Mrs Dunwoody. - Mr President, I always welcome

reports that have the signature Nod on them, because

they have a combination, which is extremely helpful,of both information and common sense, and I hopeyou will forgive my saying so, but that is not always a

combination readily found in European institutions. Ihope, therefore, that the rapporteur will not feel that Iam criticizing him in any way if I say that whilst I am

in general agreement with the content of the report,

there are nevertheless some things in it which I findmildly disquieting. Let me begin by saying that as a

very junior minister I learned to admire the control ofair traffic controllers over the day-to-day movement ofaircraft because, certainly in the British context, they

not only have an enormous responsibility, but inmany instances they are working at tremendous pres-

sure throughout the period of their shift. At one pointat Heathrow Airport, they were actually controllingthe movement of aircraft at a rute of one every three

seconds - coming into such a major airport as

London. That is a responsibility, which is likely to puttremendous stress on anyone no matter how good

their understanding or their training for the iob theyare performing.

Therefore I feel that there are several points that we

should consider as a Parliament. Firstly, I am not all

sure that I agree with the definition of Europe in this

particular report. It is quite clear from Mr Nod's own

iomments that he regards Europe as being a very wide

concept and certainly not one that can be retained as

being within the airspace of the Nine, and I thinkthat this is tremendously important. Airspace after allmust be internationally controlled and not nationallycontrolled, and Europe alone to me is Europe starting

in Ireland and going through to the Urals, and if thatis so, it is quite absurd for us to imagine that we can,

by organizing what is called a Eurocontrol, actuallybegin to deal with some of the fundamental problems.\We may think that we are making a move in the rightdirection, but we may in fact be doing the very oPPo-

site thing. Secondly, I think it is tremendously impor-tant when we are talking about safety measures tobegin with the conditions of work of the air trafficcontrollers themselves.

Now, if I may, I would like to raise the whole subject

- to me a very telling example of some of the

problems - that can arise of an air crash that

happened when air traffic controllers were on strike inFrance. Over five years ago -

I have been chasing

this subject in the European Parliament now foreighteen months -

there was a strike of air trafficcontrollers in France, and the Arm6e de l'Air took

over the responsibility for the administration of air

traffic control. Now, what I have to say shotrld in no

way be construed as a criticism of that service organi-zation, but it illustrates one of the problems that we

only briefly touch on in this report, namely the whole

question of language. There were two planes, both

carrying holiday makers travelling from Spain, overFrench airspace. The airtraffic controller from the

Armee de I'Air, neither bilingual nor experienced, incontrol of the movement of those aircraft. 'Whatever

the reasons, there was a fatal crash in which a number

of British citizens were killed. No compensationwhatever has ever been given for that Particular air

disaster. I have asked more than once, both French

Ministers and Presidents-in-Office of the Council ofother nationalities, how soon those British citizenswere to receive compensation. It is a classic demonstra-tion of the difficulty that arises when people define

their responsibilities simply in national terms. There-

fore I look for very rapid compensation of those

British families, some of whom are still living in

poverty because of the problems that arose over .5

years ago in an rir traffic control incident.

But I wish to go further and to talk about somethingwhich I regard as important. It is all very well to say

as we do in thc English version of paragraph .5 of theresolution, that in order to avoid fatal misunderstand-ings in the transmission of instructions and informa-tion between pilots and controllers, only the Englislr

language should be used and that controllers and

pilots should keep strictly to the specified RT phrase-

ology. In the incident of which I am speaking, the air

controller was using phrases that he manifestly didnot fully understand and the result was the loss of a

number of human lives. So it is really not enough tosay that we must have a common language, and that itmust be r-rsed by people in a very precise way. It is

important that the people using these languages under-

stand the phraseology and are fully in control of the

directions that they are giving.

l8 Debates of the European Parliament

Dunwoody

Further, it is important, if we are going to talk aboutinternational control of airspace, that we should under-stand that the difficulties connected with air trafficcontrollers almost inevitably result from badmachinery, bad conditions of work and poor pay. !7ecan procedure in this Parliament as many reports as

we like. But they will have astonishingly little effcctunless we are prepared to guarantee continuousemployment with the very best conditions possiblethe very highest pay commensurate with the responsi-bility, and a degree of investment in air traffic controlmachinery which will enable the air traffic controllersto carry out their jobs efficiently.

I am exceedingly sorry that the evidence that wastaken in Paris is not available so far, because I wouldhave liked to have seen the replies of some of the airtraffic controllers to the questions that were put tothem. But I would beg Parliament, if it is seriousabout this subject, not to imagine that it is somethingthat can be debated only when there is a smallamount of political pressure that arises out of holidaymakers being stuck in airports because their charterplanes are in difficulty. Speaking as someone who inthe past four years has flown many more miles than Ifind comfortable, I would say it is far preferable to sitin an airport waiting for proper air traffic clearancethan to take off in a plane when there is some dangerof either colision of a near miss.

I would say this : it is not enough to say that we lackpolitical good will and that that is why Eurocontrolhas not been able to get off the ground. The truth ofthe matter is that the whole of Europe, the Americasand the Far East must work together if any system ofcontrol is to be efficient. There will be from time totime problems that arise in the management ofairports. Those who insist on using only certainnational airports inevitably will put a greater strain onthe facilities available, and it will always be fornatronal governments to put sufficient amounts ofmoney into equipping those national airports to thevery highest standard. There are still far too manytravel agents sending charter planes

- and many of

them grossly overloaded because of the profit factor

- into airports that are not properly equipped and

where in fact the passengers are at some considerablerisk. There has been more than one incident over thepast five years where people have been killed orinjured because airports used during the summerseason are neither suitable nor in many instances safe.This Parliament must concern itself far more withdemanding proper standards in that regard thansimply saying that we must look to a European bodyto deal with certain problems of a political nature.

I therefore would say, Mr President, in conclusion,that I welcome this report, but I regard it as only a

statement of the obvious. I' regard it as setting out the

minimum conditions under which we can possiblyoperate. I believe that if we are serious we must askourselves whether we are prepared to commit themoney, the time and the political muscle intosupporting safety measures that will produce the rightresults for the majority of the citizens of Europe.Vhat I fear is that we are going to make the kind ofstatement that we have in this report and that we arethen going to wait until there is another serious acci-dent before we even discuss the matter again. There isno simple answer to the whole problem of the controlof airspace, but the basic requirements are money,investments and political support. Unless the Commis-sion can provide these things on a larger scale thanthey appear to be envisaging at the present time, thenfrankly, they are dabbling in a field where they haveneither standing nor the ability to act. I trust thatwhen the Commissioner replies, he will be able toreassure me that this is not a general expression ofgoodwill, but a simple statement of the beginning of a

plan of action coordinated with many nations outsidethe existing European Community.

President. - I call Mr Jung to speak an behalf ofthe Liberal and Democratic Group.

Mr Jung. - (D) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen,it has become a depressing tradition to begin anycontribution to a debate on the common transportpolicy with the words 'As we have repeatedly pointedout in this connection . . .' That alone shows just howmuch progress has been made in this field since thelast debate. To put it bluntly, there has been none atall ; which is extremely regrettable. Resolutions havebeen adopted, hearings arranged, and internationalcongresses attended; indeed, in the past year there haseven been an international conference on theproblems of flight safety ; yet we are no furtherforward after all this. Nevertheless, there is no doubtthat those responsible are fully aware of the presentand future problems in this area.

The fact is that that air traffic control in l7esternEurope is a long way behind the development of airtransport. Major initiatives to improve the systems inuse still tend to originate in the United Stares, whoseapproach is generally imitated to a greater or lesserextent in Europe. But what Western Europe needs is a

safe and economic system which will not only be envi-ronmentally safe and save energy, but more impor-tantly, will not be confined to national frontiers. Theexperts tell us that by the year 2000 commercial airtransport in lflestern Europe will have increased byll0 o/0. The air traffic control systems we have todaycannot possibly cope with this increase. Indeed, theywill only comply with safety requirements, in theopinion of experts, if we are prepared to acceptincreasingly frequent delay and inconvenience. Thepresent system, however, is not in a financial position

Sitting of Monday, 7 May 1979 19

Jung

to handle future developments. Delays and inconven-ience are caused not only by the widely differingsystems in the various national airspaces but also by a

large number of other factors. These include, aPart

from the continual increase in the volume of air trans-port, rapidly changing weather conditions on longflights, overcrowded airports, environmental measures

such as the observance of noise-reducing take-off andlanding procedures, and the decline in runwaycapacity caused by the introduction of wide-bodyaircraft.

All these negative factors prompt the demand forreplacing national ai traffic control systems by a

supranational one, which still needs to be developed

specifically for Europe. Efforts to plan for the futurehave in the past invariably failed for lack of coopera-

tion between States and between management and

technology. It is a fact that there is insufficient cooper-ation between aircraft manufacturers, airlines, airports,air traffic cgntrol and air transport ministries. Thedevelopment of a tailor-made system for VesternEurope has not been feasible so far because nocontracts have been issued to develop and throughlytest prototypes in the Member States of the EuropeanCommunity because of the rules governing financeand procurement in those countries. In the UnitedStates, on the other hand, this is usually done.

The experts tell us that the air traffic control systemof the nineties will probably incorporate the followingnew features. A satellite system will cover the wholegeographical area, and will be able to pinpoint theposition of an aircraft to within 8 to 10 metres. Exten-sive automation will reduce the strain on pilots. Airtraffic control will be centralized by data processingnetworks. The development of the tactical system intoa strategic one will ensure that the best posible flightpath is calculated for each aircraft. The planningneeded to achieve this is already so far advanced inthe United States that the new system will start to be

introduced from 1982 onwards. Even the satellitesystem could, say the experts, be operational bybetween 1985 and 1989.

So much, then, for a brief description of technicaldevelopments. If we compare this state of the art withthe situation in the \Testern European airspace, wecan only conclude that we have wasted far too muchtime and cannot afford to let still more time go by.For these reasons, the Liberal and Democratic Groupwelcomes and supports the motion for a resolution.My group calls on the Council to take the appropriatedecisions now, without further irresponsible delay, inorder to prevent !flestern European airspace frombecoming the most hazardous air transport sector inthe world.


Mr Burke, Nember of tbe Comnission. - Mr Presi-

dent, may I join with all those who have paid tribute

to Lord Bruce, to Mr Osborn, to Mr Nod and to theMembers of the Committee on Regional Policy,Regional Planning and Transport for the exceptionalwork that has been done in the area of safety in theair and operational control of air traffic !

I was particularly glad to have been invited to thehearing on 19 March in Paris, and to have seen someof the contributions given by people from variousorganizations. Safety must always be a primary consid-eration in the operation of air transport in theCommunity. Seeing that our airlines and aircraftoperate world-wide, our care for safety is rightlybound to be part of a world-wide concern. Theevidence submitted to the parliamentary hearingbrought out very clearly the complex and variedproblems of air traffic control, having, as it has, opera-tional, technical, navigational, meteorological a/d tele-communications aspects. The honourable Memberswill recall that in the discussions which we have hadin the House over the last couple of years, I have

spoken about the ability of the Community to involveitself in such operational aspects of air traffic control,and have indicated that that ability is very limited.This is so because of the nature, the spread and theramifications of the activity, the limitations in law, inarea, and in competence and, so far as the Commis-sion itself is concerned, the limitations in staffresources and technical expertise. Further, as the Parli-ament will no doubt recall, the Council of Ministershas not as yet included air traffic control among thepoints in its own stated programme on air transport.

Parliament has already adverted to the fact that Euro-control is quite independent of the institutional instru-ments of the Treaty, and does not cover an ateaco-extensive with the Community, nor indeedco-extensive with Europe generally or as an ICAOregion. I have mentioned Eurocontrol as an existingorganization for air traffic control purposes. The indi-vidual States have their direct responsibilies under theChicago convention, and they have considerable opera-tional and technical apparatus for fulfilling them. Inthis context I might mention that the EuropeanCommission is striving for closer relations betweenthe Community and the International Civil AviationOrganization, and especially the European Civil Avia-tion Conference.

I would iust like to mention briefly some of theCommission actions which are relevant to pointsmentioned in the draft resolution before Parliament.Firstly, as concerns air traffic control equipment, a

subject mentioned in Section B, the Commission,with expert advisers especially engaged for thepurpose, is seeking to identify whether, and if sowhere, common operational requirements exist in ourCommuniry or more widely in Europe. From such a

study of future demands for air traffic control equip-

20 Debates of the European Parliament

Burke

ment, it would be the purpose to see if there wascommon ground in the manufacturing industry forcoming together on projects needing to go through a

phase of research and development. $7e also propose,provided that the budgetary funds are available in1980, to have a study undertaken of the futurecapacity of the airways and controlled airspace systemsin the Community, as a parameter in the developmentof air transport services. This would be for its rele-vance to Community interest in the development ofair transport services, rather than an excursion intothe technical operational f.ield per se.

In regard to the point made in the debate, andreferred to in Section 5, i.e., accidents, and in parti-cular near-misses, I would indicate that it is includedamong the l0 priority points for a programme ofwork on air transport drawn up by our Council ofMinisters. The system in the United Kingdommentioned in the resolution, and also, one can expect,the system in the United States, would be likely to belooked at in that connection.

Section C of the resolution refers to working condi-tions. I will content myself by saying that, this is a

subject which is due to come up later this year at a

meeting of the International Labour Organization.Parliament will no doubt have in mind that improve-ments in conditions bring their attendant costs, whichit would be normal to expect would be borne by allusers of air transport.

Section D of the resolution looks the important ques-tion of international cooperation in this field of airtraffic control and its further strengthening. TheCommission would hope to watch developments inthis area as closely as its means will allow.

The resolution, if adopted, is as I see designed to beforwarded, to a full range of organizations concerned,in Europe and internationally. May I assure the Parlia-ment that, so far as the Commission is concerned, itwill not fail to study attentively the important materialwhich Parliament's initiatives have caused to beassembled, and the observations it offers, as bearingupon any activity in these fields in which the Commis-sion engages. I will conclude by repeating my tributeto the energy and pertinaciry of the honourableMembers active in this matter over the last number ofyears.

President. - I call Mr Osborn.

Mr Osborn. - Mr Presidenr, the relationship of theCommunity to Eurocontrol, as I see it, is very similarto its relationship to the European Space Agency. ButI welcome the fact that Commissioner Burke made acontribution to this hearing and the fact that amember of the Commission took part throughout thehearing in Paris. I have throughout accepted that the

Commission's powers are limited, but I congratulatehim in taking one step after anorher to find a way ofinvolving the Commission in this field, and I thankhim for his reply.

As I see it, Mr President, the challenge to the firstdirectly-elected Parliament will be to demand ofnational governments appropriate collective actionsypported by the Commission and enabling theCommission to have a role. I believe political willconcerns members of national parliaments as well asthe other institutions, as outlined in Resolution 30,and any follow-up by the directly-elected Parliamentcould with advanr,ge involve members of nationalparliaments. I still think national parliamens andnational governments are still too insular in dealingwith this particular matter. For that reason, I hope touse the work by Mr Nod and the Committee underLord Bruce - that is the Committee on RegionalPolicy, Regional Planning and Transport - as thebasis of a debate in one newly-elected parliament,namely the British Parliament, at the earliest opportu-nity.

President. - I call Mrs Dunwoody.

Mrs Dunwoody. - Mr President, I should like to

put one question to the Commissioner in view of thefact that, in the course of his reamrks he seemed to besuggesting that safety rules must be offset against thewhole question of the cost to air traffic. Now, Iwonder if he would iust make it clear that that is notthe equation that he was drawing and that in fact it istremendously important that someone should sayquite clearly, that is better to pay a proper price forour ticket and have proper safety precautions, not onlywhile you are in the airport but also while you are inthe aircraft and in the air, than to have a cheap, over-crowded holiday trip that ends with a percentage ofthe holidaymakers killed or injured. He did ratherappear to suggest that if we were to demand highoverall air safety standards, we would in fact beputting this cheap holiday traffic at risk. If I may justs_ay to him, that is not the attitude that I expect theCommission to take and I would be very grateiul if hewould make it clear that that was not his intention.


Mr Burke, A4cmber of thc Comntission. - I can givethe assurance that that was not my intention. Inmaking the remarks I did, I drew attention to some ofthe consequences which would arise but did notnecessarily pronounce on the value, or otherwise, ofthose consequences.

I can assure the honourable lady that there is no differ-ence of opinion between her and myself on thismatter.

Sitting of Monday, 7 May 1979 2t

President. - I note that there are no further requests

to speak. The morion for a resolution, as it stands, willbe put to the vote tomorrow during voting time.


10. Directit'e on misleading ddrcrtiring

President. - The next item is the report by LordKennet (Doc. 36179), on behalf of the Committee onthe Environmen! Public Health and Consumer Protec-tion on the proposal from the Commission to theCouncil for a directive relating to the approximationof the laws, regulations and administrative provisionsof Member States conerning misleading and unfairadvertising.

I call Lord Kennet.

Lord Kennet, rapPorteur. - Mr President, I shouldlike to inroduce this report on behalf of the

Committee on the Environment, Public Health and

Consumer Protection. I need not dwell on the impor-tance to the people of the Community of the

mammoth advertising industry nor yet on the way

that some people regard is as an indispensableproducer of wealth - not only a lubricant but an

indispensable generator of wealth - while othersabominate it as a wasteful intrusion into our Percep-tions. It is all around us, we all make our own iudg-ments on it and for a committee repPorteur to makehis judgment would be impolitic in the extreme. Ithink we all agree in this parliament, and certainly inthe committee, that it is very well worth doing whatwe can to reduce that element of advertising whichcan be properly defined as either misleading or unfair.

Let me pause for a moment on those two wordsbecause it is not always immediately understood whatthe distinction is ; they are quite distinct. In themeaning of this draft directive which is before theParliament, misleading advertising is advertising inwhich the advertiser misleads the potential consumerby telling him untrue things about the goods. Unfairadvertising is that in which he takes an improperadvantage of his competitor by saying untrue thingsor implying untrue things about competitive goods orservices in the same line of country.

All our countries regulate misleading and unfair adver-

tising, but they do so in slightly different ways. As

part of its consumer protection programme theCommission has very properly brought forward a draftharmonizing directive. It has done so before puttingforward, under the consumer protection programme,laws regulating the advertising of poisons like tobacco,

dangerous substances like alcohol and contentioussubstances like pharmaceutical products. They have

done so before putting forward draft directives onadvertising directed at vulnerable targets, particularly

children, and before putting forward a draft directiveon advertising using a contentious medium. I amthinking particularly of telephone advertising. Thelaws on television and radio advertising in ourdifferent countries differ sharply and there is surely a

case for harmonizing them as soon as possible.However, we musn't complain about that, we mtlsttake the proposal which is before us and examine iton its merits.

The Commission proposals defines misleading and

unfair in the way I have just, and it says two very

important things. It says that the Member States mustpass standard laws and must allow recourse to the

courts by consumers, consumer organizations andcompeting advertisers who claim that advertising is

misleading or unfair. That is the first thing. Thesecond thing they propose is that the burden of proofin substantiating and advertising claim should be

reversed and should fall from henceforth trpon theadvertiser and not upon the person complaining abotrtthe advertisement.

This draft directive has been a year in your commit-tees, it has been before the Committee on the Environ-ment, Public Health and Consumer Protection for thesame period. The Consumer Frotection Committeehas had the benefit of nwo opinions from othercommittees, the Legal Affairs Committee and theCommittee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. It has

paid, naturall), particular attention to the opinion ofthe Legal Affairs Committee which rightly declared

that the proposal to harmonize,under Article 100 was

acceptable - a point on which my committee was

initially in some doubt - and it also endorsedregarding reversal of the burden of proof, a pointabout which we were also in doubt. !7ith that autho-ritative opinion in hand we then proceeded toproduce the report now before you. The report fromthe committee asks for two maior changes in the draftdirective.

It asks that the directive should admit recourse notonly to duly constituted courts of law but also to admi-nistrative organs and self-disciplinary organs so longas the latter are kept under review by the courts, inother words, as long as these administrative or self-dis-ciplinary organs themselves come under the iurisdic-tion of the courts. \7e also ask in our report that the

reversal of the burden of proof should be limited tocivil and administrative proceedings before the courtsand should not apply to any criminal proceedingswhich might arise as a result of this directive. In otherwords the advertiser has got to prove from the startthat his advertisement is true if it is an administrativeor civil proceeding, but if it is a criminal proceeding itis the plaintiff who has to start from scratch to Provehis case.


Lord Kennet

A few more details : the Commission's proposals expli-citly endorse comparative advertising, that is,comparing competitative products, which is not nowallowed in all Member States, and ought to be. It alsointroduces the idea of a cessation order whichempowers the court or tribunal or the authority orwhat ever to say not only have you done wrong inputting toward this advertisement but you must neverdo so again. And it introduces for the first time theidea of the corrective statement into Communiry lawwhich empowers the court or the tribunal to order theadvertiser to publish with equal prominence a state-ment correcting the falsehood or partial falsehoodwhich he had earlier published.

The draft directive sanctions class actions, that is, oneperson going to court on behalf of a group of people,as opposed to solely on his own behalf, which is notthe rule in all countries at the moment. It regardspreying on fear and discrimination on grounds of sex,religion, race, colour and so on as unfair, and outlawsthem in the same breath.

A couple of words about what it does not cover. Thereis I feel confusion here. The draft directive does notcover anything but promotion of the sale of goods andservices. Consequently, it does not cover governmentadvertising urging people to be careful about this orthat and it does not cover religious or political adver-tising. Only commercial advertising. It does not coverstatements which are not addressed to the public, andit does not threaten the established systems of self-dis-cipline or administrative courts in any country.'Whatever system is currently in operation in anycountry can and should continue under the directive,provided it is brought under the law in the last resort.The draft directive is deficient on that point. TheCommission agrees with everything I have beenlisting so far.

I come now to the major difference between theCommission and the committee of the Parliament. Iwould say at this point that the committee has metfour or five times. The Commission was present everytime and took a most helpful part in our discussions. Ihave reason to hope that the amendments proposedby the committee to the full House have the supportof the Commission and are as acceptable to it as theyare to your committee.

Now the principal amendment is that my reportprovides a means of relating the self-disciplineapproach which exists at present in Britain to the'courts only' approach which exists principally inGermany at the moment. It allows both to continue, itthreatens the efficacity of neither, and I think inuniversal understanding will probably add to the effec-tiveness of the British self-discipline system.

I look forward with interest to hearing CommissionerBurke explain the Commission's intentions. I hope Ihave got them right. I hope I have made clear that the

amendments which we propose are quite important.They do not go against the spirit of the draft in anyway. I hope Commisioner Burke will be able toconfirm that they are acceptable to the Commissionand, if I may, Mr President, I would like to know thatI have the possibility of speaking again at the end ofthis discussion if any further points come up. \7iththat I will conclude, and commend this committeereport to the approval of the House.

President. - I call Mr Schworer to speak on behalfof the Christian-Democratic Group (EPP).

Mr Schwdrei - (D) On behalf of the Christian-Democratic Group, I wish to thank the Commissionfor this proposal and Lord Kennet for his interestingreport. lfe agree with the report, for the followingreasons. First, uniform regulation is needed in thisarea, because the effects of advertising go beyond thefrontiers of the Member States. The aim is not only toprevent distortion of competition between thoseselling the goods, but also to regulate protection of theconsumer, to ensure that he is not deceived bymisleading advertising.

Article 100 is, in our view, a valid basis for the desireddirective.

Second, we regret that important areas are not coveredby this directive. They include pharmaceuticals,tobacco, alcohol, and advertising directed at children,and I agree with the rapporteur when he writes in hisexplanatory statement that the advertising of tobacco,or anti-smoking publiciry, is really almost more impor-tant than those matters that will be covered by thepresent directive, for serious health problems areinvolved.

Third, we welcome the fact that the burden of proof isto be reversed. The manufacturer must now prove thathis advertising claims are true, which is something heis better able to do than the consumer or his competi-tors, for he is more likely to have the technical detailsat his disposal.

Fourth, we also welcome the endorsement of compara-tive advertising, since this too stimulates competition,and competition is a good thing; indeed, it is one ofthe most vital sectors in our economic system.

Fifth, we support amendment of the directive on thelines which Lord Kennet has just described, wherebynot only the courts, as the Commission originallyintended, but also administrative authorities and theself discipline approach of indusrry, are to be respon-sible for identifying and correcring inadmissible adver-tising. Ve do not, however, want this to lead to thecreation of new bureaucracies and hence extra costwhich will once again fall on the consumer. !7'e wantthe decisions taken under the self-help approach orby administrative authorities to be verifiable. Anyonewho is not satisfied with a ruling produced under this


Schwiirer

system must be able to take the matter to court andobtain a decision there. Br.lt I would again emphasizethat the aim of avoiding a further increase in thenumber of administrators is one on which our groupis particularly keen.

Sixth, we have some reservations about paragraph 8 ofthe motion for a resolution, as this leaves detailed regu-lation of the procedure to the individual MemberStates. I take the view thaL to ensure that the systemapplied is as uniform and fair as possible, the Commis-sion itself should be mainly responsible for layingdown the principles for monitoring advertising in thisway and that only its direct application should be leftto the Member States.

Seventh, we agree with paragraph 9 of the resolution.Ve should welcome more budgetary resources beingmade available by th'e Member States to guideconsumers in their choice from the very wide range ofgoods available, especially the goods that are useddaily. We therefore support the directive, becauseeffective competition is one of the bases of the socialmarket economy, which in our view does most toprovide aitractive prices for the consumer, thushelping to raise the standard of living in the Commu-nity.

President. - I call Mr Sieglerschmidt to speak onbehalf of the Socialist Group.

Mr Sieglerschmidt. - (D) Most of us, Mr President,will realize again and again during the presentcampaign for the next European Parliament iust howdifficult it is to explain our work to the Communitycitizens ; for many of the directives and regulationswhich we discuss in this House can only be broughthome to the man in the street with great difficulty, byshowing that, at the end of the day, they will directlyaffect him. lUhen the subiects at issue include suchwonderful things as combating swine fever, a matterwe have aired in this House, the task becomes harderstill. That is why I believe it particularly irnportantthat we should now be debating a second major direc-tive in the field of consumer protection which willthen, in so far as Parliament is concerned, be adopted.For consumer protection is, as the rapporteur haspointed out, an important aim of Communiry policyand one that does involve every member of the public

- for. every citizen of the Community is also a

consumer.

This aim of Community policy has always steadfastlybeen supported by my group, the Socialist Group. lWe

have never hesitated oi vacillated when the streng-thening of the rights of consumers in the Communityhas been at stake.

!fle therefore welcome this directive ; the Commissionproposal is largely in line with our ideas on a consu-mer-oriented approach to this subject. One or twodetails have - notably on the initiative of representa-

tives of my group -

been clarified and improvedfurther. That needs to be said, as does the fact thatduring discussions in committee, some attempts toadd vague and disputable passages to this directivewere successfully rejected.

I entirely agree with the comments made by the prev-ious speaker, particularly with regard ,to the questionof Article 100. !7e take the view that a directiveconcerned with advertising is closely bound up withthe question of competition and that differing rules inthe various Member States on unfair and misleadingadvertising will inevitably cause distortion of compe-tition or at least are very likely to do so. Hence it isentirely appropriate to base a directive of this kind onArticle 100.

Now the committee is proposing to amend Article -5

so as to add an administrative procedure -

as I willcall it

- before the judicial one. I should like

expressly to point out that the text proposed by thecommittee makes it possible, but not obligatory, forthere to be ultimate recourse to the courts. \7e in theSocialist Group considered whether there was anypoint in incorporating in the directive a procedurewhich is not used in all the Member States, but onlyin a minority of them - if I may put it thus.

But we then took the view that if the purpose of thedirective is not obstructed by the inclusion of such a

tried and tested procedure in those Member Statesthat use it, the urge to equalize should not be carriedtoo far ; there should not be harmonization for its ownsake.

So a sound compromise - and I agree with the

comments made by the rapporteur -.

seems to havebeen found. However, we take the view

- and this iswhy amendments have been tabled by the SocialistGroup

- that one thing must be made clear. Thisdoes not mean that other Member States that do nothave experience of these administrative proceduresshould see this as an opportunity to introduce suchprocedure for the first time. That is why these amend-ments, three of which are confined to this point alone,aim to make it clear that the rnatter is to be broughtbefore an administrative authority,- to quote theamendment

- 'in those countries where such an

authority already exists'.

There was one other point which we wanted to clarifyin the text recommended by the committee, relatingto the last passage of Article 5, which reads :

... and procedures shall exist whereby in.rporper exerciscby the authority of its powcri or improper failure by theauthority to exercrse its poweri can be reviewed by thecourts.'

As I said before, this ensures that there is ultimatelyprovision for judicial scrutiny in all the MemberStates. But what is not clear is who exactly is entitledto claim such scrutiny. It woilld be possible toconceive of a procedure of an institutional nature in


Sieglerschmidt

which the administrative authority had the opportu-niry to present such a case to the court on its owninitiative, for instance. I0fle feel that the fact that those

involved in the procedure have the opportunity torequest and initiative such scrutiny needs to be speltout. This is, in my view, a highly important amend-ment, and one that will promote uniformity of proce-

dure throughout the Community.

This directive, Mr President, looks like being the laston consumer protection for this Parliament, whichwill cease work when the direct elections take place. Ihope it will not be the last directive ever on thesubject. I urge the Commission to continue its

consumer policy in the manner in which it has

begun, for I think we all agree that strengthening ofthe consumer's rights is one of the most importanttasks of European politics.

President. -

I call Mr Nod.

Mr Nod. - (I) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies

and gentlemen, I have very little to add to what MrSchworer, who expressed the group's support for LordKennet's report, has said. I simply wish to state that Iam particularly in favour of the proposal in LordKennet's report calling on the Member States toentrust control of unfair competition to administrativerather than fudicial bodies. My views, therefore, differfrom those of the speaker who preceded me. IUTe

should be consistent. I would remind you that Parlia-ment has already approved the first programme on

consumer information policy in which we stated thatthe interested parties should have access to swift, effec-tive and inexpensive legal recourse. This would be

difficult in the case of recourse to the courts. I supportLord Kennet's proposal and ask my socialistcolleagues not to insist on their amendment. Incertain countries it is usual to refer such matters toself-disciplinary tribunals -

which are basically whatare being referred to -

without the need to have

recourse to the courts on every occasion, so I feel thatit would be advisable to let these matters be dealt within the way which offers the best chance of success. Itherefore ask the Socialist Members to leave this possi-bility open and to avoid laying down strict require-ments which could prove counterproductive.


Mr Burke, A[entber oJ. tbe Conrnission. - Mr Presi-dent, as Commissioner with responsibility forconsumer protection, I especially welcome the reportprepared by Lord Kennet and adopted by theCommittee on the Environment, Public Health andConsumer Protection. I welcome it as a positive contri-bution to the progress of the proposed directive onmisleading and unfair advertising. This directive is an

important measure for consumers throughout theCommunity. I note that the report said that the

Commission's explanation of the directive did notprovide facts to show that advertising increasinglyreaches beyond the frontiers of individual MemberStates, but I am not sure that the Commission can be

expected to prove the facts of life, and the interna-tional dimension of advertising is a fact of life. A greatmany advertisements cross EEC frontiers in news-papers and magazines. W'e have the example ofBelgium, a country with no indigenous commercialtelevision, whose population is exposed to advertise-ments on television transmission emmanating fromneighbouring countries. Every day, the the English-language advertisements from Radio Luxembourg are

transmitted to the United Kingdom, beyond thecontrol of the broadcasting authority which is theresponsible body for controlling radio advertising inthe United Kingdom. In the not too distant future weshall have television advertising via satellite. Theseadvertisements will certainly cross frontiers. Adver-tising strategies may indeed be international. Lookingvery carefully, as I did, at the British parliamentarydebatc on this directive, one speaker who himself is a

director of advertising companies, spoke thus, and Iquote :

Several Honourable Members made the point that interna-tional advertising is not a feature of today's world Wrthrespect, that is not entirely true. There is an increasrngincidence of campargns being created in one country.Admittedly, they are put rnto another language, but thcbasic copy point is kept common, and the basic n.ressage

is quite often kept common. I think that we shall sce thrsdeveloping over the next few years. It is not somethrngthat is declining. We should not deluclc ouselves thatthere are not pan-European campaigns, because there arc.

Perhaps the most significant aspects of our proposeddirective are the remedies proposed to combatmisleading and unfair advertising. Critics of the direc-tive have regarded the approach which it embodies as

a direct attack upon self-regulatory control of adver-tising

- that is to say, control of misleading and

unfair advertising by the advertising industry itself.

Nothing could have been further from the intentionof the Commission. Indeed, if you look at Article 7 ofthe proposed directive, it clearly envisages the conti-nued existence of self-regulation. The effort made bythe advertising industry to control the less satisfactoryaspects of its activities is wholly praiseworthy. It notonly involves considerable effort and devotion of timeon the part of advertising executives, but also theemployment of the industry's own financial resources.

Self-regulation can work well. It can be an effectiveforce for restraining misleading advertisements. Thetruly important contribution of Parliament's consumerprotection committee is to indicate the conditions inwhich self-regulation is acceptable as a means ofcontrolling misleading and unfair advertising. Ineffect, these are contained in the amendmentsproposed to Article 5 of the Commission's text. First


Burke

the advertising industry is not be judge in irs owncause. Secondly, the self-regulatory authority shouldbe obliged to give reasons for its decisions. It shouldnot exercise its functions in a purely arbitrary manner.Thirdly, it should be under an obligation to exerciseits function. It would be most unsatisfactory if a self-re-gulatory body, having taken on the task of controllingmisleading and unfair advertising, were to shrug itsshoulders and decrde not to bother with suchcomplaints. Fourthly, it is important that such bodiesshould not abuse their function, for example byfailing to apply reasonable standards. Finally, theamendment proposes that judicial review of the self-re-gulatory process must be possible. This is most impor-tant. Ultimately, where disputes cannot be resolved byother methods, recourse should be available to thecourts.

By all means let the advertising industry operate a self-regulatory system. If successful, it will weed our mostinfringing advertisements. However, there will alwaysbe a few which will slip through the net. Should theybe permitted to continue in circulation is a questionwhich might be posed. My answer is that I think not.The fact that the advertising industry had done itsbest to ensure that they are not published, or are with-drawn from circulation, is no reason for failing to takeaction to protect consumers against misleading ofunfair advertisements which do slip through the indus-try's net.

Mr President, I have concentrated on these aspects ofthe report because, as I mentioned, it is an importantcontribution and one which I trust will go a long waytowards making the directive acceptable to thoseMember States which have expressed reservations. Ishould like to make one further point because itconcerns an aspect of the directive which has causedsome concern. This is the provision which relates tothe reversal of the burden of proof where an advertisermakes a factual claim. Here I should explain that theCommission did not envisage a change in the proce-dural burden of proof. IJflhen a case is brought beforea court, one of the parties has to open and present it.That party calls whatever evidence he needs tosupport the case. From time to time, during thecourse of a case, the burden of producing evidencemay shift from one party to another. It is only to thisevidentiary burden of proof that the provision ofArticle 5 relates in proposing the rule, generallyaccepted in advertising, that an advertiser who makesa factual claim must be able to support it. Of course,what I have said generally does not apply in criminalproceedings, where it is for the prosecution to provetheir case and not for the defendant to prove his inno-cence. The Commission's proposal leaves it open toMember States as to whether they adopt the directiveinto their criminal, civil or administrative systems. Sothere is no compulsion for the rule to be adopted incriminal law. Nevertheless, I note the amendment

proposed by the committee, and undertake that thiswill be given due consideration in formulating amend-ments to the proposed directive.

Coming now to some of the points made more parti-cularly in this debate, I noted especially the desire of a

number of Members to have a widening of the scopcof the directive in that I was asked about problemssuch as the abuse of tobacco and alcohol, and theproblems associated with advertising and children. Imight tell the House that we in the Commission arenot unmindful of these wider problems, and have infact launched a study on advertising and children. Butas I did in the previous debate in regard to our trans-port services, I would like to point out to the Housethat in the area of consumer protection the Commis-sion's resources are limited.

I am very much aware that there are vulnerablesections in our society, and indeed can undertake thatwe will, as resources allow us, make special studies ofthese and, as time permits and as resources allow,produce further proposals as time passes by.

May I come now to the point made by Mr Schworer,who expressed concern that Article 8 could lead todisparities between Member States because it enablesthem to take additional measures about the protectionof consumers. But I would ask the House to note thatthey can do so only consistent with their Treaty obliga-tion, i. e. not in order to create obstructions to trade inthe European Economic Community. The point ofthe Commission's proposal is that we felt it unaccep-table to ask Member States to harmonize down to a

Community standard if they have, or want to have,higher standards of consumer protection in a genuinedesire to support the consumer.

Turning finally to the amendments before the House,I would draw attention to the fact that there are foursuch amendments, and that l, 2 and 3 are in effectone amendment. In addition, in Article 5, the threereferences to administrative authority would be quali-fied by the addition of the words 'wherever it exists'.This seems perhaps discriminatory and inappropriatein a harmonization directive. The greater prominencegiven to self-regulation in the amendment makes thisform of control a necessary first step in the control ofmisleading and unfair advertising if Member Stateschoose it, but it does not rule out the possibiliry ofjudicial review. I therefore do not see the value of theamendments. Member States can choose whethercontrol should be exercised by an administrativeauthority. Even if they do, the proposed wording inthe report does not rule out judicial review. Turningto amendment No 4, which seeks a judicial review ofself-regulatory bodies to be available at the instance ofconsumers and consumer associations

- I paraphrase

here -

the Commission agrees that this is a usefulclarification and can be accepted.

President. -

I call Mr Jung to speak on behalf ofthe Liberal and Democratic Group.


Mr Jung. - (D) I beg your indulgence, Mr President,for speaking a seqond time at this late hour. I want todo so because. in at least one respect we take a

different view with regard to the report by LordKennet, on which incidentally we congratulate him

- and I should like to thank him, on behalf of the

Liberal and Democratic Group, and to stress that thedual aim of the Commission's proposed directive has

our unreserved approval; that is, we approve, on theone hand, the harmonization of national legal provi-sions on misleading and unclear advertising, so as toprevent distortion of competition in the CommonMarket; and on the other, the achievement of some

measure of consumer protection at European level.

As to the amplification by the rapporteur, LordKennet, of the Commission proposal, to allow notonly judicial procedings but also appeals to administra-tive authorities, this seems to us - as was clear in thecomments made by the previous speaker - ratherless successful. I ask your indulgence, Lord Kennet,since I am unfamiliar with the British system and

may therefore be doing it less than iustice. But if we

are going to hgv.-e. harmonization, it should apply to allthe Member States concerned, without laying downspecial measures such as, in this case, those in favourof the British system of self-regulation. But I maypossibly take a kinder view of the amendments whichhave already been tabled, if I can obtain rather moredetails of the efficiency of that system.

Article 2 of the Commission proposal summarizeswhat is meant by unfair and misleading advertising.The Liberals reject the rapporteur's proposal to deletethe only escape clause contained in Article 2, sinceconsumer protection would be gravely impaired if theright of appeal related only to a restricted list of a

series of cases. But like the rapporteur, we too take theopinion that while the proposed directive is controver-sial and far-reaching in some respects, it is none theless well founded and should therefore be adopted;we shall accordingly be voting in favour.


Mr Sieglerschmidt. - (D) Mr President, Mr Burke,naturally I realize that you are particularly familiarwith the procedure in, say, Great Britain and thereforeconsider it to be effective ; but would you not agree

with me - and I should just like to ask you this onequestion - that while it is quite possible to permittried and trusted procedures in one or anotherMember State, in connection with a directive of thiskind, if they do not actually contradict the aims of thedirective, in some circumstances it may be veryhelpful to use the directive expressly to prevent theintroduction of such procedures in other MemberStates ?

Do you not agree, Mr Burke, that in places where thisprocedure would first have to be tried out, it could in

some circumstances just result in lengthening theconsumer's path to the courts,and,may consequently

- as I say, apart from cases in which it is already esta-

blished - not be regarded as useful for the Commu-

nity as a whole ?

President. -

I call Lord Kennet.

Lord Kennet, rapporteilr. -

Mr President, I shouldlike first of all to thank Commissioner Burke for thewelcome he has given to our proposed amendmentsand I agree with all speakers that ,this ought to be a

very useful measure when it is introduced. I think weare in some danger of prolonging .and complicatingthings, and my prime concern now is to get thisreport voted without objections or difficulties of anymajor kind.

\U7hen Commissioner Burke said that he foundAmendments I to 3 unnecessary, I hope I am right ininterpreting that as not being an objection to theamendments. Of course I cannot speak ,for mycommittee because, although this matter has beendebated at enormous lengths in it and a very detailedand sensitive compromise has been reached, yet wedid not discuss the actual possibility contained inAmendments I to 3. However, I will say this to theHouse, when it comes to the vote I am prepared torecommend the House to accept the amendmentsbecause I do not see anything wrong in them myself.If the Commission does find on further examinationthat they really are discriminatory then after all, all ithas to do is not to pay attention to the advice of Parlia-ment. But perhaps I should say when it comes to thevote : I am neutral, as rapporteur I must be neutral onthis point.

... uIUflith regard to Amendment No 4, on the other hand,I propose to against my own rule and to introduce a

difficulry. Commissioner Burke said that he found ituseful. Now, in my heart I entirely agree with him. Ithink it is splendid to specify that the people whohave recourse from the self-regulatory authoriry to thecourts of justice of the country are precisely theconsumers and consumer associations which we seek

to protect. But I still have another voice of ordinaryjustice, and I am afraid it is not always only theconsumers who may be offended by a judgement of a

self-regulatory authority. I fear that sometimes adver-tisers may be offended by a judgement of a self-regula-tory authority. The authoriry might say, yes, that was

an unfair or misleading advertisement and the adver-tiser might be left with a burning sense of iniustice. Icannot really see why he should not have the same

recourse -

to the higher court, as it were, -

as theconsumer.

Now, I wonder if my friend and colleague Siegler-schmidt does not really agree with me. It cannot behis purpose to limit appeal to a higher court to onlyone side of the case.

- I see he agrees

-. Now,

Siaing of Monday, 7 May 1979 27

Lord Kennet

perhaps I could ask him, Mr President, if he couldmake a procedural proposal at this point because

there is before the House Amendment No 4 whichdoes do precisely that, and I do not think that is hisreal intention.


Mr Sieglerschmidt. - (D) Mr President, therealready is another amendment which exactly reflectsthe points Lord Kennet has just raised. Unfortunately,it has not yet been distributed. Perhaps it would be

possible for you, or the acting President, to solve thisslight procedural difficulry tomorrow during the voteon the amendments - when it will certainly be avail-able - in such a way that we have a sensible result,for the Commission itself has stated that it regardsthis as a useful clarification.

President. - I call Mr Nod.

Mr Nod. - (I) l am in possession of only threeamendments - not four. I am, therefore, not in a

position to express a valid opinion on the proposal.

President. - Mr Noi, I share your predicament.However, as Mr Sieglerschmidt has spoken in favourof his amendment I consult Parliament as to whetherAmendment No 4 should be put to the votetomorrow.

Are there any obiections ?

That is agreed.

I call Lord Kennet.

Lord Kennet, rd.Pporteur. - On a point of clarifica-tion, Mr President, the House has decided that it willvote on four amendments tomorrow afternoon at 3.45p.m., although there are some Members who have notseen any of them, and others who have not seen one.I just want to be perfectly clear that I have understoodit correctly, because it is a slightly vulnerable positionfor the rapporteur when the moment comes. That iscorrect, is it ?

President. - Four amendments will be put to thevote. I note that there are no further requests to speak.The motion for a resolution, together with the amend-ments which have been tabled so far will be put to thevote tomorrow during voting time.


ll. Agenda for next sitting

President. - The next sitting will take placetomorrow, Tuesday 8 May 1979 at 10 a.m. and 3 p.m.with the following agenda:

- Decision on urgency of an oral question, a motion fora resolution and a proposal for a directive

- Nyborg report on construction products

- Nyborg report on Communiry transit

- Bayerl report on rights of the individual in the face ofdata processing

- Oral question with debate to the Commission onCommunity supplies of raw materials

- Dunwoody report on equal pay for men and women

- Joint debate on the Albers reports on the TripartiteConference and an oral question to the Commissionon the meeting of the Council of Ministers of SocialAffairs of 15 May 1979 (this question will be taken ifParliament votes in favour of urgency)

- Bertrand report on the European Centre in Berlin

- Oral question without debate to the Commission onmigrant women in France

- Possibly, Ripamonti report on the draft supplemen-tary budget No 2 for 1979

- Ripamonti report on the draft estimates of Parliamentfor 1980

- Shaw report on the Financial Regulation

3.00 p.m.:

- Question Time (questions to the Commission)

3.45 p.n.:

- Voting time

The sitting is closed.

(Tbe sitting was closed at I p.m.)


2.

ANNEX

Action b1' Comnission on European Parliantent opinions dt April pd,.t-.r(rrio,t

l. The European Parliament at its part-Sessron in April 1979 in rcsponse to requcsts by thc Councilfor consultation adopted 20 oprnrons on Commrssion proposals ro the Councrl.

In the following 1.5 cases its opinion was rn favour:

Report by Mrs Cassanmagnago-Ceretti on a decision settlng up a jornt programme to promoteexchanges of young workers (Doc.9ll79).

Report by Mr Sprnelli on a decisron empowering the Commission to contract loans (Doc. 4.5/79)

Report by Mrs Cassanmagnago-Ceretti on a decrsron introdtrcing a Community system o[ irrfor-mation on road accidents

- Report by Mr Broeksz on the proposals for regulations concerning food aid for I979 (Doc.t2t 179)

- Report by Mr Nyborg on 7 directives relating to the approximation of legislatron in several tech-nical frelds (Doc. 53179)

- Report by Mr Jung on a proposal for a drrective on own-account carriage of goods by road (Doc.s0/7e)

- Report by Mr Lemp on a proposal for the conclusion of an EEC/Canada fisheries agreemenr(Doc. 3s179)

Report by Mr Lrogrer on a proposal relating to the common organization of the markct in fruitand vegetables (Doc. 72179)

Report by Mr Albertrnr on the eradication of Afrrcan swine fever in Malta (Doc. 73179)

Report by Mr Ney on the eradication of African swrne fever (Doc. 34179)

Report by Mr Ney on financial ard for the campalgn against foot-and-mouth disease in South-East Europe (Doc. 32/79)

Report by Mr Ney on Communrty measures against classical swrne fever

Proposal relating to marketing limitations on certain dangerous substances (Doc. 16179)

Proposal concerning a tariff quota for wines originatrng in Algeria (Doc. all79)Proposal relating to marketrng limitations on certarn dangerous substances and preparations.

In frve cases it proposed amendments, which in three cases the Commission accepted:

I?el>ttrl b1'tVr lbrfuggtr on .t .lKt-tton conc(mtng roal tnd coht|or tbt Contnunitl'.ttrul indt:tr-1.(Doc. 69179)

The Commission's departments have begun work on an amended proposal which be adopted bythe Commission during the week and forwarded to the Parliament and Council forthwith.

I?eport b1'tVr Sptncllt on d rugilldlto,t t'onccrnntg Contnttrnitl'did _for intlu.ttritl rcrtru..tut.,,tl!d nd con c'crt ion olr rd I i()rt-\ (Doc. 637 l78)

The Commission's departments have begun work on an amended proposal which will be adoptedby the Commission during the week and forwardcd to the Parliament and Council forthwith.

Report b1 Mr Caleu'aert on a directit'e coneanring lubilit.l' lor dqlutitc products (Doc.7ll79)

The Commrssion's departments have begun work on an amended proposal which cannot beadopted until a few weeks from now, given the large number of amendments requested by Parlia-ment.

3.

a)

b)

c)

Sining of Monday, 7 May 1979 29

4. In the following two cases :

- Relort by Mr Notcnboorn o,, d rcgilldtiott co,tt'tt',ung t,tt.r$l rtbtte.s.for ttrl,tin lotn.t u'itlt,tstrrcttrd I objecti tc (Doc. 84/79) ;

- Rtltort b1 ilIrCointat on d propo:;tl lor tfu ettabli.tbnrnt o.f tn Adminittrttttrc Tribuntl(Doc.37/7e),

The Commission explained at the sitting why it wished to keep the proposals as they stood.

5. Lastly, in accordance with the undertaking given during the debate on the resolution tabled byMrs \(alz on behalf o{ the Committee on Energy and Reseorch, the Commission will, in thecourse of this week, make a statement to Parliament on the accident at the nuclear power statronat Harrisburg. In the meantime the Commission will have forwarded a document to thc Membcrsof Parliament.


SITTING OF TUESDAY, 8 MAY 1979

Contcrrts

l. Appnul o.f ntinrtttt

Dotu nt t, tt t t .t tt lt n i I tttl

Dcci.riott 0n u t'gt.n.1' :

tVr Klt.psclt on bt.h,rll o.f tltt Cltrittian-Dcnocr,ttit' Gruup (I:l'|')): tVt B,trt.t rttt

fulul.l o.f tltr Connttitttc un lht, I:nrinn-ncnt, I\tblic Ilatltlt,tntl Con.tttutt.r Protcc-tion : rtlr IJnu'n on btlt,tl.f o.l tht 5'ocitli.ttGnup:lVr Noti: rllr N.y'botg on lttktl.f o.f

tfu Gntrlt o.l Ettt'ol>t'tut Pro!!rt'.t.,it't. Dtnoc-t'.1 tl

Dirtctirc on d),t.\truclion fxtdtrdtrtport b.1' tVr N.1'lxtrg on ltrlul.l ol tlrcContntittt.t ott I)nnonic .tni /Von(.t.u).A.l.f,r i rt (Doc. 30/79) :

Mr KlQtrlr on brlttl.f o.l thL. Cltri.ttittt-Dttn ocnr I i c G ru uf ( E l'l')M r N.1' bo rg, t'. t l, lro,' I (' t t rMr l?iltpon ; rllr N.1'ltorg: rllr I.tt:trr onfulul.f o.f tltt (.ltristiutt-Dtnocnttic Grurrp(El'>l'>); rllr lttil!!c i rl4r J'clru,iirc,'; /U,'N.1'borg; tl4r Pi.'rrui, itrtinnrtn of th.Connittcc on Ennonti( .t,,.1 lWo,t(tdt),A.fltir.t: Mr Dariigttott, hlrntbo o.l tlrContni.t.tiott

5. Allcnd,t

llrgnl ,lt'bttt

l?cgttltttiott on (lottttttttttil-1, lrtttt.titxport lt.1'rllr N.1,borg on lxhtl.f o.f thtContntilttc ott Econonrit .tn.l /VIo,rcl.tt"l.A.l.l,tirt (Dot. I 03/79) :

M r N.l' b 0 r{,,'. t l, l, o t-l (' t t,'

I?igltt.t 0.1 tlrc intlit.idtttl in tht.t.tc( o.t

dttt prout.rin!! - t'(lrot't b.1' rllr llct.y.crl, on

bclul.f o.f thc Ltgtl A.l.l,tirt Conmiutc(Doc. t00/7e) :

M r l),r.1' t rl, n t ptro,'t (. t t t'

Mr Hol.tt on bthtll o.f tht Socitlist Gnttp ;Mr Lu.tt(r on btlul.f o.f tl* Cbri.tticttt-

Dtnotrdtit' Gmup (EPP): hlr Flctcltt.r-()ooht on fuktll o.f tltt Ettrofcttt Clonscrnr-tirt Gnttlt: Mr Darignon, tVt.ntbrr o.f thtCont nt it.riott

Ontl qtrc.ttiou tt,ith dtbttc: C)onurtnit.1,.ttrpplirt o.l ".til, t)tdtt.t'idl: (Doc. 122/79/rtr.):

Mr Pi.s,uti, cltdirnt,tn o.f tfu Conntiilct. onEco tt o trt i c tr n I ll o n c t tr t1, A.f.fa i rs

rVr Pontt ott brh,tl.f o_f tlx. Contnttttti.tt dndAllit.t Grotlt: tllr Dttri!!tton, tVt'ntbcr o.f

lht Conmi.t.tto,t : lllt' Pis,rtti : lVr Ansqutro)t brlttll o.l th.Grottlt tqf-Etrrofurttl)xt u rut.t i t't' D t n o c rrl I r

l\tittt o.f orrlt'r : Lonl llttltcll ; ,4,,1y gf ictr

Tnt tt.t.lt r o.f tt fp rop r i t t i o n t

Orrtttiott Tint (Doc. 142/79)

Ottt.ttirttt.s lo tltc Contttis.tiott ol lhc Ettro-pt',t n Cotn nt tt tr i t it.t :

Ottcttiott No l, b.1' tVr Fitclt : Cotl .stocks inthr Contntttttit.l':

lVr IJttrht, rlltnltrr o.f thc Contnition ; rllrFitch: /Ur l)ttrkt: rllr Htnilton; tVrBttrkc: llr Jlpintlt: Mr Bttrkc; MrI)ruutt : rtlr Brtrkt : Mr nrn Acr.t.ttn : MrBrt rkt

Ottuttiott Mt 2, b.y J'ir Gut.l.lrt.1. dt Fruitds:lntPot'td,tt't o.f Conntttttit.l' lin/T u'itltInlit:Mr Vrcdcling, Vicc-Prc.tidtnt o.f theConn i.t.tiott : Mr Brou'n : Mr Vrtdt'l i ng

Oucstiott No 3, 1t.1, tVrt Dthltnrp : Di.tcrin-ittrttiott dgdirttl t.otil(n in .scnior gntdc.t ittllrc Connitsiott:Mr VrcdclinT i Mt'.t Dabltntf : rllr Vrcd-rling: Mrt Dttnrood.l': rllr Vrtdclin!!: lWr5'icgltr.tcltnitlt : Mr Vrcdcling i Mr.t gq1111y-

citltrlti : tllr Vrultling: tVr tVcDonald:Mr Vrtdding: tllr Hou'cll ; Mr Vrcdcling;rllr.t Dttn urtod.l'

32

322.

.].

9.

33

52

56

5634

34

10.

ll.

43J6

6.

7.

8.

43

46

50

56

58

Sitting of Tuesday, 8 May 1979 3l

Orrt.ttiott No 4, lt.1' tllr \'tt.ltl,l ; linttorttttdnl t'rrtplo.1'tttr.ttt .tilttrlliort in lltt. Cotttttttr-nit1 : tttlilt tnil\lt-l';

Antndmtnt to ftLtktuntph 7

M r l),r.1't rl, r.t pfo t't..n rAdoftiott of tltt notton fot rt rt.rolrr-tt0t)

M r A I br r.t, rLt ppl rt ( u t'

64

65

tllt l/n.drling; zllrlr Dtrnroorl.l' :tltttl! ; lV|r [:ltrclttr-Ctokt ; tllttllr Cltrr:tttt.,ut ; llt l/ttrlclin!! :

Mr L/r'al-l/rttltling;rllr.foltn-

rl0D

Otrt.tltotr No 5, by ltttrl Kt,nntt ; Prufotttltdnd Jt,ct.tion.t lor tltt tt'(tlliott ol Contnttr-rt t ll' rt'rt'tl rch i n.'t i I tr t itttt.' ;

tllr Votttl, lVtntbtt' ol tltt (..onttnt.t.rirtn;

Lorl Kt,nnt.t: tllt l/ritrtl i Mt.t Sq11,1 1.sir1-

Itrpi ; rllr l/otrtl

Question No 5, by Lord Betbell: Air faresuitbin tbe European Communiry:

hIr Burke ; Lord Betbell; iVr Burke ; L[rSeefeld; lIr Burke; illr lWcDonald; MrBurke ; lVr Corrie ; -fuIr Burke; Mr Jobn-ston;JWr Burke ; Lord Kennet ;lWr Burke

Point of order: Jllrs Dunwoody ; ltlr Spicer

Eqtttl pt.1'.fot'ntt.tt ttili u'ont('tt - t(lrot.!b.y fu|r: Dtrnuood.l' o't brkrl.l o.f thc(,otrttttitttr on S'ocitr I Af.lair.t, Enplo..y'ntnttnl Edrrc,rtion (Doc. 98/79)

Tripdrtitt Con.frttttcL, - Cottncrl ol A4itti.t-ltr-t o.f Siritl Ajflit.t ott l5 A|q' 1979

-.f otnt dt,b,ttt. o,t tu,o ttportt 14.1' Mr Albrr-,on fulull o/ tltr Contntiilrc ott SocirtlA.f.l.t i rt Entplo.l'rtttttt tnl Eltrcation (Dot.3l/79 rrnl Doc. 147/79).tnd on tt,t (tt.ttltltrt.ttiott tLitlt dtl.t,rtc (Doc. t4l/79)

59

6t

63

63

63

64

I .1.

6.)

t4.

h'l,r ntil dt,r Gtttt, cltdirnrlrt ol lhtConnn ittt.t. rttt 5'ttri,tl All,t t r.t, Enplu.l'tttrttttttd Edrttttio,t rtild ,rtit'lxtr tll rhc'qiutiort

65

57

72

12. Votrt:

- N.1'borg intr.t.itrt rt.fort(.oDt l).t,t.l l cl.trl I iott ;

Aloptitttt o.f tltt ntotiottliott

Not) rtport (Doc. 106/79): Aitcotttnl :

Adoftion o.f tlrc ntotiott .lor tt

tVr Vrultling, Vitc-Prtiiltnt o.f tlx.Conn ittiorr

Ptn*dtrral ,n0ti0n.\

Mr.t Dtrtt tt'ood.1, : tV r Vt,clcl ing, Vitc-lrrtti-d t n t o.f t lr Clo tn nt i.t.t i o rt : tl4 r lJt. rt nt n d

Tripartitr (on.ft,rrncc - Cottncil o.f tllinit-

tcr.t o.f Sociul A.t'_futirt o.f 1 5 tl4a.1' 1979(rt.ttr npt ion)

lVr Dinttt,tt on btlul.f o.f tltt SocialittGntrlt; ,tllr l)t.rtrcrtttl on fulul.f o.f tht.Cltristittt Drntocnrtit' Grotp (EPP): MrPi:tillo on ltcltal.f o.t tlrc Connttttti.tt tntlAllin Group; Nr Cltri:lt.nvtt ; Nr.;Dttnwtod.l': Mt .ftkobtrtt ; /Vr VNlltlins;Mr Allxrs

17. Agtitd,t

l/rgcnt dtltttt,

Etrxtltrttt Ct'ntrt in lJtrlin - Iltport bs'Mr IJrrtntntl on fulull rll tlu 0orttrrtriltt.ort Socitl Al.[,r ir.t, Entpio.l't:tttnr,ttttl Ed uc,r-tiott (Doc. 90/79)

rllr IJtrtntnl, rdlrpot t(nl

(Doc. 104/79) :

.lor ,t rttoltr-

tnr.f.fic

rt.vltr -

t.5.

t6.lto,)

Ktntttt rtport (Doc. 36/79); Dit.tt'tirttttt ttt i.tlt,tl ittg ttl rt rt i.rinrl :

AntctttI iott

Antcndnttttt to Articlt 5 (2) tnl (3)

Lo nl Kt n n tt, t d flrl t't (. u rAttttndncnt to Articlc 5 (5):Lonl Kcnnrt

Aloftiott rll tltr notion.lor rr rttoltt-lion

N.yborg rlxtrt (l)oc. 30/79) ; Dircct irton nn.slrtrcliun f xtitrct.t :

Nr Schtriirct,

Aloftion o.f tlrt ntttion.lor tt rt.tolrr-t ion

lntnt lo lltt tttotiott.fot'rt rt.;olrr-

r ti.

19.

73

83

83

83N1'borg rcftort (l)oc. 103/79) :I itttt tttt (tttrtttttrttil.l, tnttt.tit :

Adoftiott o.f tfu notirtn .for aI to,,

Ilrgtt lrt -

rttol tt -

tVr Vrtdtliil!!,Contttti:;.tiott ; NrlJrrt nt tti

Vtcr- Pt'csidttt t o.l t ltt,Sicgltr.ttlnnilt; tVt

- Bd.1'crl rltort (Drtt.tfu indiridtrtl inf xttt.t.titt,l:

100/79): Iliglts o.f

tltc.ltrct o.l dtltOr,tl qutsliort u'itltottt dt.brttr : l)t.rtrintina-tirttt itt Fr,lnk clgtlitt.tt tttigr,tnl u't)nt..n(Dot. 124/79)

64

20.

84

68

54

54

64

64


86

87

85

862t.

22.

fulr.t Sqtrtrrcitrltrfti, trttllnr o.f lltt qtrt'tittttNr Vrcdt'ling, Vict''Pn.'rltnt tt.l lltrConrn t.ts iott

AgrnlctI'oint ttl onltr: 14r llif,trttrtrt!i

lltgtrlcrtiott dnt(iliitt!! lltc Fin,tnct,tl Iltgn'

IN THE CHAIR: Mr COLOMBO

President

Qhe sitting opened at 10.$ a.m)


l. Approoal of tbe minutes

President. - The minutes of yesterday's sitting have

been distributed.

Are there any objections ?

The minutes are approved.

2. Docurnents submitted

President. - I have received:

(a) from the Council, requests for opinions on :

- the proposal from the Commission of the EuropeanCommunities to the Council for a regulationamending the Financial Regulation of 2l December1977 applicable to the general budget of the Euro-pean Communities (Doc. 156179\.

which has been referred to the Committee onBudgets:

- the proposal from the Commission of the EuropeanCommunities to the Council for a tenth Councildirective on the harmonization of the laws of theMember States relating to tumover taxes, supple-menting Directive 77l388lEEC - application ofvalue added tax to the hiring out of movable tangibleproperty (Doc. 158/79),

which has been referred to the Committee onEconomic and Monetary Affairs ;

(b) report by Mr Shaw on behalf of the Committee onBudgets on the proposal from the Commission ofthe European Communities to the Council (Doc.l56179l for a regulation (ECSC, EEC, EURATOM),amending the Financial Regulation of 2lDecember 1977 applicable to the General Budgetof the European Communities (Doc. 161179);

(c) oral question without debate by Mr Mascagni, MrMasullo, Mr Pistillo, Mr Spinelli and Mrs Squarcia-

lttiort o.l 2l Dt'it'ntlx'r 1977 - Ilrfort b.1'

,llv $lnrr tttt brlul.l o.l tlrt Conntittt't' rttt

Btti!!tt: (Doc. l6l/79)

lV r Sl:,a u',,'.t lr\l t't t' u t'

23. Ayt'n,l,t .lor nt.tl l.t.l"s .\i!tin!!

lupi to the Commission on the teaching oflanguages in the Community countries by personsspecially trained to teach their native language(Doc. 159/79);

(d) a report from the Court of Auditors on the JointEuropean Torus ()ET) which has been referred tothe Committee on Energy and Research and tothe Committee on Budges;

(e) from the Commission

- Twelfth General Report on the activities of the Euro-pean Communities in 1978 : Report on the develop-ment of the social situation in the Communities(Doc.157179);

which has been referred to the Committee on SocialAffairs, Employment and Education as the committeeresponsible and to the Committee on Economic andMonetary Affairs and the Committee on the Environ-ment" Public Health and Consumer Protection fortheir opinions :

- psslgsxndum on the accession of the EuropeanCommunities to the Convention on the preservationof human righs and basic freedoms (Doc. 160179);

which has been referred to the Political AffairsCommittee as the committee responsible, and to theLegal Affairs Committee for is opinion.

3. Decision on ugenE

President. - The next item is the votes on variousrequests for urgent debate, pursuant to Rule 14 of theRules of Procedure.

I consult Parliament on the adoption of urgent proce-dure for the oral question with debate tabled by MrVan der Gun on behalf of the Committee on SocialAffairs, Employment and Education, to the Commis-sion on prepdrations for tbe rneeting of tbe Council oflllinisters of Social A{fairs and Labour on 15 lllay1979 (Doc. t4tl79).

The reasons supporting this request for urgent debateare contained in the document itself.

Urgent procedure is adopted.

\Sitting of Tuesday, 8 May 1979 33

President

I propose that this oral question be entered on theagenda for today in joint debate with the rwo reportsby Mr Albers (Docs. 31179 and 1471791.


That is agreed.

I consult Parliament on the adoption of urgent proce-dure for the motion for a resolution tabled by Feller-maier and Mr Pisani on behalf of the Socialist Groupon tbe reaiew of the common agicultural poliqt(Doc. 155/79).

The reasons supporting this request for urgent debate

are contained in the document itself.

Urgent procedure is adopted.

I propose that this motion for a resolution be entered

on the agenda for Thursday, 10 May 1979, after theCaillavet report (Doc. 128179).

Are there any obiections ?

That is agreed.

I consult Parliament on the adoption of urgent proce-dure requested by the Council of Ministers in respect

of the proposal for a directive on tbe approximationof tbe laws of tbe hlember States relating to emulsi-

fiers, stabilizers, tbickeners and jellying agents foruse in food.stuffs (Doc. 143179).

The reasons supporting this request for urgent debate

are annexed to yesterday's minutes.

I call Mr Klepsch to speak on behalf of the Christian-Democratic Group (EPP).

Mr Klepsch. - (D) Mr President, my group takesthe view that urgency is not required in the case ofthis proposal. Firstly, as the experts of my group have

pointed out, it is a rather complicated matter and we

fail to see why it should be subjected to emergencyprocedure during this particular part-session. 'We are

of the opinion that routine committee procedurewould be appropriate.

President. - I call Mr Baas.

Mr Baas. - (NL) Mr President, unfortunately thechairman of the Committee on the Environment,Public Health and Consumer Protection is unable tobe with us, and I should like to make one remark onbehalf of that committee : this is a very complicatedmatter, and, what is more, the five-year transitionalperiod will expire in June. The problem of addingcertain substances must be discussed, and there is a

legal vacuum with respect to the industrial productionof a number of articles. I would therefore ask Parlia-ment to approve an extension of the deadline so thatthis proposal may be referred to the committee resPon-

sible. $7e are therefore proposing not to suPPort theCommission's proposal, but instead to extend the five-year transitional period by one year so that we have

enough time to consider the Commission's proposalin the new Parliament. Mr Klepsch is correct when he

says that this is a very complex proposal, and I think

it would be wrong to allow a legal vacuum to arise

such that on 24 June 1979 it becomes possible oncemore to add certain substances to foodstuffs in theCommunity : I obiect very strongly to this.

I regret that the Commission itself did not proposeextending the deadline by one year, since that wouldhave solved all the problems temporarily. I thereforeurge that the proposal be referred to the committeeresponsible so that tomorrow it may deliver itsopinion, and then we shall see whether a compromisemay be reached in this matter.

President. - At this point we have to decidewhether or not to accede to the request for urgentprocedure, and the problem is for the time beingtherefore one of merely procedural interest. The ques-tion of substantive merit remains an open one, whichmay be posed in the following terms : either to acceptthe directive in the form in which it has beenpresented or to provide for the extension for one year

of the existing legislation.

In any event I take note of your statement in favour ofurgent procedure.

I call Mr Brown to speak on behalf of the SocialistGroup.

Mr Brown. - Norwithstanding the point that MrBaas has made, nothing new has arisen, in our view, tojustify the request for emergency debate this morning.My group is not in favour of this emergency proce-dure either, because the Council could have comeforward at any time to make these proposals. Further-more, may I remind the Council they are sitting onabout a hundred directives on which they ought to be

making decisions, and if they are going to deal withthem all in this way, coming forward at a very latestage, then we are in a bad way of business. I hope theHouse will refuse the emergency this morning.

President. - I call Mr Noi.

Mr Noi. - (I) Mr President, the fact is that thissubject has not yet been considered by the committee.In view of the increasing use of additives I think thatthe matter warrants full consideration. I7e cannottherefore support the request for urgent procedure nordoes the committee feel it can give a hasty opinion onthe matter. A discussion during tomorrow's sitting istherefore out of the question. It would be better towait until all the committee members have the infor-mation necessary to enable them to give a considereddecision.


Mr Nyborg. - (DK) Mr President, I would like tosay on behalf of the Group of European ProgressiveDemocrats that we too feel that it is inappropriate touse the procedure for urgent debate for this matterand therefore support Mr Klepsch's proposal.


President. - !7e will therefore proceed in thefollowing manner : Parliament will now decidewhether or not to accord urgent procedure, it beingunderstood that if this is refused, the committee willbe able to meet to propose an adequate provisionalsolution such as will not infringe the deadline.

I put the request for urgent procedure to the vote.

Urgent procedure is reiected.

4. Directioe on construction products

President. - The next item is the report (Doc.30179) drawn up by Mr Nyborg on behalf of theCommittee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on

the proposal from the Commission to the Council for a

directive on the approximation of the laws, regulationsand administrative provisions of the Member States

relating to.construction products.

Mr Klepsch. - (D Mr President, on behalf of mygroup, I wish to request that the report by Mr Nyborg(Doc. 30179) be referred back to committee. I think itonly fair to make this request now rather than waituntil the debate has begun. My group wants thisreport referred back to committee for three reasons.Firstly, we take the view that the Legal AffairsCommittee should be consulted. Secondly, we feelthat, failing this, numerous amendments to the reportwould have to be tabled, which would make its adop-tion extremely complicated. And thirdly, we are of theopinion - and regard this as a particularly importantpoint - that use of the proposed procedure wouldresult in a reduction of Parliament's prerogatives tothe advantage of the Commission. !7e have no desireto take such a far-reaching decision now that the newParliament is about to take office because if we are tolimit Parliament's powers of influence and leave thedecision to the Commission alone, then, in theopinion of my group, it would be better for such a

restrictive decision to be taken by the new Parliamentrather than on our initiative so to speak before thenew Parliament can start work.

It is for these three reasons that my group wants thereport referred back to committee.

President. - I shall call one speaker to speak infavour of this request and one against.

Mr Nyborg has requested to speak against this request.

I call Mr Nyborg.

Mr Nyborg, rapporteur. - (DK) Mr President, I feelbound to say that this proposal from Mr Klepsch doesnot come unexpectedly, it is part of a specific tacticadopted by the Christian-Democraric Group or,perhaps more accurately, by Mr Schwdrer. I would bevery sorry if this Assembly were to follow the courseproposed by Mr Klepsch because we have worked onthis matter for four years and have finally succeeded

in getting the Commission to put forward the prop-osal desired by Parliament. I feel that it would almostbe an infringement of this Parliament's dignity if wewere to adopt Mr Klepsch's ,proposal and if, afterfinally obtaining from the Commission after a periodof four years the proposal we wanted, we were torefuse to consider it and to accept our responsibilirybut were to refer the matter to the next Parliament. Iwould therefore ask the Assembly to reject the prop-osal made by Mr Klepsch. \7e should deal with thismatter here and now.

President. - Mr Rippon has asked to speak infavour of the request.

I call Mr Rippon.

Mr Rippon. - I share the views expressed by MrKlepsch, and I hope this matter will not be consid-ered today. There is a long list of amendments and itis a very controversial matter. Even if it has beendiscussed for four years I think it is right that weshould adopt the procedure which Mr Klepsch hassuggested.

President. - I put the request for a referral back tothe vote.

Since the result of the vote is doubtful, I shall call fora vote by sitting and standing.

The request is rejected.

I call Mr Nyborg to present the report.

Mr Nyborg, ra.pporteur. - (DK) Mr President, whenpresenting a report yesterday I unfortunately had tonote disagreement between the Committee onEconomic and Monetary Affairs and the Commissionon a number of important points. Happily, the posi-tion is different today. The Commission's draft direc-tive on the harmonization of national provisionsrelating to construction products meets the wishesthat have long been cherished by this Parliament.

!7e have a long agenda today and I will not thereforedwell on points of detail but I would like to empha-size that, during the last five years, Parliament hasrepeatedly urged the Commission to introduce a morestreamlined decision-making procedure for theremoval of technical barriers to trade.

In our view, this is an area where the Community canusefully, and should, make greater use of the powerunder Article 155 of the EEC Treary to authorize theCommission to issue detailed technical implementingprovisions. On several occasions, the Heads of Stateand Government have expressed the wish to makegreater use of this means of transferring certainpowers to the Commission, but what the Heads ofState and Government express a wish for is one thingand what is actually agreed in the Council of Minis-ters is quite another.

Sitting of Tuesday, 8 May 1979 35

Nyborg

The Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairsfeels that if agreement cannot be reached on grantingthese powers to the Commission in connection withthe removal of technical barriers to trade, it is hardlylikely that other areas will be found where it will inpractice be possible to grant the Commission any reas-

onable degree of power.

More specifically, the construction industry is one ofthe most important industrial sectors in all MemberStates and includes a relatively large number of smalland medium-sized firms. Nevertheless, it has to be

said that neither the building materials industry northe consumer have to any appreciable extent been

able to benefit from the establishment of the commonmarket. Of the maior industrial sectors within theCommunity, the construction industry is probably theone that has had least opportunity to exploit the esta-

blishment of the common market and this has hadadverse consequences for economic integration, theexploitation of technical progress, the trend of priceswithin, and the international competitiveness of, thebuilding industry.

At the same time, we know that good housing at a

reasonable cost is one of the principal requirements ofthe population in all the Member States. It is theCommission and not us that has chosen constructionproducts as the area where the more streamlined deci-sion-making procedure is to be tried out. Neverthe-less, I would like on behalf of the committee toexpress our satisfaction both with the fact that theCommission has now submitted a proposal for theapplication of a more streamlined decision-makingprocedure and that a start has now been made on elim-inating barriers to trade specifically within theconstruction sector.

As regards the decision-making procedure, Mr Presi-

dent, I am obliged despite the lack of time to go intosome detail, as I cannot confine myself to the exten-sive treatment of this question in the explanatory state-ment.

In Articles 27 and 28 of the draft directive theCommission proposes to apply the procedure for theadoption of implementing provisions, according towhich the Commission's implementing directivesmust be submitted to a committee consisting of repre-sentatives of the Member States. If a qualified majorityof the committee agrees to the Commission's prop-osal, it may be adopted by the Commission. Failingthat, the Commission must submit a proposal to theCouncil. The delegation of powers to the Commissionis therefore conditional. The Committee on Economicand Monetary Affairs wishes to 8o one step further bygranting the Commission both full authoriry and fullresponsibility for the removal of the technical barriersto trade applicable to construction products. Other-wise, we will be perpetuating a system that encourages

the evasion of responsibility and under which theCommission can make the Member States accoun-table for the lack of progress and the Member States

can pass the buck back to the Commission.

'We are well aware that in this House too there are

Members who are hesitant about delegating thisresponsibiliry to the Commission. This is also thereason why we in committee spent the greater part ofthe time discussing possible ways of exercising controlover the Commission's activities in this situation. \ilepropose that the Commission should as far as possibleuse such common standards and norms for productsas already may be agreed internationally. !7e wouldalso assign the Commission responsibiliry fordeciding what organization and special interest groupsare to be consulted when drafting implementing direc-tives. \fle feel, however, that as a general rule the mostappropriate means of consulting the parties directlyconcerned would be to involve the Economic andSocial Committee in this work, this being possibleunder Article 198 of the Treaty.

Actual political control of how the Commission has

used the powers granted to it through this outlinedirective should, in our opinion, be based on an

annual report drawn up by the Commission. On thisoccasion it would be possible for us politicians toconduct a dialogue with the Commission that is notof the same pseudo-technical nature as at present butone that can become a genuine political discussion. Iam well aware that some will say that the control Parli-ament can exercise on the basis of an annual report ofthis nature is not really control at all and that theCommission can simply disregard the wishesexpressed by Parliament. I do not really agree withthis. On the contrary, I am convinced that theCommission will take greater account of a debate ofthis nature in Parliament than of the discussions wecurrently hold on individual technical directives.

As a further guarantee for those who might be hesi-tant about delegating these powers to the Commis-sion, we have incorporated in the proposal a safetyvalve by requiring the Commission, after applicationof this directive for a number of years, to submit prop-osals for the possible revision of the provisions in theoutline directive. This means that if, at the appropriatetime, Parliament is not satisfied with the way in whichthe Commission has taken account of the wishesexpressed in connection with the annual report, itwill, like the Council, have an opportunity to takeaway again from the Commission the powers whichwe today propose conferring on it. I, too, naturallyhave misgivings about delegating to a public agencypowers that may have major economic implicationsfor industry. !(zith my background in national politicsI understand, perhaps better than anyone else, thedesire to curb and not increase government by tech-nical experts.


Nyborg

Nevertheless, I can fully support the proposal beingdebated here today because it will entail more effi-cient public administration and the far more rapidremoval of the technical barriers to trade that are onthe point of giving us all ulcers. There is no questionhowever, as may appear from a rapid reading of theproposal, of increasing government by experts.

Under the present procedure the same technicaldetails are discussed first by the Commission, then bythe European Parliament and the Economic andSocial Committee and finally by the Council. This is a

real instance of government by technical expertsconsuming an unreasonably large amount of time,costing an unreasonably large amount of money andhelping to impede the establishment of the CommonMarket. !(hat we are proposing is to cut a paththrough this by giving the Commission the power tosay to the national experts that we have beaten aroundthe bush long enough. '!7e are strengthening theCommission's position in relation to the nationalexperts and special interest groups. This cannot, in myopinion, be called increasing government by experts.

All of us here are probably agreed that, ,o f.r, progr.r,has been too slow. I also have the impression thatthere is a growing awareness in the national capitalsthat the administrative and technical barriers to tradethat people are having to contend with every singleday, are developing into a greater impediment to tradewithin the common market than customs duties andquantitative restrictions were in their day. ,Somethingmust be done. lThether what we are proposing willprove to be the definitive solution I cannot say today,experience will show, yet it is our - I am tempted tosay - duty to give this decision-making procedure a

chance to show its practical worth.

Deep down we all hesitate when faced with takingsuch a decisive step but in this matter we must standtogether and put aside our disagreement on points ofdetail. !7e all know that this proposal is hardly likelyto have an easy passage through the Council workingparties and it is essential therefore that we not onlystand together here in the European Parliament butthat, together with the Commission and, possibly, theEconomic and Social Committee too, we demonstrateour determination to the Council to secure the intro-duction of a more streamlined decision-making proce-dure enabling us to eliminate the technical barriers totrade. This is something that is expected of us both byour peoples and by industry.

No new procedure is involved and no change, interpre-tation or application of the provisions in the Treatyare required. I/hat we are advocating is that theCouncil should take a political decision to makegreater use than hitherto of Article 155 of the Treaty;the matter is really as simple as that.

Mr President, only yesterday 25 amendments weretabled to my report, all by the same author. Allow me

to use some of the time I would otherwise be entitledto for the next item on the agenda to deal with theseamendments that were tabled so late in the day.

First of all, I should like to make it clear that there isno need to refer this matter back to the committee aswas proposed earlier by Mr Klepsch. Even though thespecific amendments have not been discussed incommittee, they relate predominantly to problemsthat were at the very centre of our deliberations. Thisis also clear from the speech I have just given inpresenting the report. I can therefore without diffi-culry take up a position on these amendments withoutany need for further discussion in committee.

Before I do so, just one small cri de ceur. I am aston-ished that we should today be required to take up a

position on 25 amendments. Mr Schwdrer, who is a

respected number of our committee, has had everyopportunify to put his views in committee. Discussionof this Commission proposal has taken place only atmeetings where it was on the agenda. If Mr Schworercould see that he would be unable to be present at thediscussion, what would have been more simple thanfor him to ask one of his colleagues in his group toraise the matter or to have circulated these 25 amend-ments in writing ? During the last 14 days I haverepeatedly asked Mr Schwcirer for these amendments,but in vain; I only received them yesterday. I regrethaving to say this to Mr Schwdrer but I feel that themanner in which he has proceeded in this matter isnot worthy of our committee and it is difficult to gainany other impression than that this is a deliberateattempt at procrastination aimed at preventing thepresent Parliament from completing discussion of thematter. I would be very sorry if this attempt were tosucceed.

As everyone in this House will recall, we are the oneswho have proposed that the Commission draw up anew decision-making procedure. The question hasbeen discussed repeatedly both in committee and herein plenary since 1974. If we now refer the matter backto committee, how would the new directly electedParliament be able to form any other opinion thanthat there had been major disagreement on this ques-tion ? Furthermore, there was unanimity in committeewith the report being unanimously adopted, and thenMr Schwcirer comes along and proposes 25 amend-ments, including amendment No 8 according towhich Parliament should return on another occasionto the issue of how a more flexible decision-makingprocedure might be devised. Naturally I cannot dealin detail with all the amendments but allow me tocharacterize them with a few typical examples.

I have mentioned No 8 and will not do so again. I do,on the other hand, have a number of comments onamendment No 21. Mr Schwdrer and others proposehere that a committee should be set up, and I quote,'which shall have the task of submitting proposals for


Nyborg

implementing directives to the Commission'. I7hatMr Schworer proposes is that, in this field, we shoulddeprive the Commission of its right of initiative as

enshrined in the Treaty. \7hat kind of nonsense is

this ? This is the first time I have heard a so-calledresponsible politician in this Parliament make a prop-osal of this nature.

The last amendments on which I wish to commentare Nos 12 and 23, in which Mr Schwdrer ProPosesthat Parliament should reiect the proposal enablingapproved bodies in the exporting country in certainsituations to certify whether the importing countries'provisions have been complied with. This point was a

decisive one for us in committee and the proposalnow to delete this passage can only be interpreted tomean that Mr Schw6rer opposes procedural simplifica-tions aimed directly at creating a common market as

rapidly as possible, simplifications moreover, that willbe of special benefit to the large number of small and

medium-sized firms in this sector. Mr President, those

were my comments on the 25 amendments. I wouldlike to have it placed on record with regard to thisaftemoon's vote that I, on behalf of the committee,reject all 25 amendments.

(Applause)

IN THE CHAIR: MR SPENALE

Vice-President

President. - I call Mr Luster to speak on behalf ofthe Christian-Democratic Group (EPP)

Mr Luster. (D - Mr President, the proposal whichthe Commission has forwarded to Parliament for an

outline directive on construction products is viewedby *y group as a particularly valuable initiative fromthe technical, economic and, above all, legal point ofview. The rapporteur is to be thanked for all the efforthe has put into this report. It is certainly true thatParliament has already devoted much time to discus-sion of this question in a general context. However, itis also true - if we are to go by the rePort - thatthis very complex question was dealt with at only twomeetings of the Committee on Economic and Mone-tary Affairs and, if I am correctly informed, only verybriefly at the second of these meetings after it had

been announced that the matter would be discussed ata later meeting, with the result that a number ofmembers were absent.

It is a reflection of the particular significance and

political importance of this proposal - and therapporteur should be grateful and not surprised in thisrespect - that Mr Mtiller-Hermanfl, Mr H.!fl. Miillerand Mr Schw6rer, fellow-members of my group,should have dealt in such detail with the proposal and

the connected motion for a resolution tabled by theCommittee on Economic and Monetary Affairs.

As the rapporteur himself points out in Paragraph 8 :

This means in the rapporteur's view that the EuropeanParliament should give very careful attention to this prop-osal for a directive since the principles laid down willapply for a wide range of products and it viill be difficultto amend them later.

The rapporteur should therefore appreciate it if thereare members in the house willing to support him, atwhich point I should like to add that this directive is

of an experimental nature. Although it is specificallydesigned for construction products, there is a dangerthat if we approve it hastily and without due caution,it could easily be used at a later stage as a model forother fields.

The outcome of my colleagues' deliberations has beenpresented to you in the form of the 25 proposedamendments previously mentioned, in which connec-tion I would point out that I would have great misgiv-ings about dealing with them without debate. More-over, I am sorry to note that the rapporteur will be

unable to attend the discussion of the amendments.

The fact that there is such a large number of proposedamendments should make it clear that we are facedhere with a proposal for a directive which still leaves a

great deal of room for discussion. The seriousness ofthe problems still to be solved can be demonstratedby reference to a number of the proposed amend-ments.

As the rapporteur says himself in Paragraph 28, theCommission proposal only half solves the problemand, to quote the rapporteur once again, can hardly be

described as ideal.

I would refer firstly to the problem raised by the factthat only the outline directive itself is to be subject tothe consultation procedure laid down in Article 100 ofthe EEC Treaty while the individual directives are tobe dealt with by committee procedure. Under thecommittee procedure, the Commission would have

the right of initiative and proposal and could circum-vent the committee's proposed amendments or votes

against by referring its own proposals to the Councilof Ministers. For its part, the Council of Ministerswould presumably be unable to issue a decision beforethe tight three-month time limit allowed it expired,with the result that the Commision - whose powers,with all due respect, we do not wish to see extendedto the detriment of Parliament - would issue its prop-osals as a directive. The Commission's intention tospeed up the drafting of directives is to be muchwelcomed and we wish to lend it our support. In myview and that of my colleagues, any solution whichled to a monopolization of legislative powers by oneCommunity Institution would have to be firmly


Luster

reiected. Solutions of this type would in fact contradictthe principle of the separation of powers, which is a

standard feature of the constitutions of all the MemberStates of the Community.

I feel that the European Parliament should see this as

an appropriate opportunity for carefully consideringwhether and to what extent the Commission whichper se is an executive body, should be endowed withlegislative or semi-legislative powers.

The draft motion for a resolution tabled by theCommittee on Economic and Monetary Affairs,according to which, for the drawing up of individualdirectives, the Commission would not even berequired to follow a committee procedure and,without being subiect to any control, would be empow-ered to take decisions by virtue of another Commu-nity arrangement, appears, in my view, to overstep themark by far.

Allow me to add that it would surely be wrong - andthe Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairsappears to have bcome ensnared in this misconcep-tion - to regard the directive on the removal of tech-nical barriers to trade as a mere technical trifle whichcan be left quite calmly to the experts.

Ladies and gentlemen, these directives could wellplace quite crucial economic demands on the indus-tries of the Member States. If this is the case, the workon these directives, which may be thought modest butwhich it would nonetheless not be incorrect to see as

implementing directives, cannot and must not be leftto the administrative body, i.e. the Commission, alone.Another very important question is whether such a

comprehensive outline directive is really needed inthe field of construction products. There are, after all,only relatively few such products which would beaffected by the unrestricted movement of goods across

the borders of the Member States. Economic factorssuch as the level of transport costs in relation to thevalue of the goods, the gteat differences in climatebetween north and south and the very differentrequirements of industrial, public and privateconsumers in the various Member States are characte-ristics peculiar to the construction sector which natur-ally impose maior restrictions on the supra-regionalmovement of goods. That these factors are intrinsic tothe sector and cannot be substantially affected bymeans of harmonization directives is shown by theexample of the United States. The American market isnot split up by trade borders and yet only very fewconstruction products are subject to supra-regionaltrade.

In the explanatory statement to the outline directive,the Commission puts forward very impressive figuresto demonstrate the economic importance of the Euro-pean construction market. However, on closer inspec-tion, it soon becomes apparent that these figuresamount to a really superficial - if you will excuse the

expression - game of numbers, which does notprovide the slightest indication of the proportion ofthe total output of the construction sector which istraded across the borders.

Allow me to comment on a few particular points. If Irefer here to the overwhelming number of producersand manufacturers affected by the directive - and therapporteur has said as much himself - it is to pointout that they belong to the small and medium-sizedcategory of construction enterprises and therefore toask whether, given the nature and volume of the admi-nistrative regulations laid down in this directive,expenditure and effect are in correct proportion toeach other here. Small and medium-sized businessesare particuarly sensitive to overloading with adminis-trative procedures. If the directive is really to succeedin its aim to further the development of the construc-tion sector, limits to administrative expenditure mustbe stipulated here and now rather than in the indi-vidual direcrives. For example, it must be made clearin Article 2 or Article 4 in what cases the approval,examination, verification and certification proceduresare to be applied.

The directive should above all be purged of regula-tions which involve senseless expenditure such as

Article 23 on the registration of self-certification state-ments.

In my view, another basic point to be singled out forcriticism is the fact that Article 30, which governs theintroduction of construction products into circulationfor which no individual directives have yet beenenacted, has not been properly thought out. Provisionis made for a procedure of mutual recognition of tests.In this connection, the national regulations and stand-ards of the EC importing country will be applicable tothe tests carried out in the EC exporting country. Thisprocedure means nothing more than the setting up ofa system of bilateral recognition of national rules andregulations. I find it hard to see what this has to dowith European harmonization - speaking in invertedcommas. An EC regulation is not needed for this

PurPose.

In my view - and here you will forgive me if I speaknot as an economist but as a lawyer, if I may lay claimto this daring epithet - the sum total of all thisappears to be, Mr Rapporteur, that the motion for a

resolution tabled by the Committee on Economic andMonetary Affairs cannot be adopted as its stands. Anumber of crucial points are in need of amendment.Account must be taken of the obiections of those veryparties whose development is to be promoted bymeans of the outline directive on constructionproducts. A great deal of thought will, above all, stillhave to go to the consequences of transferring legisla-tive tasks to the Commission. I therefore regret thefact that the request of my group to have this matterdiscussed once again by the Committee on Economic


Luster

and Monetary Affairs and the very relevant legal

points discussed by the Legal Affairs Committee. As a

result, we are faced with the cumbersome procedureof dealing with 25 draft amendments. The fact thatthere are 25 of them, Mr Rapporteur, does not mean

that they are not worthwhile but rather that there is

still a lot to be considered.

I thank you for having listened so attentively tosomeone who was not closely involved in the delibera-tions, a fact which might prompt you to say, 'So whatcan he know about it ?' However, it sometimeshappens that people who have been involved with one

thing for a long period cannot see the wood for thetrees and that a clearer view of matters is obtainedwhen one becomes acquainted with them at a laterstage. This is the approach I have tried to adopt.

President. - I call Mr Lange.

Mr Lange. (D) Mr President, ladies and

gentlemen, I regret very much that I am obliged tooppose the views put forward by Mr Luster. They are

the views of some of the members of the Christian-Democratic Group, and I stress some of the members.The matter that you now want to see thought outmore carefully Mr Luster, was considered by theCommittee on Economic Affairs - and actually MrSchw6rer can vouch for this - that we as a parlia-ment asked the Commission to submit proposals

along these lines pursuant to Article 155. However,you now want simply to turn the clock back to theearly 70s.

Mr Luster, there is no need for all of us to act as if thisParliament was a parliament of technical experts. ThisParliament consists of 'politicians, and this was particu-larly clear when we were considering the problemsconnected with the elimination of obstacles to trade

in the matter of high and low frequencies. NoMember of this Parliament could speak with expertknowledge on this matter, unless he happened tobelong to the particular profession in question.However, all we were concerned with was to make a

political decision on these questions. Our intention is

to remove technical non-tariff barriers to trade, and

we have to remove them on the basis of politicalconsiderations. You can bring in all kinds of legal

arguments if you like, Mr Luster, but they do notentail any diminution of Parliament's authority orresponsibility.'$7'e are simply not in a position to take

decisions on such matters, and if you just take a close

look at how matters of this kind are handled at

national level, you will see that they are not dealt withby the national parliament. It would be completelywrong to suppose that the Bundestag, to take theGerman example, would consider and decide on ques-

tions of this kind. All it does is to set out the politicalprinciples and guidelines, and it is the wish of this

Parliament in regard to the matter we are discussing

that the Commission should do this in its proposals,

since there has been complete agreement between

Commission and Parliament on this point.

The Commissioner responsible for this matter at thattime, Mr Gundelach, had done the appropriate ground-work, because one must also realize why from the verybeginning of the Communiry every measure intendedto further the removal of technical barriers to tradewas dealt with just as this has been. According to thethen President of the Commission this was done inorder to create a feeling of trust between the membersof the Community, so that no Member State felt thatit was being bypassed. However, one simply cannot goon using this method forever and ever, because allthese matters of a technical nature put too many andaltogether superfluous demands on Parliament's time.This then is why we have submitted our proposal, as

Mr Nyborg has explained it. It is in perfect agreementwith Parliament's original position. Now you want us

to depart from this position. You must, however,

realize that you are ignoring completely the factors

that led. to this position being taken up in the firstplace. I wished to make this comment, Mr Luster inorder to give you a further opportunity to reflect againon the whole matter. You said at the beginning thatsome colleagues were not there ; well, that after all is

the situation that you have in every committeemeeting. According to the minutes, the Christian-Democratic Group was represented by four membersand that surely must be enough, when you considerthat eleven or twelve Members took part in the finalcommittee meeting at which the matter was decidedupon and adopted.

That, then, is no argument. I am not going to say

anything either about the 25 amendments. I do notintend to go into the reasons that they were tabled. Iwould only point out that by acting in this way we are

not doing Parliament any service. Anyone that cannotattend a meeting should ask one of his colleagues torepresent him there and make the points that he isprevented from making himself at the meeting. Thisdoes not seem to me to have been done in thisinstance, and to come along then and foist the wholething on the directly elected Parliament is completelyridiculous, because the directly elected Parliament willcertainly have other things to occupy its mind in itsearly stages while it is getting established and gettingits work under way. If we do this therefore we will be

only putting the whole matter back even furtherFurthermore, there is a body that we have asked toexamine these technical questions and that seems tous, at any rate, to be particularly well equipped to doso. That is the Economic and Social Committeewhich, after all, is composed of representatives of asso-

ciations, organizations, etc. This body is therefore in a

far better position to deal with these matters than ourParliament here.


Lange

I would therefore ask you every earnestly, Mr Luster,and this of course goes also for Mr Schworer, to foregothese 25 amendments so that the matter can be dealtwith along the lines proposed by Mr Nyborg. All theother legal difficulties you have explained may bevalid from your point of view, but they do not affectthe question of consiitutionality or conformiry withthe Treaties. Ife appeal to Article 155 of the Treaty,and there we rest our case. You feel that there couldbe other difficulties. However, I would only say to youquite frankly that I should not like to leave it to thelawyers to decide under what conditions technicalobstacles to trade are to be removed. This is first andforemost an economic question, which should on noaccount be decided by the legal experts along thelines you have indicated.

President. - I call Mr Schworer.

Mr Schwiirer. - (D) Mr President, ladies andgentlemen, in the course of their speeches Mr Nyborgand Mr Lange have addressed their remarks to me inperson at a number of points. Now, of course, they areperfectly entitled to do so. However, my dear MrNyborg, you yourself personally assured me at the lastcommittee meeting, when the vote was being taken,that there would be no further discussion of this direc-tive, with the result that three colleagues left and werestill away that evening. For that reason Mr Langecould not table the amendments in the Committee onEconomic and Monetary Affairs on that day. So it wasyou yourself that did it, Mr Nyborg ! You told me after-wards that it was a matter of some embarrassment toyou that things had gone in this way. I am only sayingthis now to set the record straight.

'We were left, therefore, with no other option but todeal with the matter in this way. Furthermore MrLange, I should like to point out that it is not myamendment only, but also the amendment of MrMiiller-Hermann, who shares my views, and Mr H. !fl.Miiller. Both these gentlemen are members of thecommittee, both were present and both had to leave,after you assured us that the matter would be putback.

!7e discussed this Commission proposal for one hourat most in the Committee on Economic and MonetaryAffairs. It is true, of course, that we have beendiscussing this matter for years, but there is no differ-ence of opinion about the basic principle that theCommission should be given more power in thematter of implementing the removal of obstacles totrade. I am all for this principle, we are all for it, infact, our entire group is solidly behind it.

The only question in my mind is whether this pro-posal is going to help us to achieve that. That is thereservation I have. I am very sorry, but I must tell youthat I agree with Mr Lange that we, in this Parliament,are snowed under with technical matters. There is no

doubt that we cannot deal with all these matters as effi-ciently as can the experts in the Commission and inother bodies. There can be no doubt whatever of that.I feel that, in the case of this directive, we are dealingwith a document that is not so clear-cut that it can beused as a pilot directive for all other areas. I knowwell, Mr Nyborg, what you are referring to. You knowand other colleagues also know that I come from thebuilding industry. I must tell you, however, that Ipersonally am not affected in any way by this direc-tive. It is perhaps true that I do understand somethingabout approval procedures and about technicalharmonization between various sectors, but I shouldlike to say only that if we are looking upon this direc-tive as a pilot directive, it could equally well be givensome other label, such as, for instance, a directive onthe automobile industry or something like rhat.However, it is intended to serve as the basis for futureprocedure in all areas, and therefore I would not haveopposed it, had it not been labelled 'construction',rather than any other area that was being dealt withhere for the first time and that was intended to serveas the basis for future procedures.

This is why it seems to me to be so important thatthis directive should be carefully considered. If MrNyborg, as rapporteur, says that the European parlia-ment should examine this proposal for a directive verycarefully, since the basic principles laid down are validfor a wide range of products and can only be amendedat a later date with great difficulry, this is precisely thereason why we must go into the matter in greaterdetail, and this is exactly what we would have done,Mr Lange and Mr Nyborg. 'S7e are not accustomed tosimply sweep matters under the carpet in ourcommittee ; we discuss them thoroughly. However,the point at issue here is that this Parliament is nowabout to conclude its work, and all matters that arestill pending must somehow be disposed of quickly. Idoubt very much whether that situation is goodenough in the case of this very important directive orwhether that is what we had intended.

The details of this proposal for a directive were notdiscussed at all and subsequently it was voted on ezbloc. A proposal for a directive containing 15 para-graphs was voted on en bloc at the end of the normalcommittee meeting time, when, as has been pointedout, a number of the committee members had alreadyleft because of Mr Nyborg's assurance. This is why Ihave opposed the proposal for a directive as I havedone. As I said, my entire group and I have no objec-tions whatsoever to the basic idea behind the direc-tive, provided that certain improvements can be intro-duced into it to make the procedure less bureaucraticand less expensive, especially for smaller and medium-sized undertakings, because for them this procedurewould be a strain, if they had to act strictly in accor-dance with its provisions. If something more could be

Sitting of Tuesday, 8 May 1979 4t

Schwiirer

done by way of delimiting precisely the scope and the

field of application of the directive, my group wouldbe prepared to vote unanimously in favour of this

proposal, and our amendments were directed solely

towards achieving this end.

I am convinced, Mr Lange, that if we had discussed

these amendments in committee, you would have

associated yourself with some of them. In fact, you inparticular would have done so, because you are always

the one that says that we should not be setting up

additional bureaucracies and additional arrangements.

In the case of this directive, however, this is precisely

what is being done ; new arrangements are being set

up. Arrangements that have been in force uP to now

aie not to form part of the new procedure, although

they have always done their work adequately uP to the

present. These are the only issues being aimed at inour proposed amendments, and I can go throughthem paragraph by paragraph and explain that' Youadmitted to me that what I have done together withMr M0ller-Hermann and Mr H. !7. Miiller was very

sensible in many cases. If we were to go into the

whole matter in detail, it would probably take us far

outside the boundaries of this discussion.

However, I should like to say only in conclusion thatif this is to be a pilot directive, then it must be

debated with particular thoroughness.

Secondly, the building industry's own internal arrange-

meflts must be given a Part to play, as they have done

up to the present. In fact, this was precisely the deci-

sion we took yesterday when debating another direc-

tive on the advertising industry, and we took this deci-

sion, Mr Lange, in response to a British amendment

tabled by a member from your own group. Lord

Kennet argued that the advertising industry's existinginternal arrangements should be incorporated into the

procedure in question, if advertising were not to

become unfair. However, this is exactly the same

thing that we want to have in regard to the directive

we are discussing ourselves, namely, that these

internal arrangements should be incorporated into the

new technical procedures and should continue to be

used as they have always been used'

One final word ! I am in favour of our giving the

Commission implementing Powers in this matter.

However, these powers should be based on a perfectly

clear understanding in regard to the field of applica-

tion and other matters of this kind, so that we do notfind at a later stage that these technical directives

entail so many legislative functions that the Commis-sion should not be obliged to carry them all out itselfand that all of us probably would not wish the

Commission to have them.

President. - I call Mr NYborg.

Mr Nyborg, ra'pporteur. - (DK) Mr President, Ishall refrain from replying to all the detailed points

raised in Mr Schw6rer's speech but I would like to say

that I find it extremely odd that Mr Schw<irer shouldtry to give me the blame for the fact that he does nothave time to attend the meetings of the committeeand that he leaves them early. Mr Schworer ap-

proached me and asked whether I thought that the

matter would be considered on the day in question

and I told Mr Schworer that I did not think so.

However, I am not the chairman of the committeeand cannot therefore promise Mr Schwdrer anything.It is very fortunate that we have a dynamic chairmanwho, contrary to my expectation, raised the matterand put it to the vote. Furthermore, the committeewas quorate, Mr Schqorer, and into the bargain

included some members of your own group, whojoined in voting for this report. It was adopted unani-mously. Mr Schw6rer, what kind of nonsense is it togive other people the blame for the fact that you didnot have time to attend to your work ?

I hope that Mr Schw6rer will listen to reason and with-draw his 25 amendments - they are irrelevant'

President. - I call Mr Pisani.

Mr Pisani, cbairman of tbe Cornmittee on Economicand hlonetary Affairs. - (F) Mr President, it is Iwho must take responsibility as chairman of theCommittee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. Thismatter has been on the table for several months and,

on my proposal, the committee felt that it should be

treated as a matter of urgency. It is difficult to decide

whether, every time a technical problem emerges

during a particular procedure, Parliament should seize

on it and immerse itself in a detailed analysis whichwill perhaps mean something to a few experts butnothing at all to the majoriry of Members, or whetherParliament should simply consider the question inpolitical terms and ignore the technical asPect at therisk of making mistakes.

Both these attrtudes are unaccePtable. !fle mustn't letourselves be sidetracked by technical asPects butneither can we ignore them and that is why, afterlengthy consultations, we finally proposed the proce-dure which has now been adopted. The idea is that incases where technical aspects don't raise any general

economic or political problems, the procedure can

run its course without interruption. This is how ournational procedures work and Part of every Councilmeeting is devoted to matters which are simplymentioned without being discussed.

The whole committee feels that the attitude which has

been adopted takes account both of the technical and

economic aspects involved and of Parliament's respon-

sibilities.

\7ith regard to the case in point, far from criticizingMr Schwdrer, I should like to apologize to him. It is

regrettable that lack of time and the urgency o( thismatter have prevented us from discussing his amend-


Pisani

ments. I would have preferred us to discuss them incommittee and to analyse the details in greater depth.This simply wasn't possible. But does this mean rhat,as has in effect been suggested, we should throw awaythe opportunity to discuss the matter this week, beforethis Parliament is dissolved ? In my opinion MrKlepsch's request for referral to committee and MrSchwdrer's refusal to withdraw his 25 amendments tothe same thing, i.e. the report would have to bediscussed at another part-session.

However, I think I speak on behalf of the wholecommittee when I say that whatever regrets we mayhave, it is important for Parliament to discuss andadopt the Nyborg report because we must make posi-tive progress in this field. It is precisely these tech-nical obstacles which, while being the least percept-ible to public opinion, are the most insidious andserious obstacles to the construction of Europe, andunless we adopt both a firm political stance and effec-tive proceduies, these obstacles will continue to beinsuperable however committed we are to the Commu-nity.

I7hile apologizing again to Mr Schwdrer I would urgeParliament to adopt the Nyborg report in its presentform.

President. - I call Mr Davignon.

Mr Davignon,,fuIember of the Cornmission. - (F)MrPresident, I have no wish to delay the House but, afterwhat has been said, it is essential for the Commissionto make its position quite clear. Let us first considerwhether a directive of this type is necessary at thepresent time and whether it complicates or simplifiesthe situation. I note from one of the amendmentstabled by Mr Mtiller-Hermann and Mr Schw<irer thatindustry does not feel that the Commission's propo-sals reflect its wishes. Shall we all produce ourevidence ? I can show you the Commission's technicalfile containing records of all the discussions we hadwith industrialists, who suggest the line our proposalsshould take. Obviously, not all undertakings approveour measures but then neither can it be said that theyall oppose them. I would like to make it quite clearthat this is not true.

Mr Schworer said that our proposals would seriouslycomplicate the position of small and medium-sizedundertakings. Should we except an undertaking in anycountry to comply with all the standard, safety andregistration controls in the nine Member Stateswithout knowing what to expect from some of them ?

The complaints we receive from industrialists againstthe various practices in one or another CommunityState reveal the extent of the existing complicationsand bureaucratic difficulties. S7e cannot be accused ofcomplicating the situation because we in fact wish toexercise less control and to do so once not nine times.

Secondly, we must assess whether our proposaldeprives Parliament of its right to exercise controi and

to deliver an opinion. I was astonished to hear thearguments put forward by the opponents of this pro-posal. !7hat we have done is to propose to parliamenta directive based on Article 100 -:- exactly as we havedone in the past in the case of harmonization. It isthis directive on which Parliament is asked to deliveran opinion. The difficult part comes with the draftingof implementing provisions or special directives -the terminology shouldn't be a problem - concernedwith the technical application. It is here that we mustcheck whether the directive retains its force andwhether it is in danger of losing all meaning becausethe implementing provisions will never be used.

In response to a request by Parliament, we haveproposed a procedure based on Article 155 and I toldthe Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairsthat Parliament should naturally have the opportuniryof exercising political control if it was dissatislied withthe way things are being done.

I accept the opinion of the Economic and SocialCommittee which is going to provide Parliament andits committee responsible with the technical informa-tion needed to assess whether the application of thedirective complies with Article 155. Then we shallknow whether we are being bureaucratic and compli-cating the situation or whether, on the pretext ofharmonization, we are creating absolute chaos. 'S7e

have undertaken to report annually on the develop-ment of the situation and to consult the sectorsconcerned.

As Mr Pisani has said, Parliament is not in a positionto devise the technical aspects, even within nationallegislation - there as Mr Lange pointed out, it isconcerned with implementing texts - but it can beinformed about these technical aspects and hencemake a political assessment.

Moreover, should a proposed implementing directivenot receive a favourable opinion from the personsconcerned representatives of industry, socialsectors, users, States - we could quite easily forwardthese negative opinions directly to the responsiblecommittee of Parliament to enable the latter to drawour attention to this situation in the form of oral orwritten questions for example.

Thirdly, I was astonished to suddenly hear theCouncil of Ministers being defended, as if it only hadthree months to take a decision on the technicalasPects.

As everyone here knows, this just is not the case.Before being proposed, the implementing texts arediscussed in detail with industry and with the MemberStates ; the Economic and Social Committee is alsoconsulted. The Council would be consulted on theimplementing provisions if there was a difference ofopinion between the Commission which submits the


Davignon

proposals and the experts who consider them ; it has

to deliver its opinion within three months. These

three months are provided for the Council to make a

political choice, not to re-oPen a technical_debate. Itis unreaso.rable to defend the Council, when for a

long time we have realized that a major part of the

work involved in eliminating technical barriers is

being held up by the Council's failure to act !

Finally, how can the European Communiry progress ifwe create a situation in which no-one decides

anything ? I7hat powers has Parliament if no-one

takes any decisions ? By delegating powers to the

Commission, in accordance with the procedures laid

down in the Treaty, Parliament is in a position to exer-

cise control. And yet the Council is preferred to the

Commission, despite the fact that the Council cannot

be obliged to take a decision and that it can simplyleave things as they are. Is this the way to improve the

situation ?

Obviously, there may be different opinions on ourproposals as far as the specific technical,asPects are

ioncerned. In a sensitive sector such as the buildingindustry, different opinions and proposals may be putforward concerning the technical asPects, but the

important point is to make a beginning.

Could the authors of the amendments not think again

about this matter ? To propose that an authority over

which Parliament has a power of control should be

responsible for implementing these measures surely

dois not involve an infringement of Parliament's

powers ? I honestly thought that by proposing that the

Commission itself should be responsible for applica-

tion and hence subiect to sanction by Parliament, we

were facilitating a genuine democratic debate. I am

beginning to wonder whether the authors of theamendments have properly understood what they are

asking us to amend.

President. - I note that there are no more requests

to speak.

The motion for a resolution - with the amendmentswhich have been tabled to it - will be Put to the votethis afternoon at voting time.


5. Agenda

President. - I inform you that the Committee on

Development and Cooperation does not at Presentintend to make a rePort on the accession of St Lucia

to the Lom6 Convention. Consequently this item is

withdrawn from Thursday's agenda.

6. Urgent debate

President. - I have received from Mr Hamilton, MrBrown, Mr Ellis, Mr Dalyell, Lord Bruce ofDonington, Lord Castle, Mr Fitch, Mr Edwards, LordArdwick, Lady Fisher and Lord Kennet a motion for a

resolution with a request for urgent debate, Pursuantto Rule 14 of the Rules of Procedure, on a single seat

for the executive and parliamentary institutions of theCommunity (Doc. | 64179\.

The reasons supporting the request for urgent debate

are contained in the document itself.

Mr Hamilton has informed me that he is withdrawinghis motion for a resolution on the same subiect (Doc'4179\ which had been referred back to the PoliticalAffairs Committee on 23 April 1979, pursuant to Rule25 of the Rules of Procedure.

I shall consult Parliament on the adoption of urgentprocedure for this motion for a resolution tomolrowmorning.

7. Regulation on Community transit

President. - The next item is the report (Doc.103179) drawn up by Mr Nyborg on behalf of theCommittee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on

the proposals from the Commission of the European

Communities to the Council for

I. a regulation amending Regulation (EEC) No 222177

on Community transit (Doc. 5511781,

II. a regulation laying down the conditions under whicha person may be permitted to make a customs declara-

tion (Doc. 609178).

I call Mr Nyborg.

Mr Nyborg, ra.pPorteur. - (DK) Mr President, as

rapporteur for the Committee on Economic and

Monetary Affairs it is a great pleasure for me onceagain to be able to present a rePort on proposals thatwill promote the smoother functioning of the customsunion.

I naturally agree that if we look at each individualproposal separately they represent a rather limitedstep forward. On the other hand, it can be said thatthe customs union and the internal market are a fieldin which we are continually making progress, albeiton a small scale. Everyone in this House knows thatthe practical implementation of the customs unionand the internal market is a subject of maior concernto the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs.Today, we feel able to say that our Persistent, and

some will perhaps say obstinate, emphasis on thisproblem is beginning to evoke a response.


Nyborg

\(e have a particularly sympathetic partner in theCommission and Commissioner Davignon, and Iwould like on this occasion to say that the Committeeon Economic and Monetary Affairs owes MrDavignon and his staff a considerable debt of grati-tude for their very constructive cooperation. If thiscooperation continues, and I certainly believe it will,practical implementation of the customs union andthe internal market will be one of the fields where thenew directly-elected Parliament will have the greatestscope for playing an active part in introducing effec-tive and non-bureaucratic legislation at Communitylevel.

However, in conversations with businessmen, officials,special interest organizations, etc., I am also dailyreceiving new information showing that in the variouscapitals it has been realized that the situation willbecome impossible if each single member countrysticks to its national traditions. It is precisely thismaintenance of national traditions and the desire toincorporate them in Community legislation that haveprevented us from making further progress than wehave done and that have ensured that, in certain areaswhere Community provisions have been introduced,we have devised solutions that are very difficult forfirms to live with and that make the situation moredifficult than before we joined the common market. Ialso feel able to detect a growing understanding ofthis problem in the Council ; this was at leasr quiteclearly reflected during the German presidency.However, we have not come far enough. The Commu-nity's vitality reveals itself not only in the new tasksthat it takes on but also in whether the very founda-tion of the Communiry is operating effectively and, ifthat is not the case, then the Community will losecredibility.

I will not on this occasion discuss in detail the five-year programme for the implementation of thecustoms union drawn up by the Commission, as wehave not had an opportunity to discuss it incommittee. Personally I find the five-year programmea good thing, as it helps us all to see the Commissionproposals in a broader context and to improve every-one's understanding of why Community rules aienecessary. However, the programme will never be ableto stand in isolation, it musr be followed up each yearand, not least, the Council should be required toreview at fixed intervals what has been achieved atCommunity level so that we can see whether it is suffi-cient to justify the European Community being proudof its efforts. A great deal was achieved in the pastyear and, if the Commission programme (or 1979holds good, very considerable headway will also havebeen made this year.

The long and the short of it is, however, that theMember States in particular must be made to under-

stand that it is essential to introduce commoncustoms legislation that systematically and, on thebasis of a uniform text, covers all customs systems andprocedures. If we do not achieve a common customslaw and common application of this law, there willcontinue to be a basis for mistrust between thenational customs authorities and we will be unable tocreate the conditions that are necessary to enable thenational markets to merge into one unit. The Commis-sion has an important task to perform here, that ofcreating the necessary understanding within thenational customs authorities. I am not over-optimisticabout how quickly this understanding and coopera-tion can be established. I unfortunately have bad expe-rience in this respect from my own country yet Ibelieve it is essential that the Council should, in a waythat the national customs authorities can understand,express its opinion that the practical implementationof the customs union and the internal market are oneof the Community's principal tasks.

The customs union must be implemented as origi-nally intended, not least in the present economic situl-tion. If we are to restore full employment in theCommunity, and this we must, this will be achievednot only by framing specific policies for the variousindnstries, through investment grants, etc., but just asmuch by creating the economic conditions io, a.,internationally competitive industrial sector and, here,the creation of a large home market with greatpurchasing power plays an extremely important andessential role.

President. - I note that there are no more requeststo speak.

The motion for a resolution will be put to the vote asit stands this afternoon at voting time.


8. Iligltts o.f tbe indit,iclual in tbe .facc o.f

data processing

President. - The next item is the report (Doc.109179) drawn up by Mr Bayerl on behalf of the LegalAffairs Committee on

protecting the rights of the individual in the face of tech_nrcal developments rn data processing.

I call Mr Bayerl.

Mr Bayerl, rapportcur. - (D) Mr president, ladiesand gentlemen at its April meeting the Legal AffairsCommittee unanimously adopted this repoit on theprotection of the rights of the individual in the face oftechnical developments in data processing and askedme to give the House an oral explanation of therePort.

If the Community is to function properly, there mustbe not only an exchange of ideas, opinions and infor-


Bayerl

mation, but also an exchange of data, even personal

data. The Economic Community must have at its

disposal a system of smooth and efficient communica-tions and should be a free data zone. After the USA

the Community has the heaviest concentration of data

processing centres, and again after the USA it is the

biggest importer of data in the world. Accordingly, as

telecommunication systems are expanded, this cross-

border data-flow will increase even further. However,

an international trade in data, over which there is no

control, jeopardizes national sovereignties and can

adversely affect the interests of the Community and ofthe Member States. Moreover, this is a technologicaldevelopment that threatens the citizens of the

Community in their private and personal domain and

in the matter of their personal rights. For this reason a

harmonized legislation within the European Commu-nity on data protection is essential and inevitable. It is

one of the fundamental duties and priorities of any

democratic society that is concerned for the freedom

and personal integrity of its citizens. The politiciansmust carefully distinguish between what is technicallypossible and what is legally permissible and block the

use of technological innovations until such time as

they are seen not to be a threat to personal integrity.'W'e are all aware of the uneasy qualms felt by many of

our citizens at the information net woven around

them by public authorities, but indeed also by Privateindustry ; the citizen must often feel as if he had been

turned into a man of glass.

Data protection legislation is intended to make the

citizen once again master of his own affairs rather

than just a number in a system. He must be protected

against becoming iust a mere supplier of informationto be used for any PurPose whatsoever. This is whysome Member States Luxembourg, France,

Denmark and the German Federal Republic - have

enacted their own data protection laws, following theexample of Sweden which introduced an extremely

effective data protection legislation in 1973. The other

Member States are about to adopt legislation of theirown or are working hard on preparations for it. In all

the Member States, however, it has become clear to us

that these national protection laws are not sufficientin themselves to give the citizen effective protection,that they can distort competition between the

Member States and that they can lead to transfers ofdata to countries with less effective data protectionlegislation or even to data havens. These national legis-

laiions, since they are not uniform throughout the

European Community, temPt or force some Member

States to introduce protectionist measures in respect ofcrossborder data-flows. This does not advance the inte-gration of the Community and gives the citizen no

protection, because we all realize that there is no

machinery for controlling data being exported from

one Member State to another. As far as the importa-tion of data into Member States in concerned, there isabsolutely no possibility whatever of exercising effec-

tive control over this.

The Commission and Parliament have therefore been

continuously and insistently pressing ever since 1973

for a harmonized data protection legislation to be

adopted within the Community in the form of a direc-

tive, but unfortunately they have had no success withthe Council. As far back as 1975 Parliament unani-mously backed the view that a Community directiveon individual freedom and data processing was a

matter of urgent necessity, not only to protect thecitizen against misuse, but also to prevent the emer-gence of conflicting national legal provisions. Thisobjective was not achieved. At that time I had pointedout that in almost all Member States we already had

conflicting data protection laws. That is why Parlia-

ment has once again taken the initiative and

submitted this report to you, and I would ask you tovote in favour of the report. Ve did not contentourselves with simply asking the Council for the

umpteenth time to adopt finally a harmonized data

protection legislation within the European Commu-nity ; in a recommendation we also set out detailedproposals as to how we visualized the content of thisdata protection legislation. Given the present legal

position in the Community, any harmonization can

only result in an extremely high level of Protectionfor our citizens. 'We made our recommendations an

integral part of the motion for a resolution. '!7e feel

that harmonization is essential and that it must be

carried out speedily, because otherwise the otherMember States will adopt their own legislations and

because the already existing data protection systems,

such as those in the German Federal Republic,France, Denmark and Luxembourg, will have become

so entrenched that it will be extremely difficult and

expensive to modify and harmonize them.

We felt that the directive on data protection legisla-

tion must be open-ended so that it could be used to

provide solutions over a larger spread of territory,because it is simply essential that the Communityshould see to it that the legislation can be extended inthe Council of Europe or within OECD and that itshould do the preparatory groundwork for such an

extension. Ve have therefore taken account of thisrequirement in our recommendations and in themotion for a resolution.

In making our recommendations we, by which Imean the Legal Affairs Committee, first had to decide

what legal model we wanted to see used in legislatingfor data protection within the Community. You are

aware that there are two models on which the various

legislations are based. The German Federal Republicand the USA rely on a self-regulatory system with a

supervisory body to check on abuses, whereas France

to a great extent and Denmark entirely follow theSwedish model, which provides for compulsory regis-


Bayerl

tration and authorizarion. The Legal AffairsCommittee felt that we should choose this latter forthe Community directive, because it protects ourcitizens more effectively. In the case of a percentageof the data banks, which will not be higher than 20 or30 o/0, it makes it possible to be extremely flexible atthe authorization stage and thus prevent any possibleabuses.

Ve then had to answer the question as to whether,unlike the legislations of other countries, our dataprotection legislation should also cover manuallyprocessed data. \U7e felt that it should and that wecould protect our citizens adequately and effectivelyonly if manual data files were subject to the sameconditions as automatically processed data. Otherwiseit would be far too simple ro abstract the sensitive datafrom the automatic processing system and processthem manually. Furthermore, we were aware that inthe medical field in particular sensitive data are oftenprocessed manually. They require to be given thesame protection. Furthermore, we were unanimous inour opinion that in the interests of competition and ofthe economy, but also in the interests of effectiveprotection, personal data in the public sector shouldbe treated just the same as personal data in the privatesector. '\tr7e then in our recommendations, if I maydraw your attention to this, set out in three differentsections minimum standards that must be observed inan effective data protection legislation. In Chapter Iwe developed and demanded minimum standards fordata banks ; we demanded that both manual andcomputerized data should be subjected to prior regis-tration or authorization. Ve also felt that particularlysensitive data should be treated in a special mannerand that it should be permissible to srore or process itonly with the express consent of the personconcerned or with special legal authorization.

\07e added that the registration and authorizationprocedure must be used only for the designatedpurposes, and in our report we obliged the data banksto inform the persons concerned when their personaldata are first stored. 'We also decided and laid downthat data controllers shall be liable for any damagecaused to a particular person by the misuse of data orby errors in data processing, even where they are notguilty of any negligence, in other words, that materialand non-material damage must be made good, irres-pective of the question of negligence.

!7e feel that if data protection is not to remain a deadletter, we should set out clearly and unequivocally therights of those concerned and see to it that they are ina position to make use of these rights.

There is also an obligation on the part of data protec-tion bodies to see to it that citizens are informed oftheir rights and encouraged to make use of them. As a

matter of public law each citizen should have theright to be informed of the storing of his personaldata and to be able to have them erased or correctedwhere this is appropriate. However, in order to makeit as easy as possible for the citizen to avail himself ofhis rights in this matter, we feel that it should bepossible for him to exercise them completely free ofcharge. There should be no question therefore of anyfees or costs. In the third section - I shall keep myremarks brief, because after all you have the report infront of you - we suggested some instruments thatwe need in order to guarantee the correct implementa-tion of data protection legislation and of the directivein the Member States. \tr7e felt that each Member Stateshould be invited to set up a body - whether this isto be a committee or a data protection ombudsman, asis the case in some countries, can remain an openquestion for the present - that would be inde-pendent in regard to funds and staff and that wouldbe entitled to check on the way in which data protec-tion legislation was functioning.

The Community will have to set up an independentbody, which should, we feel, consist of one representa-tive from each of the national data protection bodiesand an equal number of Members of this Parliament.This body should be independent as regards financingand staff and should be under the chairmanship of a

Member of Parliament. It must undertake an obliga-tion to make an annual report to Parliament, theCouncil and Commission, so that the information andexperience channelled into it from the Member Statescan be brought to bear, where necessary, on the legisla-tion to be enacted.

I should like to avail of this opportuniry, Mr president,to_ thank very sincerely the Secretariat of the LegalAffairs Committee and its staff, who have done trojanwork. It was by no means easy, and it is not often thatParliament can issue such a solid report on such adifficult subiect with such varying legal situations inthe different Member States. tUfle in the committeecould do it only because the Secretariat supported usso valiantly. On behalf of the Legal Affairs Commitreetherefore I should like to thank the Secretariat and itsstaff very sincerely. And I should like to ask you veryearnestly, ladies and gentlemen, to vote in favour ofthe report, so that the Council can finally be invitedto take action at long last on this matter in the formof a directive.

(Altplausc)

President. - I call Mr Holst to speak on behalf ofthe Socialist Group.

Mr Holst.- (DK) Mr President, the Socialist Groupwelcomes this report and we would like to extend ourthanks to Mr Bayerl, without whose continual effortand great knowledge this report would not be what it

Sitting of Tuesday, I May 1979 47

Holst

is. The Socialist Group does not oPPose technologicalprogress but perhaps we do have in mind George

Orwell's '1984' with Big Brother watching over us.

Faced with the fantastically rapid rate of technological

development in the field of information, we have

almost felt ourselves in the position of the sorcerer's

apprentice It is possible to store inconceivably large

amounts of data about individuals and this data can be

combined in a way that serves purPoses that should inno circumstances be accommodated by this technolog-

ical development. We welcome the fact that Mr Bayerl

and the committee have included both manually oPer-

ated and mechanically operated registers. lVe do not

feel that there is a Sreat difference apart from the

speed at which data about the individual can be

located and retrieved.

'S7e have seen that there are member countries in the

Community that have already introduced the neces-

sary legislative safeguards. Our attemPt to achieve

harmonization that, both for the countries that are

working on legislation and for those that have already

adopted legislation, provides for coordination of the

efforts directed towards protection of the rights of the

individual comes therefore - and this was also

stressed by the rapPorteur - at the last minute. \7e

feel it important that this Parliament should acquire a

reputation with the electorate for wanting to do some-

thing that also concerns the individual. The harmoni-zation of chair and tractor seats is perhaps importantfrom the point of view of commercial contacts but the

harmonization of legislation safeguarding the indi-vidual is something to which we attach the greatest

importance in the Socialist Group. 'lJfle are agreed on

the need for a control body to keep abreast of develop-ments and we support the idea that this body shouldbe independent. However, it should be required tosubmit reports and should therefore also consist ofMembers of Parliament so that, on the basis of the

report submitted to Parliament, we have an opPortu-

nity to express Parliament's views. We believe that the

two legal models proposed make it possible for bothparties to carry out harmonization. \7e well appreciate

that where West Germany at Present has legislative

safeguards based on one legal model and, for example,

France and Denmark have legislation based on a

different model, harmonization may be difficult to

achieve. I am entirely convinced, however, that there

will be a great wish in the individual member coun-

tries to achieve this security.

Previously, large quantities of data about individualscould not be dispatched over national borders. This is

possible today thanks to the advance of technology. Itis therefore very important that we should establish

control over who is permitted to send data over

national borders and the kind of data that may be

sent. In my country we have distinguished very clearly

between what we call public and what we call private

data registers. !?'e are a little stricter with the Privatedata registers than with the public registers because

we at all times have an apportunity to monitor thelatter on the basis of specific knowledge of how these

registers operate.

At the same time, we are empowered to lay down very

clear limits specifying our wishes as regards possible

link-ups between these registers.

I welcome the fact that this topic is being discussed at

a time when the voters in the Community are calledupon to elect this Parliament directly. This is some-

thing that the individual voter will feel is of impor-tance to himself, but this also means that harmoniza-

tion must not be proPosed at a lower level of protec-

tion than already exists in the individual country. I am

certain that the citizens of \West Germany, France and

Denmark would feel very uPset about any harmoniza-tion at a lower level of protection than exists at

present. For the Socialist Group the most importantthing is that all the Member States will be includedand we welcome the fact that there is a point of

contact here with the Council of Europe which, withits 2l member countries, has shown great under-standing of the principles underlying the demand forsafeguards for the individual.

I will close by recommending that Parliament unani-mously adopt this report so that people at large can

feel that there is major backing for something otherthan commercial harmonization, for something that is

more important and that may acquire much greater

importance for our future cooperation, namely the

protection of the rights of the individual in the face oftechnological developments in the field of data

processing. u7ith these words in mind I can announcethat the Socialist Group will be voting for this report.

President.- I call Mr Luster to speak on behalf ofthe Christian-Democratic Group (EPP).

Mr Luster.- (D) Mr President, in announcing my

group's endorsement of this report I should like to

convey our warmest thanks to Mr Bayerl. Theoreti-cally the report was drawn up by the Legal Affairs

Committee, but it was in fact produced by thatcommittee's data protection sub-committee, on which,with the support of the highly capable secretariat and

my friend Mr Alber as chairman, Mr Bayerl did an

outstanding job of work. A member's first speech inParliament is called his maiden sPeech ; I do notknow if there is an official term for a member's last

speech in a parliament. But if I am not mistaken, we

have just heard Mr Bayerl's swan song here, and Ishould like to express my regret, even though he

belongs to a political group with which I do notalways see eye to eye, that - as I have said in the past

- he is not held in such high esteem by his friends

as he is in this House, with the result that we may

well not see him here again.


Luster

Mr President, in considering the subject of this reportwe have learnt - and it should be a lesson to us all

- that progress is not an end in itself. For what weare trying to do is to protect ourselves againstprogress; for our starting point was not data protec-tion. It was the valuable possibility of storing almostunlimited data, to create a permanent and universalmemory. This is a tremendous advance, a uniqueopportunity for science and research, a boon formedical diagnosis, for ensuring equal treatment underthe law, for comparative scholarship, and a valuableaid for planning and policy making. But there isanother side to every coin and, as Saint Augustine putit, everything can be loved well or badly. Freedomimplies the freedom to abuse that freedom, and wemust realize that there are snoopers and peeping-tomswho would not hesitate to invade personal and polit-ical privacy. This is where the individual needs protec-tion in his personal and economic circumstances.This is what the report rightly sets out to provide.

Facts are in themselves neutral, but it is true, as MrBayerl said, that computerized data banks could makeof us men of glass. In certain circumstances we couldbe left without even a shirt to cover our modesty; wecould be left without a stitch. That is why individualprivary must be protected as a basic right, why it mustbe protected against prying and snooping; but let usnot become over-secretive instead. The best protectionagainst the improper use of data should be the naturaldecency of a mature society, for the freedom we aretalking about is the freedom for the individual to walkwith his head held high, rather than the freedom tokeep face covered.

Mr Bayerl says that we must restore the citizen's iden-tity, and not allow him to become freely disposable.That is perfectly right. But the concept of identity alsomeans that we cannot force people into oblivion. Iden-tity also implies a history, an opportunity for others tobuild up a picture. Anonymity also involves thedestruction of individuality, an enforced assimilationinto the herd. !7e must not allow ourselves, in ourdesire to protect the individual, to destroy his will tobe an individual. He must be prepared to stand upand be seen, warts and all. !7e have a saying: do rightand fear no man. This idea is worth preserving, andthe complexity of our society sometimes requirestransparency in return. I7e should not take dataprotection too far, although it is important and mygroup does support this report. Research must still bepossible. The fight against crime especially against itsworst form, terrorism, must continue unimpeded.

The economy must not be hampered, and censorshipmust not be introduced on the pretext of data protec-tion.

The resolution embodies no more than an administra-tive solution to technical problems, rather than acomplete, humanitarian answer. It is a stopgap toprotect us in an imperfect world against the abusq of avaluable new technology. This is a good report, butnothing is ever perfect. It goes well beyond the DataProtection Act in the Federal Republic, and we mightperhaps raise a number of poins in the course of lheprocedure for adopting the directive, for example thequestion of whether manual data banks can andshould be regulated in the same way as computerizedones; and the question of which, as the personconcerned may withhold authorization for especiallysensitive data, perhaps calls for rather more sophisti-cated arrangements. The restrictions on cross-borderdata transmission as mentioned in points 13 and 14 ofthe recommendations to the Commission and theCouncil could also be reviewed.

But all in all we have here a most painstaking piece ofwork by Mr Bayerl, Mr Alber and their colleagues. I7ealso have the copious documentation of the hearing. Ishould therefore like to repeat on behalf of the Christi-an-Democratic Group, our thanks for, and endorse-ment of, this report as a whole.


Vice-President

President. - I call Mr Fletcher-Cooke to speak onbehalf of the European Conservative Group.

Mr Fletcher-Cooke. - Mr President, like all thespeakers so far, we in the European ConservativeGroup very much welcome this report and congratu-late Herr Bayerl for the excellence and comprehensive-ness that it displays.

I7hen I first took an interest in this matter, I wasrather concerned that the European EconomicCommunity was, as it were, seizing the field from theCouncil of Europe. On all libertarian matters, mattersconnected with the freedom of the citizenalthough of course the EEC has a great concern forthese matters - the Council of Europe which has itsown court on human rights and its own conventionand its own commission and indeed covers a far widerarea of Europe geographically, would seem to be thenatural parent. However, in this case I am persuadedthat you cannot separate the economic and the liber-tarian aspects, and furthermore, in addition to thatargument, there is the overwhelming need for speed,and it is upon that need that I base my agreementwith the Bayerl repon. The Council of Europe simplycannot operate quickly enough, nor can it enforce itsconclusions strongly enough.


Fletcher-Cooke

Here we have a situation in which already, even since

this matter was mooted to the Legal AffairsCommittee by *y former colleague, Lord Mansfield,

in 1974, in which the tabula rasa which was then

more or less present is now being filled up bit by bitby a patchwork of national legislation, much of italready conflicting at least in the principles upon

which it operates. It is, therefore, essential that we

should have a European directive quickly and

comprehensively on this subject.

The rapporteur mentioned such developments as data

havens, and I agree with him. I think that from the

economic point of view, for the strong computer Euro-

pean industry which he wants, it is essential that we

have speed. I believe that from that point of view it is

essential that we lay down standards. The standards inthe computer industry are very diverse at the momentand work much to the advantage of the Americanindustry, in particular IBM. And it is essential that

European firms, ICL, Siemens etc, get together towork out compulsory and universal European stand-

ards, if our computer industry is to flourish and if we

are not to be swamped by the Americans. Those stand-

ards, IBM, as well as our own domestic industry,

would then have to comply with. I think there is a

good deal of resistance even in the European industryto the acceptance of common standards, but it is essen-

tial that it should be done if the purpose of this excel-

lent report is to be achieved in the economic field.

As Mr Luster has pointed out, there are two aPPar-

ently conflicting ideals of transparency and secrecy

where the freedom of the citizen is concerned. It is

right that the citizen should know what is recorded

against him and should be able to check and correctit, but it is also right that he should have the power to

stop that information getting into the wrong hands.

This can only be done, without the data haven situa-

tion arising, by a directive that is comprehensive and

obligatory and which may, therefore, cut across

national legislation as it already stands. That is some-

thing I do not like and I think a great many of mycolleagues know that I do not like it, but I think inthe case of this new dimension in this new industry itis something we must have.

My only criticism of the report is that it does not deal

- and this is perhaps asking too much because itdeals with most things - with two aspects of the

effect of computers upon society, namely it does notdeal with the facility for computer crime. The activi-ties, and particularly the international activities, of

computer swindlers is growing every day and is almost

impossible to stop on a national basis. That is another

reason why this fight has to be internationalized. Andthe second aspect which I would have liked to have

seen dealt with - although it is touched upon - is

the effect of industrial disputes uPon the subject when

those disputes are by those working computers. At themoment in the United Kingdom, hundreds and thou-sands of citizens are unable to withdraw their savings

from the Post Office and the Savings Bank. Farmers

cannot get the payments they are entitled to under

the common agricultural policy etc. because we are

the slaves of the public computer, and once the publiccomputer stops there is no alternative method bywhich people can get what they have a legal right to.

Now this has not gone very far, but it may get verymuch worse in the future, and I would liked to have

seen at least the dangers of this recognized, even if itwould be too much to exPect the raPPorteur to

produce a solution.

By and large, therefore, I think this is an historic docu-

ment. I congratulate its author. I apologize as a

member of his sub-committee for my Poor atten-dance, but I am delighted that in the long run some-

thing very worthwhile has come out of all these delib-erations.


Mr Davignon, fuIember of the Commission. - (F)MtPresident, firstly I should like to thank Mr Bayerl

most sincerely for the work he has done on our behalfand to assure him that, although he will no longer be

with us when we discuss this matter again, everythingconnected with data processing will remind me of the

Bayerl report. This document contains a detailedexamination of the problem in all its complexity and

I should like to express the Commission's gratitude toMr Bayerl.

The motion for a resolution makes the vital point thatit is better to deal with problems before disputes and

conflicts arise rather than afterwards, as so oftenhappens. !7e are then obliged to reconcile a whole

series of sometimes contradictory elements and this

can be extremely difficult : it would be better toprevent such a situation arising.

Everything connected with the wielding of influenceover our sociefy and with this industrial and electronicrevolution we are now witnessing will be the subject

of major discussions in the next five years. To avoid

the kind of negative response by public opinion to

these changes which has occurred in the nuclear

enerSy sector, we must make an effort to explain what

is going on - and in this connection there is no

difference whatsoever between the economic

consequences and the effects on the rights and free-

doms of our citizens. That is one of our maior tasks

and one in which Parliament will be involved, since

this is a sector which directly concerns each of ourcitizens.

My next point is one about which I wrote on the

Commission's behalf to the President of Parliamentand which concerns the special committee we have

set up to consider these matters in conjunction with


Davignon

experts from the Member States. !fle have commis-sioned a number of special studies to complementand provide a comparison with the technical workwhich has already been prepared and which willcontinue in conjunction with Parliament. Asrequested in the resolution we will be in a position inthe autumn - no doubt firstly in committee andthen in plenary session - to explain how the theoryis to be put into practice. !7e felt it important to findout what progress had been made at the Council ofEurope, not necessarily because we have no intentionof doing anything further ourselves, but because theirwork provides a practical basis and because we neededto know the contents of the international conventionwhich the Ministers of the Council of Europe hadinstructed their officials to prepare. !7e will have thisinformation during May or June at the latest, whichmeans that we will be able to work on this matter inJune and July and then begin an initial considerationwith the responsible committee of Parliament, of theimplementation not only of the resolution but also ofthe documents annexed to it. This will be aimed atestablishing how - and personally I do not thinkthere will be any difficulty in this connection - wecan introduce a number of binding provisions basedon Article 100 and in accordance with simpler proce-dures than the approval of international conventions.!7e shall then have to consider the various types ofproblem so clearly explained in the resolution nowbefore us.

In conclusion I would express my gratitude to MrBayerl, to his subcommittee and to the committeeresponsible for having helped us in our preparatorywork, by assuring Parliament that when it reopens inautumn we shall hold a debate which will no longerbe concerned with principles but with their implemen-tation. \7e will consider how to draft formal proposalswhich are effective and acceptable and which takeaccount of the various aspects mentioned in the resolu-tion and the annex to it.(Applause)


The motion for a resolution will be put to the vote -with the amendment which has been tabled to it -this afternoon at voting time.


9. Cornmunitl supplies of raw materials

President. - The next item is the oral question withdebate (Doc. ll2l79hev) tabled by the Commiuee onEconomic and Monetary Affairs to the Commissionon

Subject: The Communiry's raw material supplies

The Community largely dependent on imports for its rawmaterial supplies; this dependence has direct effects onprices, trade balances and, in general, economic growth.

Having regard to the natural resources o[ the variousMember States, what overall strategy does the Commis-sion intend to pursue in order to make the best possibleuse of the Communiry's natural resources ?

I call Mr Pisani.

Mr Pisani, chairman of the Committee on Economieand .tVonetary Affairs. - (F) On behalf of theCommittee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, Imust emphasize the importance of this debate. Itconcerns the policy which the Community as such,and the individual Member States should adopt withregard to supplies of essential raw materials. I have nointention of calling for complete self-sufficiency, but,given the present international situation, it is impor-tant to investigate ways in which the Communitycould increase its supplies.

I should first like to point out that this matter hasalready been brought before Parliamen! in rwo docu-ments in particular. The first was a report of 7 March1977 drawn up by Mr Herman Schwdrer on behalf ofthe Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. Itstated in particular that the European Parliamentexpected practical proposals from the Commission inorder to promote at European level :

(a) basic and technological research into the recycling ofby-products

(b) the improvement of possibilities of substitution

(c) savings in consumption

(d) longer life of products

(e) the exploration for and rational exploitation of thelimited resources available to the Community andalso seabed resources

(f) the creation of emergency stocks.

More recently, Mr Ansart and Mr Porcu raised thesame question with regard to the smaller-scale butmore urgent problem of the Community's supplies ofiron ore and the way in which the Community's ironresources are managed. In an extremely detailedreport, backed up by statistics, they stated that themanagement of the iron resources in Lorraine and inthe Communiry as a whole was perhaps adequate inthe short-term but that it in no, way reflected theCommunity's fundamental and long-term interests. Inparticular they stated that some pits were so neglectedthat they could not be kept in reserve and subsequentexploitation was impossible.

The Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairsconsidered this matter on the basis of these two docu-ments and instructed me to put the following oralquestion to the Commission.

The Community is largely dependent on imports forits raw material supplies ; this dependence has directeffects on prices, trade balances and, in general,economic growth.

Sining of Tuesday, I May 1979 5r

Pisani

Having regard to the natural resources of the variousMember States, what overall strategy does the Commis-sion intend to pursue in order to make the best

possible use of the Community's natural resources ?

I should like to emphasize the expression 'overall

strategy'. Strategy is the subtle art of economizingsomething which is rare so as to be able to use itwhen necessary. By taking account only of the market

situation, the EEC has been obliged to give special

treatment to areas with the richest natural resources

and to rely on imports for a large proportion of itssupplies or at least, it has run the risk of doing this.

However, for some years now not only have prices

been rising, which is in itself alarming, but they are

doing so because of the undoubted or suspected scar-

city of the basic materials which everyone needs.

\flhy are raw materials growing scarce ? One reason is

undoubtedly the fact that by constantly drawing on

natural resources, we finally exhaust them. A furthersimilar reason is that as the under-developed countries

become industrialized, they acquire a consumer

system which requires more and more materials and

energy. Just imagine the world catastrophy whichwould result if every country adopted the Americanapproach to energy ; world energy resources wouldonly last a few years.

Our answer to this situation was improvisation : each

of the Member States adopted its own position which

took account of is balance of payments, its natural

resources and its political oPtions. Now, however, itwould seem to be essential to adopt a global approach

in two senses. Firstly, we need a Community approach

to the whole problem and secondly we need to adoPt

an approach which takes account of all the variables,

not only those affecting the short-term' In the analysis

of the iituation in the French iron and steel industry

and the European iron and steel industry, was account

really taken, not only of the objective reconversion

costs and the cost of the procedure we used in the

Community compared with the cost of foreign

supplies, but of all the Parameters - non-Productive

expenditure to compensate losses, redundancies,

closure of pits and factories ? Sflas account taken of

the chaos in certain regions, which will one day -and the sooner the better - have to be tackled ? !flas

account taken of the calculations which can be made

of the likely trend in raw material prices on world

markets, and won't we regret one day having closed

mines irreversibly which, although not viable today,

may well have been so to tomorrow ?

These were the aspects taken into account by yourcommittee which, following the two documents Ireferred to iust now, felt that the matter should be

debated. In particular, it wished to give the Commis-sion an opportunity to explain its strategy in this

sector. Commissioner, we have got to know one

another from our meetings here and in the committeeof which I am chairman, and I must say that much ofwhat you say has convinced us. I7e sometimes feel

that the extremely sectoral and, ad hoc apptoachadopted by the Commission, and indeed by theCommunity, does not always correspond to theapproach which you yourself would have wished' !7eare therefore not hear to criticize your attitude but tosee whether, given our problems and the threats to theEuropean economy, we can find a new approach tothese problems and whether the time has come todevise a strategy for raw materials as a whole'

I should like briefly to take an example which is

extremely interesting. The price of oil has increased

and there is every likelihood that it will increase stillfurther. The reasons for this are two-fold. On the one

hand, world demand is increasing because of therequirements of the under-developed countries and onthe other hand, the latest information we have

received shows that it costs ten times more to producea barrel of petrol now than it did ten or fifteen years

ago. Increased demand and greater extraction andexploitation problems lead to higher oil prices.

As far as our current investigations of substituteproducs are concerned, we are still making economiccalculations based on the era when petrol was cheap.

At that time, given the cost involved and the stage oftechnological progress we had reached, we saw nopossibility of using alcohol made from sugar beet, forexample, or biological energy sources or plantresources for combustion or fermentation. Should ourstrategy continue to be based on short-term instantcalculitions of costs and prices ? Shouldn't we antici-pate technological process and trends in world prices

by devising a strategy to replace our existing policywhich, while perhaps relevant few years ago, is nowtotally unsuitable. Apart from this question of global

as opposed to ad boc economic calculations, there is

a further aspect r independence.

I am not saying that we should become self-suffi-cient: it would be madness to do so, and wouldinvolve an intolerable risk which none of us is

prepared to take. However, it is true to say that thereare situations in the history of mankind where every

country survives only by its own resources. !7e affirmthat priority must be given in our overall strategy toreleasing us as far as possible from dependence onforeign supplies of raw materials and energy and

hence to developing a policy which, in addition,would create jobs and have a positive influence on ourbalance of payments. A healthy balance of payments,increased employment and the independence of ourcountries are all at stake.

President. - I call Mr Porcu to speak on behalf ofthe Communist and Allies Group.


Mr Porcu. - (F) It will come as no surprise to mycolleagues to hear that, unlike Mr Pisani, I intend tobe extremely critical. During my speech in Strasbourgon 14 November 1978 I produced irrefutable proof ofthe competitiveness of iron ore from Lorraine. Ishowed that, used within a radius of 100 kilometresfrom its place of extraction, the cost price of this oreis berween 25 and 30 7o lower than that of its compet-itors imported from Sweden, Africa or Latin America.In a reply which suggested some embarrassment,Commissioner Davignon was unable to contradict mystatement, since he merely promised to check thefacts.

The document I have here, which was given to me inBrussels at a meeting of the Committee on Economicand Monetary Affairs and which was annotated byyour secretary, Mr Davignon, in no way disproves mypoint. On the contrary, it confirms overwhelminglythat ore from Lorraine is extremely competitive. Theonly reservation which you expressed concerned thehigher cost price of treating the iron ore. I wouldpoint out to you, Commissioner, that my statementalso took this aspect into account.

In fact you can produce no economic argument tolustify the policy pursued by the iron and steelcompanies in the various countries, by the ECSC, bythe Community bodies and by the governmenrsconcerned. The reason for the neglect of the Lorraineiron-producing regions lies in the strategy devised bythe multinationals and aimed at redevelopment and a

new international division of Iabour : you, MrDavignon, on behalf of the Commission and with theunconditional supporr of the majority of this Parlia-ment, are the most active architect of this strateg.y.

Your plan to dismantle whole sections of the iron andsteel industry, principally in France, cannot be separ-ated from your policy on raw material supplies ofwhich I would like ro quote a few instances. TheGerman-Belgian-Luxembourg company ARBED, wellknown to some of the Members here, has recentlypublished the report of its board of directors. Thereport states that in 1978 the company's factoriesconsumeC I 307 000 tonnes of imported ore, repre-senting 26'4 o/o of its iron consumprion. ln 1976ARBED used 74 000 tonnes of imported ore, and in1977, 469 000 tonnes. During the same period,consumption of ore from French mines decreased.ARBED has also made a massive 20 0/o reduction instaff. \7hile the new links between Germany andLuxembourg naturally produce bigger profits for thecompanies concerned, they are forged at the expenseof French miners and iron and steel workers. Thefactory at Rehon, which belongs to the Belgiancompany Cockerill, should also be mentioned. Thiscompany owns mining concessions in Lorraine andcould therefore obtain its supplies on-the-spot on

favourable terms ; instead it is increasingly usingSwedish ore, which accounts for approximately 45ohof its iron consumption.

You will no doubt object that Swedish ore is currentlycheap, but, Commissioner, you who are so quick tocriticize the trading practices of certain countrieswhich infringe the so-called rules of competition, whydo you sit back and say nothing about the large-scaledumping organized by the Swedish Governmenr inorder to get rid of its vast stocks of ore ? In 1974 atonne of pure iron cost 31.5 dollars in 1977 it fell to21 dollars on the French market, a fall of 32o/o.Thishuge dumping operation does not even help theSwedish miners, since 3 000 have been maderedundant on the pretext that Swedish ore is noteconomically viable. !7hy then does the Commissionturn a blind eye - with the agreement of all thegovernments, including the French Government,which currently occupies the presidency of theCouncil - to these practices which run counter tothe spirit and the letter of the Communiry Treatiesand regulations ?

'What was the other side of this transaction ? Vas it topromote exports of capital goods from the FederalRepublic of Germany to Sweden or rhe resumption by!(est German iron and steel companies of their planto set up a large foundry at Lulea in Sweden ? Ofcourse, Commissioner, you will say to me that ifLorraine ore really is competitive, why on earth don'tthe iron and steel companies use it ? You know why.It is the pursuit of the maximum profit in the shortestpossible time which determines the activities of themultinationals, and the sole purpose of the EuropeanEconomic Community in its present form is to helpsuch companies.

'We are familiar with the disastrous effects of yourplan on the level of employment and on productioncapacity, particularly in the French iron and steelindustry. For apparently technical reasons you are ableto fustify the closure of numerous factories, steel-works and blast furnaces with the wholesale redundan-cies this involves. The present strategy of the Commu-niry iron and steel companies, which used to useLorraine ore, is to substitute imported ore for localiron ore, particularly from Lorraine, over a period ofbetween five and ten years. The Rdchling-Burbachgloup, now fully integrated into the ARBED group,which is a perfect model of the rype of multinationalcompanies so favoured by the Commission, is nowdeveloping its industrial policy on the basis ofsupplies obtained from outside the Community. It isproposing to construct a foundry at Dilling, whichwill no doubt supply rhe steelworks in the Sacilor-Sollac group in France with far more than the 350 000tonnes of liquid iron which it currently purchasesevery year. This explains in particular the closure ofthe sintering and coking plans at Hom6court and


Porcu

Hagondange and the 6 800 redundancies planned bythe Sacilor company.

It is no doubt with a view to transporting importedore as cheaply as possible from the port of arrival tothe German-Luxembourg factories, that Mr Davignonis preparing a plan for the railways, which attacks inparticular the French railway company.

This policy is full of implications for the economicfuture of my country and for the whole of theCommunity. By placing French economic policy inthe context of supranational integration, the FrenchGovernment is developing a strategy which could be

entitled the decline of France. Coal has already been

sacrificed to oil which the capitalist countries used toobtain at a low price. Things have changed since then.By sacrificing the Community's raw material resources

- of which French iron ore constitutes an importantpart - your policy will make the Community ironand steel industry dependent on third countries for itssupplies of raw materials. This is a short-sightedpolicy which sacrifices the future to the present and

the real needs of people and nations to the achieve-

ment of maximum profits for a few monopolies.

The opening up of new profit sources has a detri-mental effect on workers in the Community and onthe workers and the whole population of the deve-

loping countries, which, instead of receiving the aid

vitally needed for genuine economic development, are

reduced to the role of raw material suppliers. So, afterhaving pillaged the Lorraine iron deposits, and particu-larly the richest deposits, the French, Belgian and

German-Luxembourg iron and steel companies are

now prepared to write off the French mines and to goand pillage the rich mining resources in Africa and

Latin America. That is what you socialists and social-

democrats, liberals and conservatives have made ofEurope during the last twenty years. A Europe whichis dominated by multinational capital interestsexploiting vast areas to achieve the maximum profit, aEurope of unemployment and the wholesale destruc-tion of production apparatus, a Europe based on domi-nation and wielded like a collective instrument ofneocolonialist policy aimed at maintaining countrieswhich have freed themselves from the political yoke

of imperialism in a position of economic dependence.

It is against this Malthusian policy that the Frenchiron miners and iron and steel workers are

campaigning. The French Communist Party firmlysupports them by denouncing and combating thecauses and defects of your policy.

As communists we are campaigning for a differentEurope, a Europe of full employment, of economicand social progress and of cooperation which is to themutual advantage of every country. In effect, we are

campaigning against a capitalist Europe and for theconstruction of a Europe of workers based on resPect

for the independence and sovereignty of each of the

member nations. That is what is at stake in the Juneelections. It is to achieve these general objectives thatthe communists are takrng part in the electoralcampaign.

Mr President, may I conclude by expressing my regretat being obliged to make this speech on 8 May. Thirtyfour years ago the people of Europe, including theGerman people, were freed from the bloody rule ofNazism as a result of the Allies' decisive victory overHitler's army. Although the French Government stillrefuses to make 8 May a holiday, demonstrations takeplace in front of all the monuments to the dead tocommemorate tl.re sacrifice of millions of soldiers toliberation and national independence. Last year, in a

moving speech my comrade Marcel Lemoineexpressed the wish that in future 8 May should be set

aside in all the countries of Europe to commemoratethe great victory of freedom. I regret that he was notheeded and I in my turn fervently hope that the newParliament which will result from the vote on l0June, will respect this great day, which remains andwill remain a decisive date in the history of the peoplcof Europe.


Mr Davignon, Mtnbcr o.f tlsc Connistion. - (F)Mr

President, I shall first answer the question, which witlenable me both to deal with a real problem and toregain sufficient calm to answer Mr Porcu. I was

pleased to note that his speech dealt with questionsand answers at the same time and I am also grateful tohim for the gripping information that I am preparinga plan

- secret, of course, and hence Machiavellian

- for the French railways. I was unaware of this, no

doubt because of my well-known absent-mindedness.

To be serious. The fundamental question is whether,given the current situation in Europe, we can make dowith an ad l:oc approach to raw materials supplies orwhether the time has come to consider in depth thepowers of influence we possess and the way theycould be used to help the Community and its citizens.There is clearly total agreement on this point betweenthe statement made by Mr Pisani on behalf of theCommittee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and bythe Commission, which I represent.

'We must then decide how we are going to proceed,since it is true that neither the Member States nor theCommunity has all the necessary know-how to copewith the situation. I would propose that the Commis-sion and Parliament should jointly draw up an inven-tory of the information at our disposal and the infor-mation we need to obtain. I do not think there is any

point in the Commission carrying out one study, Parli-ament another and perhaps the Council a third. !U7e

should try and act together as quickly as possible. TheCommission has already implemented three researchprogrammes on raw materials, the treatment of ore


Davignon

and technology. Of course, failure to take into accountchanges in technology leads to a too narrow analysisof the possibilities with regard to raw materials.

I7e should also assess whether, and how, the energycrisis - exacerbated by the current situation -affects these problems.

!fle should also assess in more concrete and rationalterms the possible outcome of research into 'substi-tute' raw materials. This involves the question of recy-cling, waste products, which must clearly be includedin this issue.

I would therefore support Mr Pisani's proposal : wemust adopt a rapid and practical method of assess-

ment in order to draw our conclusions as soon as

possible.

My second point concerns raw materials, but notthose in the Community, since unfortunately ourresources are not sufficient to make us totally inde-pendent and self-sufficient. In any that was not whatMr Pisani proposed. However, we must make themaximum use of our resources. Beyond that there is

the question of our relations with other countries.This is being discussed by Mr Cheysson in theCouncil of Ministers on the basis of a proposalsubmitted by the Commission, whose aim is not, as

suggested in a traditional caricature, for the industrial-ized countries to pillage the developing countries.Anyone in this Assembly who dares to suggest thatthe Convention of Lom6 does not indicate a changein relations between industrialized and developingcountries is going much further than the developingcountries themselves, but then that is his privilege !

Ve have to assess how, within the Convention, toexplore and develop the raw material resources inthese countries, so that the latter can have access to,and can trade in additional resources. This raises thequestion of investment guarantees, particularly in themining sector, which accords totally with the strategywe referred to and which serves the legitimate, equaland sovereign rights of the parties to the Lom6Convention.

I cannot tell Parliament today what stage we havereached, since Mr Cheysson is not here. \fle will havemore information at the end of May, at the conclusionof the negotiations with the ACP States on the newConvention.

S7e will also know what steps we have made towardscreating additional instruments for this strategy.

However, Mr Pisani knows as well as I do that instru-ments do not make a policy. Although we may havepartial access to this instrument and we may havepersuaded the Member States that it is better to act atCommunity and international level than exclusively atnational level, we must still decide how to use thisinstrument. I think I have clearly answered thecommittee's question and I would point out that I

fully share its concern to get to the bottom of thisproblem.

With regard to your comments, Mr Porcu, I wouldfirst point out something which you seem to haveforgotten.

I am sure it is forgetfulness on your part and not lackof information. This afternoon in Brussels there is ameeting between my staff and the five trade unionsrepresenting the Lorraine miners to analyse and criti-cize a document which is more detailed than the oneyou mentioned and which assesses the competitive-ness of Lorraine iron ore as compared with other ironores. 'S7e must first analyse the facts and then makeuse of them in order to assess the role which iron orefrom Lorraine could play in the general context of thesupply policy to which Mr Pisani referred. It isstrange, Mr Porcu, that you did not mention thisdialogue, which we are beginning in an attempt toimplement a policy which is in everyone's interestand is accepted by the workers who are involved inthe discussions. Secondly, Mr Porcu, why do youaddress to me comments which concern the policypursued by ARBED ? S7hat have I to do withARBED's or Sacilor's policy ? I7hat is the point of thesystematic allusions which one also hears in othermeetings ? I should like a clear explanation, and if itis to be given anywhere it should be here, face to facein the presence of the various speakers.

My third comment concerns the basic situation. lrhyhave we not got a more consistent European policy onsupplies ? The reason is that we have been unable toreach agreement at European level on the implementa-tion of this poliry. I therefore find it extraordinarythat, after accusing Europe of committing every sinand every mistake, you find it scandalous that thesame Europe dares to buy ore in Sweden and does notpursue a policy enabling us to use our own rawmaterials first.

ITho is to take such a decision, if there is no Euro-pean authority ? On the one hand you complain aboutwhat we do and on the other about what we don't do,claiming that any transfer of activity to European levelis in itself contrary to the interests of French workers.You cannot claim that a policy we are trying to imple-ment has been dictated by the multinationals whoseaim is to defend capital interests and disregardworkers' interests, and at the same time forget theconsultations in the advisory committee and the posi-tions adopted on these programmes by trade unionistsfrom countries other than your own.

Are they less representative of workers than theothers ?

To return to practical matters, discussions are beingheld today with a view to assessing the actual competi-tiveness of Lorraine iron ore. Once this is established,the Commission will then seek to determine -though you will not believe it because it does not suit


Davignon

you - how to increase our supplies within thecontext of the policy referred to just now and, giventhe present new circumstances, how to make greater

use of our own raw materials for economic, social and

regional reasons and with Europe's independence inmind. Finally, Mr Procu, you tell me that the Commis-sion always intervenes rapidly to sanction the policyof a country which does not observe the rules but that,in Sweden's case, it does nothing. You should knowthe answer but you have no doubt forgotten it: inorder to unleash anti-dumping measures against a

country, a complaint must be made and the MemberStates are unwilling to give the Commission thepower to table complaints on its own authority against

a third country. $7e can only act if an industrialist or a

Member State submits evidence to us on dumping.This illustrates a further contradiction : you complainabout our failure to act while refusing us the Powersto do so. So, please let us stop indulging in caricaturesand, I beg you, let us not mix up questions of libertyor the events of 8 May in this matter ! That is quite a

different matter and is too serious to be used in pole-mics over a particular problem.

Let me state the situation clearly. Fir. Jy, a detailedstudy of the various types of ore has been carried outfor each region. Secondly, the aim is to make moreuse of Lorraine ore as part of a more consistent ironand steel policy and supply policy within the limits ofthe Community's existing powers. 'We can thereforenot be accused of behaving irresponsibly and offailing to pursue a policy when we are not given themeans to do so. Thirdly, please stoP painting thispicture which presens the obiective of the iron and

steel programme as being to lose iobs, whereas it is infact to remove the uncertainry in this sector. The job

creation programme decided by the Commission last

week is sufficient proof that we genuinely wish toresolve the problems and not simply talk about them.Finally, it is untrue that a large proPortion of thepeople concerned reject this programme. It is also

untrue that the policy has been defined in an arbitraryunilateral manner by the multinationals ; each aspect

of it was in fact defined in the first place by the advi-sory committee, which includes, on an equal basis,

workers' representatives, who approved the proposals

almost unanimously. Caricature has no place inserious discussions !

(Applause)


Mr Pisani, cbairman of tbe Cornmittee on Economicand Monetary Affairs. - (F) Commissioner, since

you alone are certain of still being in office in a few

weeks time, whereas we are sublect to the whims ofthe electorate, I should like to make a request to youon behalf of our successors. Could you submit to thedirectly elected Parliament a document whichprovides an accurate description of the situationfacing the Comn.runity and of the policy it intends topursue, setting out both its strengths and its weak-

nesses ? One of the tasks of the elected Parliament isprecisely to debate objectives and policies in public. Iwould therefore ask you to consult the futureAssembly on the various aspects of the overall strategywhich I outlined iust now on behalf of our committee.

President. - I call Mr Ansquer to speak on behalf ofthe Group of European Progressive Democrats.

Mr Ansquet. - (F) Firstly, I would ask you to

excuse me for not having taken part in this debate.The French railways are to blame : I was stuck formore than two hours in Metz. I am grateful to MrPisani for having introduced the oral question and forhaving done so, I have just been told, with his

customary brilliance.

Mr President, I note Mr Davignon's statements, whichecho the concern we all expressed in the Committeeon Economic and Monetary Affairs. To close thisdebate I should simply like to express the wish thatthe Assembly should adopt the motion for a resolu-tion tabled by the Group of European ProgressiveDemocrats. Taking Lorraine as a basis, we should firstlike to see the implementation of an overall strategyto carry out an inventory of resources, and I wouldjoin Mr Pisani in requesting that a document shouldbe submitted as a basis for the future work of the Euro-pean Assembly in this sector. $7e should then exploreall the methods and encourage the technologicaladvances which might enable better use to be made ofthe Community's natural resources.

That is why, Mr President, ladies and genetlemen, Iwould urge the Assembly to adopt our motion for a

resolution.

President. - The motion for a resolution which has

just been mentioned is accompanied by a request for a

vote without referral to committee. This has beenprinted and distributed under the number 152/79.The vote on the acceptance of the request for a vote

without regard to committee for this motion for a reso-lution will take place tomorrow at the beginning ofthis sitting.


This sitting will now be suspended and will resume at3.00 p. m.

This sitting is suspended.

(The -ritting u'tr-t suspended at 1,20 1t. nt. and resunted3.05 p. m)


IN THE CHAIR: MR COLOMBO

President

President. - The sitting is resumed.

I call Lord Bethell to speak on a point of order.

Lord Bethell. - I am sorry to interrupt the proceed-ings, Mr President, but I wonder whether you havenoticed that there are only some 28 Members of theAssembly here present and the reason for this is thatseveral of them are still queueing for their lunch. Ithas not been possible in the last two hours to obtainlunch anywhere on the premises because the entireTower Building restaurant was booked for a group bythe Liberal Group and in other restaurants Membershave had to queue for half an hour to three-quartersof an hour, in order to obtain refreshment. My ques-tion to you is this, Mr President, will you coriide,extending the lunch period so that we can queue forour lunch for perhaps three-quarters of an hour andthen have it and come back here at 3.30 p.m. ? Or willthe Parliamentary authorities make provision toenable Members of Parliament to obtain refreshmentduring the lunch break because the present situationis really intolerable ?

(Laugbter)

President. - I regret this 'invasion' by the LiberalGroup and I can assure you that we shall see to it thatproblems of this kind are not repeated in the courseof the present part-session.

(Laughter)

I call Mr Spicer.

Mr Spicer. - Mr President, could I say very brieflythat of course we accept that under the current rulesthe Liberal Group has a perfect right to book thewhole of the Tower Building restaurant for lunch. Butit does seem to me that prior consideration should begiven to people who serve this Parliament. By allmeans let us make two or three tables reservable, butfor the whole of the restaurant to be booked out isquite intolerable. I think this point does deserveserious consideration.

President. - Obviously I intended to make a joke. Iwas attempting to make a light-hearted remark whichwould take into account the humorous side of the situ-ation, without in any way wishing to depreciate whathad been said by Lord Bgthell, which is worthy of ourmost profound considerqtion.

10. Transfer of appropriations

President. - The Committee on Budgets hasinformed me that at its meeting of 29 March it gave afavourable opinion on the following transfers of appro-priations for the 1979 linancial year:

- 250 000 EUA for the plutonium recycling in lightwater reactors (Doc. 579178);

- 2212 000 EUA in commitment appropriations and1292000 EUA in payment appropriations for thephysical protection of the JRC establishments (Doc.676/78).

Note is taken of this communication.

ll. Question Time

President. - The next item is Question Time (Doc.142179). !7e begin with questions to the Commission.

Question No l, by Mr Fitch:!7hat is the present level of coal stocks in the Commu-niry ?

Mr Burke, .tVernber of tbe Commission. - producers'

stocks of coal and coke in the European Communitytotalled approximately 57 million tonnes at the end of1978 : that was 5 million tonnes less than at the endof 1977. Subsequently there was a slight improvementin the sales position of the coal-mining industry. !7ehave no complete information about consumers' coalstocks; figures are available only for power-srationoperators and coking-plants. At the end of 1978, thestocks held by power-stations totalled some 38 milliontonnes and those held by coking-plants approximately4 million tonnes. Total coal stocks in the Communityat the end of 1978 were therefore some 100 milliontonnes.

Mr Fitch. - Has the Commissioner any plans forreducing this very high level of coal stocks ? !7ouldhe, for example, consider putting an import quota oncheap coal coming into the Community from SouthAfrica and Poland ?

Mr Burke. - In regard to the latter part of thesupplementary question, the Commission has noplans for the imposition of such obstacles.

In regard to the first part of the supplementary, Iwould agree that the quantities of coal stocks held byproducers give cause for concern. I would point out tothe House that the Commission put a proposal to theCouncil in March 1977 to the effect that the Commu-nity should help to relieve some of the financialburden on undertakings resulting from the high costof pithead stocks by granting aid. The m..suris *er.supported by the European Parliament in September1977 but have not so far been taken up by theCouncil. This has, however, had the effect of obligingnational governments to increase their subsidies to thecoal industry, and consequently the undertakings didnot have to resort to unplanned pit closures in 1977and 1978.

I agree with the honourable Member that somethingmust be done to get rid of some of these very higfistocks. I would point out to the House that the cost ofkeeping these, forms a burden of about 8 to 9 EUA

Sining of Tuesday, I May 1979 57

Burke

per tonne per annum for the 57.4 million tonnes ofstocks held, which works out at about 500 millionunits of account, so I agree that it is a very importantproblem; but we in the Commission have made pro-posals and it is now for the Council and the nationalgovernments to act.

Mr Hamilton. - Does the Commission not feel thatwhen the Community has such large stocks of coal itis a scandal that we should continue to increase ourcoal imports from South Africa and that, given theenormous investments made over the years by theCommunity and paid for by the taxpayer for thepurpose of modernizing our coal mines, it is

disgraceful that those investments should be undercutby cheap South African coal produced by whatamounts to black slave labour ?

Mr Burke. - As I have already explained in reply tothe previous question, this is an area in which, nothaving responsibility personally for the dossier, Iwould rather hesitate to commit the Commission.

Mr Sp6nale. - (DTo what extent will the new provi-sions proposed by the Commission for coking coalapply in the mines of the Aquitaine basin which are a

very long way from the large centres of coal consump-tion, these being mainly in Germany, and are thereany projects for new research in the field of cokingcoal ?

Mr Burke. - In preparation for this question Iarmed myself with a number of statistics about theamounts in question. I am afraid I do not have theparticular details which Mr Sp6nale has asked for, butI shall ask my colleagues to have them forwarded tohim at the earliest possible opportunity.

Mr Brown. - If I may just press the Commissionera little more, his answers are not very satisfactory, if Imay say so. He is being asked whether, in view of thevast amount of coal stocks that we have, it is reaso-

nable to continue to bring in foreign coal, particularlyfrom South Africa. Now do I understand that theCommission has no views on spending vast sums onthe subsidization of huge stocks of coal and at thesame time encouraging the importation of cheap coalin from outside ? Surely that is nonsense. TheCommissioner cannot just sit there and keeprepeating that he has no responsibility ; somebody has

responsibility, and if the Commissioner has not thenwhy is not the man who has responsibiliry here toassume that responsibility ?

(Hear, bear )

Mr Burke. - That is an interesting contribution bythe honourable Member, but he would agree with me,I suggest, that this must be taken up in the overallcontext of our trade relationships. I would draw thehonourable Member's attention and that of the House

to an analogous position in the cheese sector, where,for example, we bring in cheese imports from NewZealand and we continue to do so though certainMember States of our Communiry feel that this is notthe right thinS to do. I think myself that these are

complex questions which are better approached fromthe overall trade position.

Mr van Aerssen. - (D) Do you share the view thatwe can only establish regular trade relations, forinstance with Australia, an important country fromwhich we have to import certain raw materials -ores, uranium etc. - if we permit modest importquotas and open up our market to the Australians to a

small extent ?

Mr Burke. - I think I have answered the honou-rable Member's question implicitly in my reply to theprevious questioner : these are complex trade mattersand we cannot simply solve one without having regardto the total picture.

President. - Question No 2, by Sir Geoffrey deFreitas :

In view of India's strong democratic institutions, itsgeographical position, its high population and the wides-pread use in India of one of our official languages, whatplans has the Commission for establishing an office inNew Dehli even if it necessitates the closure of its officein Bangkok ?

Mr Vredeling, Vice-President of tbe Commission. -(NL) The Commission is grateful to Parliament forthe great interest shown in the establishment of a

Commission delegation in New Dehli.

In response to your question I can only repeat whatthe Commission has already said frequently - in thisParliament and elsewhere - in answer to similar ques-tions and here I must refer to the replies given to thequestions put Ly Mr Mitchell on 12 September 1978,by Mr Patijn on 14 November 1978, by Sir Geoffreyde Freitas himself on 14 November 1978 and againon 14 March 1979.

This question has therefore appeared on the agendaseveral times and I can only repeat what the Commis-sion has always said : the fact of the matter is that inorder to intensify relations between the Communityand the ASEAN countries the Commission continuesto support the retention of a delegation in Bangkok.

As far as the opening of a delegation in New Dehli isconcerned, the Commission sees this as a medium-term priority. The Commission is grateful to Parlia-ment for supporting its project and particularlywelcomes support in the budget debates. In brief, theCommission welcomes Parliament's endeavours toextend the network of delegations.

Mr Brown. - But would the Commissioner notagree that there is a slight difference now from the


Brown

situation obtaining under his previous replies, whichhe has just in fact reiterated ? Given that the Commis-sion has already announced in the negotiatingmandate which it has recently sent to the Councilthat the existing EEC-India Commercial CooperationAgreement should be strengthened by bringing insuch things as science and technology, economic coop-eration and the like, does he not agree that theCommission therefore feels that it will be necessary tohave an office in New Dehli in order to carry out therecommendations they are making in that mandate ?

If not, how can we speak with a forked tongue ? Onthe one hand we are asking to increase the presenceof the Commission in New Dehli, and at the same

time we are anxious to have nobody there to deal withir.

Mr Vredeling. - @L) I can answer these questionsin the affirmative, at least in the medium term.

President. - Question No 3, by Mrs Dahlerup:

Following the reply to l7ritten Question No 750/78 I, itappears that of the 157 political posts (Directors and

Director-Generals, A-1 and A-2) within the EuropeanCommission, two were held by womdn. It further trans-pired that for the 'A'grade as a whole, within the Euro-pean Commission, women held considerably less thanl0 % of total posts.

What positive steps is the Commission taking to rectifythis gross imbalance, which distorts the representative-ness of European institutions and hinders their effective-ness ?

Mr Vredeling, Vice-President of tbe Commission. -(NL)The answer to the written question to which thehonourable Member refers is based on the consider-able progress recorded since 1972 in the Commissionespecially at the level ol A7 and A 6 officials and also

for LA 8, LA 7 and LA 5 officials.

The Commission believes that the small number ofwomen representatives in its senior appointments is

not a result of discrimination but of other causes. Itdoes however consider that an increase in the numberof female employees should be encouraged.

Mrs Dahlerup, - @K) In connection with a

written reply addressed to me on 25 January I mustpoint out to the Commission that it was stated in thisreply that the Commission was trying to satisfy thespecial requirements of female employees by variousmeasures including part-time work and leave onpersonal grounds to look after small children. Doesthe Commission realize that it is in breach of thedirective on equal treatment and does the Commis-sion realize that as long as it applies such tacticalmanoeuvres to keep women out of the higher posi-tions in the Commission this must be interpreted bywomen - and can only be interpreted by anyone -as a clear attempt and wish to hold on to traditionalroles and help to delay a situation where men and

women would have the same influence in public lifeas in the family ?

Mr Vredelin9. - @L) I am able to inform you thatthe Commission has already introduced part-timeworking; this is especially for women who forpersonal reasons, or to bring up their children, find itdifficult to accept a full-time job.

As for the other part of the question, namely whetherwe keep female candidates out of senior posts, I mustsay that that is simply not true ; this is a phenomenonwhich we are familiar with in all our Member States.The number of women applying for senior appoint-ments is much smaller by proportion than thenumber of men. The proportion of female applicantsfor A posts at the Commission is only 20 0/o ; we aretrying to increase that percentage by improving facili-ties, etc. Furthermore there are certain social factors-which the Commission does not necessarily approveof - which play a part, such as the fact that our staffis international and that it is often much more diffi-cult for married women to move to Brussels or otherplaces in the Community than for married men. Butagain I would say this is not an argument in defenceof the existing situation - I would like to forestallany protests from you on that count - but it is a

reality in today's social situation and it must be ourconcern to break down this resistance.

Mrs Dunwoody. - I wonder if' the Commissionerknows that he sounds exactly like all those men whoever thought of any excuse for not employing a

woman ? And is he aware that his own Commissionhas just produced an excellent report saying that whenpeople do not comply with the rules on equal treat-ment they will be taken to the European Court ? Doeshe suggest that this Parliament take the Commissionto the European Court to find out why it is that youare not complying with the rules that you are layingdown for other people ?

Mr Vredeling. - NL) That is not correct, we arecompletely in agreement with the rules which weimpose on ourselves and the Member States but wecannot change the fact that only 22o/o of. the appli-cants for A posts are women. That is an unshakeablefact which is simply the result of the social position ofthe woman in general which we are trying to improvepartly by the directives to which the honourableMember rightly refers ; I have the impression that weshall soon have a further opportunity to make a

number of observations worthy of consideration onthis point.

Mr Sieglerschmidt. - (D) Mr Vredeling, is it reallya fact that ol the 22 % of candidates.for Al and A2posts so many were inadequate that only less than10 7o could be appointed to these posts ? That is myfirst question. The second is if so few women did in


Sieglerschmidt

fact apply for such posts, do you not believe Mr Vred-eling that the Commission would have the means toencourage applications from suitable women from theMember States and to ensure that more women withsuitable qualifications apply to take up such posts so

that a figure of perhaps not 50 o/o, Mr Vredeling, butat least more than this scandalously low figure ofl0 % could be attained ?

(Applause)

Mr Vredeling. - (NL) I can give a very quickanswer to that ; yes, I agree with you entirely. !7e are

trying to balance staff recruitement between the twosexes. This is even one of the objectives of our recruit-ment procedure. Another point : the reasons whythere are so many fewer women applying (or seniorposts than men is to be found in the situation in theMember States themselves. But the objective which isimplied in the question put by the honourableMember is also the Commission's obiective and Iwould not like any misunderstanding to remain onthis point.

Mrs Squarcialupi. - (I) ln the Community institu-tions there are female employees who could, on thebasis of national legislation, enjoy longer maternityleave.

Does the Commission not believe that harmonizationshould start in the institutions themselves, to ensurethat within these institutions there is no discrimina-tion in respect of more progressive legislation in thismatter ?

Mr Vredelin9. - @L) The honourable Members,including the last speaker Mrs Squarcialupi, are antici-pating the debate which we are soon to have on thebasis of the report by Mrs Dunwoody. During thatdebate I shall be able to expand rather more than Ican do during question time on the question of mater-nity leave raised by Mrs Squarcialupi. Although thissubject is related to the present theme I would like togive a more detailed answer in the discussion of MrsDunwoody's report.

Mr McDonald. - Vould the Commission notconsider reserving a certain number of posts in eachgrade, similar to the way the posts were reserved forthe various nationalities immediately after the enlarge-ment of the Community ?

Mr Vredeling. - @L) Perhaps, but in my view thatis not possible under the present Staff Regulations.The issue is what is known as positive discriminationbut it would in my view be going too far to say herethat we will adopt the suggestion of the honourableMember in the Community Staff Regulations. Thequestion of positive discrimination which has arisenin a number of cases is certainly a pertinent one. Butwhether we should go so far as the honourable

Member suggests and reserve a number of posts exclu-sively for women is a matter to which I would not liketo give a reply either one way or the other withouthaving consulted the union and other such persons.

Mr Howell. - IThile I very rarely find myself insympathy with Mrs Dunwoody, I do think that theanswer which she received from the Commission israther inadequate. But could I say that perhaps shecould take heart from the example Britain has set inappointing a woman to the highest political office ?

(llixed rea.crions)

Mr Vredeling. - NL) Although the question was

really addressed to Mrs Dunwoody I believe, I find itat all events quite normal that a democratic voteshould result in a woman being called on to fill a

high post.

(Applause from tbe European Conseroatiae Group)

Mrs Dunwoody.- !flell thank you, Mr President, Ifeel that I should offer to help the Commissioner out.I think that if he has any real problems and if MrsDahlerup and I replace two of his male Commis-sioners, we will soon solve the problem of administra-tion inside the Commission.

(Laugbter)

President. - As you will understand, that does notdepend on Commissioner Vredeling alone ...(Laugbter)

Question No 4, by Mr Seefeld:

In view of the talks the Commission has been havingwith the trade unions of the nine Member States, is theCommission satisfied that the effect of the agreements onoutward processing will be to safeguatd sufliciently theeconomic and employment situation in the textile indus-tries of the EEC ?

Mr Vredeling, Vice-President of the Cornmission. -(NL) T\e Commission considers it of the highestimportance that the 25 bilateral agreements which ithas negotiated in the framework of the new Multifi-bres Arrangement should be strictly enforced. AsMembers will be aware these agreements include a

number of quantitative restrictions which are alsorespected by the countries concerned. These restric-tions were included partly in view of the employmentsituation in the industry. The agreements which theCommunity has concluded with preferential countriesfall outside the framework of the Multifibres Arrange-ment. The present preferential agreements accordunrestricted access to finished products to theCommunity market. Nevertheless, quantitative restric-tions have been agreed for certain textile and clothingproducts with preferential countries in the Mediterra-nean area: quantitative restrictions apply to outwardprocessing goods which are reimported from thosecountries.


Vredeling

The Commission has also made a number of practicalproposals for the implementation of agreements onoutward processing with preferential countries in theMediterranean area.

Although outward processing is not subject to thesame rules in Romania, Yugoslavia, Poland andHungary as in the countries which have acceded tothe Multifibres Arrangement, the restrictions on thesegoods are enforced under national legislation in theindividual Member States including the UnitedKingdom. The Commission intends to make propo-sals for the further regulation of this trade.

Mrs Dunwoody.- Is the Commissioner aware thatthe textile unions have almost unanimously rejectedthe suggestions that were made by the Commission ?

Indeed this particular type of operation is wiping outthousands of iobs in textile industries within theCommunity. S(ould he please do something very posi-tive about it, because if he does not, there is not goingto be a textile industry left ? Frankly, the workers inthese industries have had enough unemployment, andthey are not going to put up with the totallyinadequate suggestions put forward by the Commis-sion.

Mr Vredeling. - NL) Of course the Commissionhas considerable understanding for the employmentsituation in the textile industry as in other industries.But the Commission doubts whether we shouldoperate more far-reaching trade restrictions toimprove the employment situation.

Mr Fletcher-Cooke. - Is the Commissioner aware

that since the Commission started to police the agree-ments, whether bilateral or multilateral, the textileworkers of the United Kingdom, and certainly thoseof my constituency contrary to what MrsDunwoody says - have had a much better deal thanthey have ever had under successive national govern-ments, who failed to given them that protection ? Ishe further aware that there is difficulty about thepolicing of bilateral agreements by the EuropeanCommission ? Could he give some detail as to howthese bilateral agreements between two nations only,are to be policed by the EEC itself, since, of course,the other nations have a direct interest in seeing thebilateral agreements are enforced ?

Mr Vredeling. - @L) As Parliament knows it isalways difficult to answer supplementary questions ifthe Commissioner responsible is not replying. I amunfortunately not able to answer the question of thehonourable Member as to how we have organizedpolicing of these arrangements and to what extentcertain shortcomings still come to light. I shallforward the question put by the honourable Member

to my colleague Mr Haferkamp who is primarilyresponsible for this subject. If appropriate I shallrequest him to give the honourable Member a some-what more satisfactory reply than I can do at present.

Mr Christensen. - (DK) | would like to draw rheCommissioner's attention to a GATT survey whichhas shown that if completely free rein was given toimports of textile goods to S7est Germany this wouldcertainly lead in a few years, in the 1980's, to the lossof 100000 jobs in the textile and clothing industry,while at the same time the fact that the poor countrieswhich are the countries mostly concerned would beable to export more textiles and clothing to the Euro-pean Communities, including !(est Germany, wouldmean that they would consequently be able topurchase goods in '!7est Germany and the conclusionof the investigation showed that this would create90 000 new jobs. This means therefore a difference ofonly l0 000 jobs in the course of a number of years;that is not many in a country such as \fest Germany.Can the Commissioner confirm that this would beso?

Mr Vredeling. - @L) From a macro-economicpoint of view the honourable Member is indeedcorrect, but from a micro-economic point of viewunfortunately not. There is a whole world of diffi-culties between the deed and the dream. The honou-rable Member mentioned the example of the FederalRepublic. He believes that as a result of the increasein trade the employees concerned could be engagedin other sectors of industry. Between the theoreticalcorrectness of this remark and the practical feasibilityof the ideal there is a world of difficulties which wewould have to confront, with common measures and a

common effort including a financial effort. I amthinking here of the need for retraining and of theolder employees who would no longer be capable offollowing a retraining course and who would have tobe retired early. So there would have to be a wholeseries of measures to realize in practice what thehonourable Member has put forward as a theoreticallycorrect conception.

Mr Johnston. - Mr President, both CommissionerVredeling on this question and Commissioner Burkeon the previous question, have taken refuge in the factthat they are not the Commissioners responsible forthe subiect. Now surely this is profoundly unsatisfac-tory. (Cries of 'bear, hear)The Commission is a colleg-iate body, and either the Commissioner responsiblefor the question should be present, or he shouldensure that the Commissioner who is present has allthe answers.

(Applause)

President. - Question No 5, by Lord Kennet :


President

1974 - Europe Plus Thirty

1975 - European Institute of Economic Research andAnalysis

- European Foundation for the Improvement ofLiving and lTorking Conditions

1976 - European University Institute

1977 - Forecasting and Assessment in Science andTechnology

1978 - European Foundation

- European Economic and Social Policy Research

Institute

- European Centre for Documentation on theEnvironment

\7ill the Commission state which oI these proposals are

related to each other, and, if they all come to fruition,how they are to be harmonized ?

Mr Vouel, -fuIember of tbe Cornmission. - (F) Of theinstitutions mentioned by the honourable gentleman,only the European Foundation for the improvementof living and working conditions, in Dublin and theuniversity institute, in Florence, effectively exist. Thefirst is a foundation which finances research work of a

very operational kind whilst the second is a universiryteaching and research establishment. As far as theCommission's 1975 proposal for the creation of a

European Institute of Economic Research andAnalysis is concerned, this was replaced by anotherproposal h 1978 for a European Economic and SocialPolicy Research Institute. This is at present before theCouncil and should in no way overlap on the tasks ofthe t'wo other institutes mentioned and also consti-tutes a response to the various objectives of the'FASTprogramme which is the sequel to the 'Europe plus30' report both from the point of view of the institu-tional formula put forward and the nature of workenvisaged. As for the other rwo initiatives mentioned,the European Foundation and the European Centrefor Documentation on the Environment, only theEuropean Foundation has been the subject of a

Commission proposal : is at present under discussion.Their objectives are based on quite specific needs.

To sum up I would therefore say that the harmoniza-tion of the programmes and work of the instituteswhich I have just mentioned cannot be considered ina general way. As for the Commission, it will ensure

- as it has done hitherto - that the work under-taken or proposed is coordinated or harmonizedwherever that is seen to be necessary.

Lord Kennet. - The House will obviously want toread with some care the very complicated answer

given by the Commissioner. However, its very compli-cation prompts the following supplementary ques-

tion : Does the Commission not sometimes feel thatthese institutions are growing up more because of indi-vidual campaigns in their favour, than because of any

considered plan for semi-autonomous institutionsunder the Commission ? Furthermore will theCommission in the future, draw up a plan which willrelate the work of those that are in existence andexamine what is needed for the future ?

Mr Vouel. - (F) We must make a distinctionbetween research, research programmes and institutes.My reply was perhaps a little complicated. I underlinethat at the present time cnly two of these instituteseffectively exist. These institutes evidently have a

programme of work. Here I would like to insist on thedistinction which must be made between the opera-tion of these institutes, a programme of work, otherinstitutes which are under consideration and theresearch programmes themselves.

Mrs Squarcialupi. - (I) !flhat possible effectivecontacts are there between the Executive and theseCommunity institutions for research to ensure thatthe latter work not on their own account but withinthe context of a Community programme ? I wouldcite the case of the European Foundation for theImprovement of Living and I7orking Conditions. It is

not in fact sufficient that the Commission should be

merely represented on the Administrative Board ofthis or any other institution.

Mr Vouel. - (F)ln every case where an institution is

concerned there is a programme drawn up jointlywith the Commission.

President. - Question No 5, by Lord Bethel:

Is the Commission aware that the cheapest way to flyfrom Copenhagen to London is via New York, that it is

possible to fly from London to New York for the sameprice as to Shannon (Ireland) ? Is it not satisfied that thebilateral agreements on air fares arranged between theGovernments of Member States conflict with the Treatyof Rome ?

Mr Burke, Member of tbe Commission. -

The airtransport tariff structure throughout thc world is

extremely complex. One price cannot be taken as

representative for a particular route. One ought ratherto talk about a price range. These tariff ranges mayyield a high average revenue per passenger, or a lowerone and yet they may still overlap. This is the case inthe examples mentioned by the honourable Member.It is possible to construct such examples by takingtariffs from the lower end of the range where specialconditions exist for routes to and from the UnitedStates of America, and comparing them with normaleconomy tariffs in Europe. The comparison is,

however, unfair, since like is not compared with like.As mentioned in the reply to Oral Question H 3179,

the Commission will communicate a green paper tothe Council and the Parliament in June. This paperwill contain a much more detailed analysis of thesematters than it is possible to give here today.


Burke

As to the second part of the question, the Commis-sion is at present examining the bilateral agreementsbetween Member States, especially with regard to theirtariff clauses, to see if they are incompatible with thecompetition rules of the Treaty of Rome, in particularwith Article 90 which concerns undertakings to whichMember States grant special or exclusive rights. Thisexamination is being carried out as a part of a generalreview of market structure in civil aviation and airtransport policy currently being undertaken by theCommission.

Lord Bethell. - I am very grateful to the Commis-sioner for his assurance that this great problem is nowbeing considered by the Commission and that weshall have the chance to debate it during the next fewweeks. !7ill he not confirm, however, that most sche-duled air fares are in fact decided by these bilateralarrangements between governments and MemberStates ? And does he not feel that this is the mostextraordinary way to decide how fares should be paidby travellers within the Community ? \rhy shouldMember States have the right to decide what oneairline should charge for its fares ? And will he, incommenting further on this conflict with the Treatyof Rome, not venture the opinion that it would be farbetter, in view of the new turn which Europe has

taken in the last few days, to leave the fixing of airfares to free enterprise, to firms that can provide a

decent service between cities of the Member States ata decent cost, so that the traveller in the Communirywill benefit and be able to travel easily from one cityto another within Europe ?

Mr Burke. - I can confirm that the green paper inquestion will be available at approximately the time Imentioned and should therefore provide the basis foran informed discussion between the institutions of theCommunity. Secondly I agree with the honourableMember that air tariffs are formed in the bilateralcontext, largely taken up by the governments fromnegotiations which take place in IATA, which is thebody bringing the airlines together to do this work. Inregard to the question of competition, I will indicateto him that this is being examined and that the objectof this examination will be to bring about suchcompetitive fares as I think the honourable Memberwould desire. I look forward very much to the comple-tion of this paper and to its reception by the organs ofthe Community in the not too distant future.

Mr Seefeld. - (D) Mr Burke, you have explainedthat bilateral agreements are being examined. I wouldask you whether these examinations have alreadybegun ? How long will these examinations last ? Howmuch time have you personally allowed for theseexaminations and are you prepared to affirm to thisHouse once again that a uniform air transport policyautomatically requires a uniform pattern of prices ?

Mr Burke. - I would hesitate to offer any idea as tothe time-scale involved, except to say that we are atpresent engaged in this in the relevant services of theCommission, that we will be publishing a green paperfor discussion and that it is a very complex area whichdoes not exclude Article 84 which reserves a certainright, as the honourable Member knows more thanmany in this area, to the national Member States. Ican assure him that this is being done by the Commis-sion and I would hope that, say by the end of thisyear, this discussion should be much more advancedthan it is at the moment.

Mr McDonald. - Is the Commission in favour ofthe cross-subsidization that the IATA spokesmen sayis responsible for the inordinately high fares thatconsumers have to pay, il you compare them withwhat people like Freddie Laker could do the roundtrips for ? Also, will the Commissioner in his greenpaper come down very firmly on the side of theconsumer, the travelling public who are invariablyforgotten when one talks to IATA people and peoplein the business ?

Mr Burke - I think the honourable Member isasking me to anticipate the results of the discussionwhich is taking place at the moment in the Commis-sion in regard to these matters. It is a fact of life thatcross-subsidization takes place but this is because ofthe very particular conditions on the North Atlanticroute but I am not sure that by eliminating it wewould necessarily improve the situation for the peoplethat Mr McDonald is so interested in. I would ask himto await the outcome of this discussion, which shouldnot take more than another couple of months.

Mr Corrie. - \flould the Commissioner not agreethat the present pay structure is operated on thewrong basis ? !7ould he not agree that the present paystructure should be reversed ? At the moment you paya large fare, with deductions for cheaper fares; shouldit not be a cheap fare, with additions for extras, so thatthe travelling public can get the cheaper fare if theywant ?

Mr Burke. - There are a number of cheap faressuch as the advance purchase APEX type, the'budget'fares and standby fares, but it is not always possible torun an efficient scheduled service solely on the basisof this type of fare. I would allow myself to go just so

far as to say I am in favour of such reductions in faresas will enable viable airlines to continue to serve thepeople of our Community.

Mr Johnston. - Could the Comrhissioner iustconfirm that the green paper to which he made refer-ence was the same green paper which was promisedin response to the own-initiative taken by Mr Kofoed,


Johnston

the former member of the Liberal Group ? TheCommission, as I recall, indicated to the Committeeon Economic and Monetary Affairs in Rome that thiswas their intended response. Is it the same thing weare talking about ?

Mr Burke. - I would confirm to the honourableMember that we are talking about the green paper oncivil aviation which was spoken about at that meeting.

Lord Kennet. - Is the Commission aware that atthe moment the fare per mile - and this iscomparing like with like - the return fare per milefrom London to Brussels.is just 15 times the returnfare per mile from London to the Canaries, and thatfor those of us who are trying to improve relationsbetween Britain and the other Community countries,this is not the best situation ?

Mr Burke. - The situation is approximately thatdescribed by Lord Kennet. It is, of course, due to thefact that one has, on the one hand, a scheduled airlineoffering services at regular times, and on the otherhand, one is using holiday services which are to someextent part of the charter movement taking holiday-makers to the south.

President. - I declare the first part of QuestionTime closed.

I call Mrs Dunwoody on a point of order.

Mrs Dunwoody. - I have waited until the end ofQuestion Time to raise this point of order, because Ido think it is a very important one. It relates to ques-tion 4, which originally had been an oral questionwith debate because the employment and theeconomic situations in the textile industry are veryimportant.

I wonder if we could look at the whole question ofhow these changes take place, because those of uswho wanted it to be fully debated in a proper debatein this Chamber are very concerned at suddenlyseeing the question transformed into an oral questionwithout the original amount of time being given to it.

President. - I can reply to you that there exist othermeans whereby Members can request the holding of a

fuller debate.

However your observation will be inserted in theReport of Proceedings for the present sitting and willbe a stimulus to reflection on the part of the new,elected Parliament.

I call Mr Spicer on a point of order.

Mr Spicer. - Mr President, you will recollect, I amsure, that Mr Johnston did raise the question ofCommissioners with direct responsiblity being avail-

able to answer questions that were in their compe-tence. Could I, in particular, ask you, Mr President, ifyou could request the Commission to ensure thatCommissioner Cheysson is here later this week toanswer Question No 17, which deals with relationswith Rhodesia ? You will recollect, I am certain, thatthere was a telegram supposedly sent on behalf of theCommission by Mr Cheysson, and we have not yetreceived an adequate reply to make quite certain thatthat was sent on behalf of the whole Commission.Could we ensure that Mr Cheysson is here to answerfor a quite disgraceful telegram, Sir ?

President. - Commissioner Cheysson is currently inManila, involved in a meeting of UNCTAD, and I donot think he vrill be able to return in time.

72. Votes

President. - The next item is the vote on motionsfor resolutions on which the debate has closed.

I put to the vote the resolution contained in theNyborg report (Doc. 104/79): Company taxation.

The resolution is adopted. 1

President. - I put to the vote the resolutioncontained in the -A/oD report (Doc. 106/79): Air trfficcontrol.


President. - !7e now come to the Kennet report(Doc. 36/79): Directiae on misleading aduertising.'S7e must first consider the amendments to the text ofthe proposed directive.

On Article 5, second paragraph, point (b), I haveAmendment No I tabled by Mr Delmorte, MrBroeksz and Mr Sieglerschmidt on behalf of theSocialist Group, seeking to reword this point as

follows :

(b) bringing the matter before an administrative authoritywith adequate powers rz tbose countries uhere sucban authoit! already exists.

IThat is the rapporteur's view ?

Lord Kennet, rapporteur. - Mr President, I have noopinion on this. I wish to leave it to the House, but Ithink it is my duty to inform the House that duringthe debate yesterday the point was raised that thisamendment, which has not been discussed inCommittee, could be regarded as discriminatory andthat the Commission gave its opinion that it wasunnecessary. These observations apply to all the firstthree amendments before us, and I have no opinionto give the House on any of those three. Neuiral.

' OJ C 140 of 5. 6. t979.


President. -

I put to vote Amendment No l.Amendment No I is adopted.

On Article 5, third paragraph, first subparagraph, Ihave Amendment No 2, tabled by Mr Delmotte, MrBroeksz and Mr Sieglerschmidt on behalf of the

Socialist Group, seeking to modify the text as follows :

The Courts or llt dlnrnt:lnttit't rtttltorit-1'tn tlnstt'ottntria u'httt .ruclt .tn diltl)orit-J' dlrutdl r.ri/.r ...

I put the amendment to the vote.

Amendment No 2 is adopted.

On Article 5, third paragraph, second subparagraph, Ihave Amendment No 3, tabled by Mr Delmotte, MrBroeksz and Mr Sieglerschmidt on behalf of theSocialist Group, seeking to modify the text as follows :

The Courts or the administrative authority in tlnv ntn'triut u'l.ttrc .ttr[b,tn autboritl' tlrtadl' r.rr.,/1, are

enabled ...



On Article 5, fifth paragraph, I have Amendment No4/rev., tabled by Mr Delmotte, Mr Broeksz and MrSieglerschmidt on behalf of the Socialist Group,seeking to amend the paragraph as follows:

... and procedures shall exist whereby improper exercise

by the authority of its powers or improper failure by theauthority to exercise its powers can be reviewed by the

Courts a, tbe request of tbose inoohted.

Vhat is the rapporteur's view ?

Lord Kennet, rapporleur. -

I advise the House toaccept this amendment.

President. -


Amendment No 4/rev. is adopted.

I put the motion for a resolution as a whole to thevote. The resolution is adopted. I

President. - The next item is the Nyborg rcport

(Doc. 30/79) : Dirccti* ctrt construction prcducts.

I call Mr Schworer.

Mr Schwiirer. -

(D M, President, ladies andgentlemen, as any one who heard the debate thismorning will realize, the Nyborg report would nothave left the committee in its present form if enoughtime had been available for discussion. That is a

consequence of the final week of this European Parlia-ment, where so often the normal rules have had to bebent. I listened very carefully to Mr Davignon's speechconcerning these amendments and I must say that Icompletely agree with his intentions.

The Commission has indicated its disagreement withour amendments to the report as Mr Nyborg

submitted it. Mr Davignon assures us that Parliamentwill continue to play a part in consultations on tech-nical harmonization. This removes the main objectionraised by my friend Mr Luster this morning, namelythat Parliament would be completely excluded.

The second point is that discussions will be heldwithin the Commission in order to eliminate unneces-sary complication and red tape. That was promised bythe Commission this morning, and we thereforeregard our second objection, as expressed in ouramendments, as having been removed. This statementby the Commission changes the situation, and I amtherefore able to withdraw, for m;,self and on behalf ofMr Mtiller-Hermann and Mr Miiller, all our amend-ments.

However, in order to mark my dissatisfaction with thewording of the directive as proposed by Mr Nyborg inhis report, that is to say my disagreement with MrNyborg's amendments, and my desire to see the orig-inal Commission version restored, I shall abstain fromvoting.

President. -

I note that all the amendments to theproposed directive and the motion for a resolutionhave been withdrawn.

I put the motion for a resolution to the vote. The reso-lution is adopted. I

President. -

I put to the vote the resolutioncontained in the N-1'Dorj rcpnrt (Doc. 103/79): Rcgult-tion on Connunrt.l' tran.tit.

The resolution is adopted. t

President. -

rtr7e now come to the resolutioncontained in the Bayrl rcport (Doc. 100/79): RightsoJ thc indiridnal in tbe .facc o.f data f roces:;ing.

I put to the vote the preamble and paragraphs 1 to 6.

The preamble and paragraphs I to 6 are adopted.

On paragraph 7, I have Amendment No l, tabled byMr Pintat on behalf of the Liberal and DemocraticGroup, seeking to delete this paragraph.

Vhat is the rapporteur's view ?

Mr Bayerl, ra.pPorteur.- (D) I recommend reiectionof this amendment. Of course the treatment of legalpersons is one of the most difficult problems in dataprotection legislation. The Legal Affairs Committeerealized this and therefore chose the form of words inthe resolution, namely that it "considered that itmight be necessary". lThether it is will not be decideduntil after a long period of investigation and discus-sion. I therefore ask you to leave this paragraph in.

t OJ C 140 of 5. 6. 1979. I OJ C 1,{() of 5. 6. 1979.


President. - I put the amendment to the vote.

Amendment No I is rejected.

I put paragraph 7 to the vote.

Paragraph 7 is adopted.

I put paragraphs 8 to 17 to the vote.

Paragraphs 8 to 17 are adopted.

I put the motion for a resolution as a whole to thevote.

The resolution is adopted. I

13. Equal pay for men and uotnen

President. - The next item is the report (Doc.98179) drawn up by Mrs Dunwoody on behalf of theCommittee on Social Affairs, Employment and Educa-tion on equal pay for men and women in the Commu-nity Member States.

I note that no-one has requested to speak.

The motion for a resolution will be put to the vote as

it stands tomorrow at voting time.


14. Tripartite Conference - Council of iWinisters ofSocial Affairs on 15 tVay 1979

President. - The next item is the joint debate on:

- the report (Doc. 31179) drawn up by Mr Albers onbehalf of the Committee on Social Affairs, Employ-ment and Education on

the conclusions to be drawn from the Tripartite Confer-ence of 9 November 1978;

- the report (Doc. 147179) drawn up by Mr Alberson behalf of the Committee on Social Affairs,Employment and Education on

the communication from thc Commission to the Councilon the improvement of relations with the social partnersin the context of the Tripartite Conference ;

- the oral question with debate (Doc. l4l/79) to theCommission tabled by Mr Van der Gun on behalfof the Committee on Social Affairs, Employmentand Education:

Subject : Preparations for the meeting of the Council ofMinisters of Social Affairs and Labour on 15

May 1979

For some time now measures in favour of workers inthe iron and steel sector have been under considera-tion in all the Community institutions (Commission,ECSC Consultative Committee, Parliament andCouncil) ; these measures go further than the financialassistance granted pursuant to Article 55 of the ECSCTreaty.

Moreover, at its informal meeting of 9/10 March 1979,the Council invited the Commission to submit a docu-ment for its meeting in May concerning the variousaspects of work-sharing as one way of assuring a betterdistribution of available work.

Since time is getting short and since any delay in theCouncil's decisions on these two series of proposalswould be unacceptable:

- Can the Commission explain what stage has beenreached nos/, one week before the Council'smeeting, in the preparation of these proposals ?

I call Mr Albers.

Mr Albers. - (NL) Mr President, there are no verygreat differences of opinion about the importance tothe European Community of the Tripartite Confer-ence. In general, the political parties agree that theremust be consultation on how economic growth can bestimulated and the employment situation improved.Such consultation is now taking place in the Commu-nity, and is leading Member States to adopt certainmeasures. These are measures intended to raise thelevel of investment, protect existing jobs and createnew ones, and they can vary from one Member Stateto another. It is possible that direct aid to industry willdistort common provisions on competition. If thecommon market is to be maintained, supportmeasures must be compatible with the relevant provi-sions of the EEC Treaty.

Not only is competition influenced by governmentsupport measures like investment premiums and taxconcessions, but the employment situation itself canhave a marked effect on the cost price of productswhere producers have free access to the commonmarket. It is therefore extremely important that theTripartite Conference should not be concerned onlywith the national interests of the Member States, butshould be relevant to the wider interests of the Euro-pean Communiry as a whole. This has been recog-nized by all parties, and it has been on that basis thatthe four previous Tripartite Conferences have beenheld.

It is nevertheless the case that since the first of theseConferences was held in 1975, they have all failed tolive up to expectations and achieve concrete results.This has made it increasingly doubtful whether thereis any point in continuing to hold them underexisting circumstances. There is no doubt thatwhatever national measures have been taken to protectindustries and jobs, unemployment is continuing torise.

It may well be that the unemployment figures forMarch 1979 show an improvement in some MemberStates, but in others the opposite is the case. Theoverall picture is still disappointing. According to thefigures for last year, male unemployment fell by0'5 %, but the number of unemployed women roseby 6'9 o/o. That and the differences in developmentbetween Member States, together with expected demo-tOJ No...


Albers

graphic developments, makes it likely that unemploy-ment will remain a serious problem everywhere in theCommunity for some time to come unless a solutioncan be found in the form of Community measures inthe field of investment policy and fob redistribu$on.

The labour market will have to be carefully consideredin terms of severe discrepancies in supply anddemand in the Member States.

The Committee on Social Affairs, Employment andEducation feels that the Tripartite Conference has a

role to play here. In the report which I had thehonour to draw up after the last Tripartite Conferenceof 9 November 1978, I referred to the specific andlimited options open to the European Community.The policy of the Institutions should be directed atgroups and sectors to which the provisions of theEuropean Social Fund Regulation are applicable. Therelevant instruments must be strengthened. Parlia-ment ha! repeatedly called for increases in fundresources.

Exchanges of young workers and the mobiliry of allworkers must be substantially improved. The actionprogramme for migrant workers must be imple-mented, and a solution must be found to theproblems affecting transfrontier commuters. Theexisting directives on the improvement of the positionof working women must be strengthened and madegenuinely effective. Existing measures to combatyouth unemployment must be improved, with parti-cular attention being paid to vocational trainingincluding retraining where appropriate, and a linkshould be established ber,ween work and education.Projects to find iobs for handicapped people must beextended.

The Committee on Social Affairs, Employment andEducation is aware that only a limited number ofareas and projects can be covered here. But it recog-nizes the need to concentrate on specific possibilities,and would point to the leading role the Commissioncan play by initiating consultation at European levelbetween employers and employees both within andbetween sectors.

It will be important to establish binding Communirycriteria on such matters as the removal of structuralobstacles, the improvement of the legal position ofpart-time workers, and the need to eliminate unfairprictices by employment agencies.

The motion for a resolution calls,in paragraph 9 ior a

reduction in working hours of about 10 0/o over fiveyears; it is suggested that the public authorities,should set an example as the largest employers. Inparagraph 12 it is pointed out that there is a connec-tion between selective investment poliry and job crea-tion, and that damage can be done by shoring upfirms that have no future. Nor should businesses oriobs be protected at the expense of the world's poorest

countries ; every effort must be made to ensure thatdevelopment cooperation leads to improved employ-ment prospects in those countries in accordance withILO standards. In paragraph 15 it is pointed out thatmultinational undertakings will have to be broughtunder effective control if this is to be achieved.

The report concludes that it could be worthwhile forthe Tripartite Conference to continue as a means ofenabling policy programmes to be worked out inmore detail, and as a way of making it possible to getthem implemented. It also gives some suggestions as

to how preparationg for the conference could beimproved.

In this connection, it will be important for the partici-pants to speak on specific proposals; the Conferencemust be conducted in s'uch a way that more specificconclusions can be drawn than hitherto.

A communication from the Commission to theCouncil of 27 Aprrl 1979 contains proposals forimproving the preparations for the Conference in thelight of the suggestions coirtained in paragraph 16 ofthe motion.

The Committee on Social Affairs, Employment andEducation gave its full approval to this communica-tion in a separate report. It points out that in the inter-ests of efficient preparations for the Tripartite Confer-ence, it is essential for commurrications and draft reso-lutions on this Conference to be forwarded for infor-mation in good time to the European Parliament andthe Economic and Social Committee in order toensure democratic control over the Commission.

Here it is in no way intended that Parliament shouldbe allowed to interfere in discussions between theparties at any particular conference. But sooner orlater Parliament will be confronted with specific prop-osals from the Commission based on such discussion.In view of the time required for preparation, it wouldbe unfair if Parliament were not clearly informed as tothe policy it can expect to be pursued. Parliamentmust have the opportunity of being informed atregular intervals and of being allowed to represent thewishes of the electorate. Here it is significant that theCommission's communication to the Council refers tothe positions taken by the European Trades UnionConfederation and the Union of Industries of theEuropean Communities, but makes no mention of theresolutions adopted by the European Parliamentrelating to the need to improve what, in the EuropeanParliament's view, are inadequate preparations for theTripartite Conference. If the failyre to refer to this isto be taken as meaning that the Commission feelsthat Parliament can be disregarded as not being parryto the Conference, then one achievement of thismotion for a resolution will be to point out that this isunacceptable and could lead to difficulties betweenthe European Parliament and the Commission.


Albers

The Committee on Social Affairs, Employment andEducation adopted both motions for resolutions unani-mously with one abstention. If Parliament now adoptsthem in plenary sitting, it can be expected that theCouncil of Ministers of Social Affairs will quicklyadopt the Commission's proposals at its forthcomingmeeting on 15 May. It would be appreciated if theMember of the Commission could indicate what theCommission's expectations are here.

IN THE CHAIR: MR ADAMS

Vice-President

President. - I call Mr van der Gun.

Mr van der Gun, cbairman of tbe Commitiee onSocial Affairs, Employnent and Education. - (NL)Mr President" I wish only to make a few brief remarksand should like to begin by thanking Mr Albers forthe outstanding way in which, as always, he has intro-duced and defended the position of the committee. Ishall come back to that shortly. Before I do I shouldlike to make a brief introductory statement on thequestion tabled by the committee on job redistribu-tion and the social aspects of certain activities, relatingin particular to the steel sector, on which the requestfor a vote without referral to committee was made thismorning.

The Committee on Social Affairs, Employment andEducation is concerned that a large number of busi-nesses and sectors are experiencing considerable diffi-culties, and will continue to do so, and that althoughplans do exist for an economic approach to jobsharing, there is a danger that social needs will tend tobe overlooked. This was one of the things that led thecommittee, and the Christian Democrats in particular,to propose two weeks ago in Strasbourg that theextent to which we should cooperate in restructuringin certain sectors should depend on the extent towhich the social aspects are taken into account. At thetime I quoted Mr Davignon as having repeatedly saidin public that the two aspects are inextricably boundup with each other. But we rather get the impressionfrom the press that there are still some differences ofopinion about this in the Commission. \7e find this a

cause for some anxiety, and discussed it at a meetingon 30 April this year. STe came to the conclusion thatneither the Commission nor the Council can afford topostpone a decision for much longer.

The Commission has been as good as its word and forthat I thank it. Iflithout giving anyone else less thantheir due, I think most of the credit must go to MrVredeling for getting the Commission to adopt thegreater part of his views as its position. I should pointout that we still depend on the press for what informa-tion we have, and that Parliament has still to be

informed of precisely what was decided in theCommission. \7e would therefore ask Mr Vredeling tobring us up to date and tell us what the Commissionhas decided. !7e naturally feel that the Councilcannot afford to put this off for much longer either.I7e have been debating this matter for a fair numberof months already, and it affects many thousands ofpeople. 'We are naturally concerned that the Councilshould reach a decision as soon as possible.

I turn now to the Tripartite Conference. I don't reallyneed to add anything to what Mr Albers said onbehalf of the committee. The approach which hasnow been put forward by the Commission shouldcreate the possibility - I put it no more strongly thanthat, because I have become a little bit sceptical aboutthe Tripartite Conference over the years - that itmight achieve something more in practice than it hasdone hitherto. I was glad to see from its proposals thatthe Commission has improved its position on this. Italso looks as if it will be possible to submit specificproposals, that these proposals will be debated, andthat we will not, as we did in the past, simply moveon to the next item on the agenda, but will actually beable to take decisions. The Commission would thenbe given the task of carrying out those decisions. Inshort there will be some kind of follow-up to theTripartite Conference, something that has been all toolacking in the past, even if the items proposed for thediscussion by the Commission were interesting andworthwhile in themselves.

But that was as far as it went ; there was any numberof statements and speeches, but they were alwaysimmediately followed by the next item on the agenda.

I agree with Mr Albers that hardly anything is said inthis connection about sectoral policy. I do not think itcan be the Commission's intention to neglect this.However important high level discussion in a macro-economic context - as it so grandly says - may be,the plans themselves must in general be implementedsector by sector. I therefore agree with Mr Albers andwith the committee that we might well have expectedthe Commission's proposals for the Tripartite Confer-ence to have contained some consideration of theimportance of sectoral policy in its own right. I wouldtherefore ask Mr Yredeling to explain why thiselement is missing. I hope and expect that the socialpartners will be prepared to accept their responsibili-ties, because to be honest, the Commission can set upas many structures as it likes, but if the social partnersdo not show willingness to cooperate they might as

well not bother. I am glad therefore that the Commis-sion has not simply cqme forward with proposals ofits own, but has consulted the employers' andemployees' organizations before doing so. In our viewthis justifies the hope that the proposals will lead to a

more constructive approach this time than, unfortu-nately, they have tended to do in the past.


President. - I call Mr Vredeling.

Mr Vredeling, Vice-President of tbe Contmissiotl(NL) Mr President, I am grateful to Parliament bothfor allowing the two reports by Mr Albers to be placedon the agenda and for allowing Mr van der Gun totable a searching and specific question to the Commis-sion, thus enabling a debate to be held on the deci-sions the Commission took last week. Since we havethree items which were taken more or less coinciden-tally at the same meeting of the Commission andforwarded to the Council I will, at Mr van der Gun'srequest, indicate what the Commission decided toforward to the Council and what it decided to forwardto Parliament and what exactly is involved. I believethat, at least since I have been a Member of theCommission, this is the first time it has happendedthat three extremely important social policy decisionshave been taken at the same meeting, and that on theeve of direct elections. I shall come back to that later.The three items are job-redistribution, which has

already been discussed several times in this Parlia-ment, social policy in relation to restructuring in thesteel sector, and the procedure for the TripartiteConference.

I will, if I may, deal with iob-redistribution first. Thedocument contains an initial position of the Commis-sion on an extremely topical question. This is a ques-tion which is being considered in all the MemberStates it is one of the most important items on ourpolitical platform today, and it directly affects thewhole population. The Commission has now adopteda position of its own for the first time, having set up a

study at Community level on this matter about a yearago. You may well ask why we did this. The reason isthat in all Member States without exception the ques-tion of reducing working hours is an extremely topicaland controversial one, and quite liable to lead to socialconflicts.

Social conflicts have often been caused by efforts toreduce working hours in one way or another. Thetrade unions have had their successes and theirfailures. It is nevertheless clear that this is the direc-tion in which things are going. The issue is stilltopical. \7e know that it will again be on the agendaat the next negotiations. This has been said repeatedly,and we know it will be the case. '!?'e are thereforeconfronted with the problem at Community level.

This is happening at a time of continuing high unem-ployment with six million registered as unemployedand we can predict with demographic accuracy thatby 1985 an extra 800 000 people will be coming ontothe labour market, every year a large proportion ofthem young people and women, in a situation whereit is highly unlikely that there will be sufficienteconomic growth to relieve unemployment signifi-cantly.

If we look at the figures producd by the Commission'seconomic services we see that the estimates foreconomic growth in the coming years lie at around 3to 3tlz o/o, but if we hope to achieve full employmentby something like the mid-8Os then, allowing for thevarious demographic factors and social changes thatare causing more women to look for jobs, we willneed to have economic growth of at least 4.5 0/o.

This discrepancy between expected economic growthand necessary economic growth is a basic concern,and is what has led us to raise the matter of job-sharing.

It is certain - though I do not want go to go intothis in detail just now - that the economic problemsof this Communiry must be tackled jointly, and wemust not fail to deal with the social aspects ofeconomic growth and econmic policy.

This should be treated as an integral part of economicpolicy. But we must bear in mind that while there arevarious groups in our sociery who must be protected,this must not be allowed to lead to stagnation of ourstructures. The recovery of economic growth must notmean the return of inflation. We are aware that wemust work with limited supplies of a number ofprimary products, and must also cope with the enor-mous problems of the pollution of our environment.

These are all problems we must take into account intrying to restore full employment but we must useeconomic growth to do so in a more sensitive waythan in the past. Here we must consider whethercomplementary measures will be necessary, in parti-cular in the social field, if full employment is to beachieved. The Commission has come to the conclu-sion that there is an inescapable need to use the instru-ment of job-redistribution, but not as the principlemeans of achieving full employment, because it willnot bring about full employment on its own. !7e shallhave to use the mechanisms of economic and tradepolicy, indeed we shall have to use all the social andeconomic policy mechanisms that are available to us,but even so there will obviously be a gap that cannotbe filled using these means alone, and iob-redistribu-tion will therefore also be a necessary mechanism ifwe are to have full employment by the mid 80s -even before if we are prepared to make an extra effort.

\7e must also recognize the uncertainty thatsurrounds our attempts to predict the results of job-redistribution. !7e are faced with the difficulty thatwhen we are asked to. state precisely what the resultswill be if, for example, we reduce working hours perweek, or give longer holidays, or encourage people toretire early, we still cannot predict them .accurately.!7e simply know in a general way that job-redistribu-tion is one mechanism we must promote in order toimprove the employment situation.


Vredeling

If is important to remember that the idea of reducingworking hours is by no means a new one. The way itis discussed in some countries, you sometimes get theimpression that it is something completely new. Thefact is that the process of reducing working hours has

been going on since the last century. You need onlythink of the introduction of the eight-hour day, or thefive-day week. And developments over recent years

indicate that on average there has been a reduction inworking hours of between tlz and I 0/o and it is

extremely important that we should try to do itmethodically

- is to reduce working hours as a

means of improving the employment situation, and todo so at a time when our economic growth is muchslacker than it has been for a fairly long time.

Trying to do that means that there will be less scopefor improving working conditions in general. lVe

must be quite clear about that. Reduced workinghours will mean that it will be more difficult toimprove social conditions in other respects. In thepast we sought to reduce working hours primarily as a

means of leaving people more leisure time. That is

still an important objective in itself, but the mainobiective now must be to create a mechanism forachieving a fair distribution of available lobs. If redistri-bution is to bring about the results we are seeking,then we will have to accept that some of theeconomic leeway that is available for social objectiveswill have to be taken up with shortening workinghours or some other form of job-redistribution. Icannot say often enough that this means that iob-redistribution will be competing with claims forhigher real wages. So it is clear that workers andworkers' organizations that are faced with the choicewill be more willing to accept an alternative thatforms part of an overall policy directed towards socialimprovements and a more democratic ordering ofsociety as a whole.

In these circumstances the Community must take theinitiative and ensure that there is a coordinatedapproach ; without coordination, the conditions ofcompetition will be distorted. \flhat could happen is

that one country will opt for a 35-hour week, anotherfor longer holidays, while yet another will settle forearly retirement. This is hardly the right approach.But in practice it now looks very much as if this ishow things are going in the different Member States,

and even within certain Member States. If matters are

allowed to proceed in this uncoordinated way, youwill get a leap-frogging effect. People who have gotthe 35-hour week will start asking for the longer holi-days that have been secured in other sectors or inother countries. Those who have been given longerholidays will start putting in claims for early retire-ment, and the whole thing will soon get out of hand.Too much will be demanded of the economy. Youwill end up in a worse situation than you started outfrom. The only answer therefore is a coordinated

approach. I thinl the Council of Ministers is graduallycoming round to this view. At the beginning of Marchwe held an informal discussion in the Council ofMinisters of Enrployment and Social Affairs fromwhich it emergecL quite clearly that the Ministers wereaware of the nted to coordinate and channel theaction that is bcing taken in the different MemberStates and in different sectors.

The European Council also gave considerable thoughtto this problem in March when it considered socialproblems for th: first time. The Commission wasinvited to this meeting and asked to draw up propo-sals and submit rhem to the Council.

Our document concentrates on the role of theCommunity. '!7e agree that the social partners in allcountries should have negotiating autonomy, on job-redistribution as ()n everything else, but I don't thinkthat excludes action at European level. Here I wouldagain like to stress, as Mr Albers has just done, that itis extremely imp()rtant for there to be direct contactsbetween the soci rl partners at European level. Thathas certainly not happened as often as it should havein the past, and tt e Commission is certainly very keento bring such contacts about and to get better results.Mr van der Gun z lso referred to the need for contactsat sectoral level b(tween the social partners; I agree. Ifwe are talking about the policies being pursued indifferent sectors such as the steel sector - which Ishall have more to say about later

- we cannot

expect to get results unless the social partners areorganized at European level. This is a matter whichthe Commission is giving its full attention to, andwhich we want to encourage as much as possible.'Westill of course depend on the good will of the socialpartners, the work,:rs and ernployers, to make contactsat European leve and to organize the negotiatingstructure.

If we organize th,: discussions at European level wemight well ask what responsibilities should be takenover from the natirlnal level. I think this will be inevi-table both for the ;ocial partners and for the organiza-tions which have already got together at Europeanlevel. \7e must of course respect the autonomy of thesocial partners, but we are already seeing signs thatthis is the way thirgs are going. I am thinking here ofthe trade union nrovements, in particular the forth-coming meeting of the European Trades UnionConfederation in lvlunich, which will again discuss thetransfer of responribility from national to Europeanlevel, but this is a process that cannot stop there; thetrade unions must follow it up, and the employersmust set up a neg('tiating structure at European level.The same problem crops up in relations between theCommunity institutions and the Member States, butthq autonomy of tt e social partners must not be usedas an excuse for doing nothing. Each party must workon its own ground and on its own responsibility, andthat means that it will be up to the Community to


Vredeling

take the initiative by giving an impetus to discussionson the subject of redistribution of available jobs. \Ufle

must work out a minimum set of ioint procedures thatwill give an impetus to the social partners and helpthem in their dialogue with each other and inreaching the agreements that must be secured at Euro-pean level, and at the same time the legal basis be

fixed for the dialogue between the Community institu-tions - that is the Commission and the Council -and the social partners.

The social partners must be given the opportunity tohold certain discussions at European level; here use

can be made - you will find this in the document -of certain global framework agreements at Europeanlevel, such as those between the European Trades

Union Confederation and UNICE, which can later be

worked out in greater detail for each Member State.

If framework agreements of this kind are to be

reached, it is clear that the social partners will have toimprove their organization at European level so thatthey are capable of holding these kinds of negotia-tions and reaching this kind of agreement, because

that is the only way that basic proposals can be

fleshed out. This is precisely the proposal we have putto the Council for the improvement of the procedurefor the Tripartite Conference.

The governments should also be involved in theseconsultations so that they can observe the results ofdiscussions at European level at first hand and act onthem, in some cases providing the legal instrumentsfor implementation. The Commission would point inparticular to the process of reaching framework agree-

ments which was noted at the informal meeting of theCouncil of Ministers in connection with the reductionof the systematic use of overtime for example. MrAlbers called it structural use of overtime, but itamounts to the same thing. And why is this so impor-tant ? I believe that we must ensure that our efforts toreduce working hours are not cancelled out by over-time. The European Council was aware of thisproblem. In the conclusions of the meeting of theEuropean Council you will find a clear reference tothe importance of overtime in connection with job-redistribution in general and reduced working hours,and this has been taken up by the Commission. 'lUfle

shall certainly come up with proposals about this afterour document has been discussed. In the frameworkdirective it could for instance be laid down that a

maximum number of hours of overtime must be fixedin relation to total working hours by stipulating thatthe longer the number of normal working hours laiddown in collective work agreements, the shorter themaximum amount of overtime allowed. Any hoursworked over the maximum should be compensatedfor with extra leave. Other Community initiativesmight include a reduction in the length of time

worked annually by increasing leave or reducingworking hours. !flhere the reduction of annualworking time is concerned, the trade unions andemployers will be confronted with the need to make a

choice. You cannot have long holidays, and a shorterworking day, and Friday afternoon off, or what have

you. A clear choice will have to be made.

Shift working is another form of iob-redistribution.You could introduce a fifth shift in jobs that areworked in four non-stop shifts now. It can also bedone in another way. The Federal Republic ofGermany has been extending the operation of its'Freischichten' system. This is a modified version ofthe four-shift system, which gives workers more freetime.

In general the Commission feels that the shift workmust be organized by sector. It depends on the natureof the work. It could be expected to apply more espe-cially to dangerous and heavy work.

Another method is early retirement. This would meangradually reducing pensionable age. This would be a

way of reducing total working time, and should be ofinterest to older workers who are now approachingretirement. It is a method which I personally thinkhighly of because of the desireable social implications.It would of course have to be a matter of free choice,but I think it is a very important aspect of iob-redistribution.

Other methods could include longer periods of educa-tion and occupational training, the introduction ofarrangements such as sabbatical years or alternatingwork and training on the lines of the French systemof. fornation eil c:tlternctnce.

I should like to say a few words about the spread ofpart-time work. This was already brought up at Ques-tion Time. It must be organized on a voluntary basis

and above all in a non-discriminatory way. It is unac-ceptable (or women to be employed disproportio-nately in part-time work, and in the lowest paid jobs

at that. This must be seen as an abuse of part-timeworking.

Agency work also has to be mentioned. This shouldbe cut back to reasonable levels. Effective controlsneed to be brought in here, because the agencies are

still tending to cream off the top of the labour market.Some undertakings are making structural use ofemployment bureaux. They rely almost entirely ontemporary workers who can be shown the door as

soon as business drops off slightly. The workers areleft at a loose end at a cost to the Community andwithout any cost in social security contributions to theemployer. This is one negative aspect of the agencysystem. It does nothing to improve the employmentsituation, and I think we could do well to discuss thismatter and that the situation could be improved bydecisions taken at European level.


Vredeling

I should like now, Mr President, to say a few wordsabout the cost of job-redistribution. You will find thatour document deals with this in some detail. All Iwant to say is this. Of course the costs of job-sharingwill be extremely high. \07e must be very careful notto create distortions in relations between the MemberStates and not to price ourselves out of the market inrelation to the rest of the world, especially the rest ofthe industrialized world. But full attention is beingpaid to the economic aspects in discussions in theMember States. Before a definite assessment of theeconomic and social importance of the measures to betaken can be made, we must get a view of theproblems of job-redistribution as a whole. The effecton society as a whole must be considered, because

there is more to it than the economic aspects or themicro-economic aspects in a particular undertaking orsector; the reduction of working hours and redistribu-tion of jobs in general could help to improve workingconditions; it will give those who are out of work nowa better chance, and it is thus a question of creatingequal opportunities for all, which in turn will help tobring about more agreement between the social part-ners and with the governnlents. This could alsoimprove Community'solidarity. I would have thoughtthat in the present difficult economic and social situa-tion in the Community, and particularly in view ofthe rather poor economic prospects, more considera-tion should be given to creating a stronger climate ofsolidarity as opposed to purely economic considera-tions alone.

A final word about procedure as envisaged by theCommission. The debate in Parliament will befollowed by a further discussion in the Council nextweek at the meeting of the Ministers of Employmentand Social Affairs. The documents we have forwardedto the Council will be discussed at that meeting. Onthe basis of that discussion the Commission will thendraw up a concise policy document which it willforward to the European Council, at that body'srequest, which is due to meet on 22 June. rUTe hopethat the European Council's decision will enable us totake our work a stage further. rUTe should then go onto work out the specific action to be taken at Commu-nity level in close cooperation with the StandingCommittee on Employment. If all goes well weshould be ready to discuss this in the autumn.

So much for job-redistribution. I turn now to the docu-ment on the social problems of restructuring in thesteel sector. I would recall that we produced the preli-minary working document on this last summer andforwarded it to the Advisory opinion. That has beensent to you. lve concentrated on restructuring in thesteel industry and on associated measures. This was

done in conformity with the opinion of the EuropeanParliament. I would recall the resolution that Parlia-ment adopted on the basis of the report by MrLaurain. You are of course familiar with Article 55 of

the ECSC Treat',. So far we have used that article as abasis. Conventio ral social security provisions are natur-ally still very va uable. Here I am thinking of unem-ployment ben:fits, retraining and re-locationpayments housirg subsidies, etc. These kinds of socialsecurity measure; can still be usefull. But we also needa number of ntw arrangements for restructuring inthis sector. Her I would mention, for instance, themodern variatic ns on conventional arrangementsknown in Luxernbourg and Belgium as the diuisionctnti-crirc or allulc d'emploi. These seem to beachieving good results in their own right and I knowthat this is also being discussed in France. The waythis works is th rt workers who would ordinarily bemade redundant by restructuring in the steel industryare organized in pools and found jobs in other sectorsand firms on a temporary basis with guaranteed wages.This is a highly r:ommendable form of social measurewhich we would do well to consider. At the sametime, it should n,tt be treated as a kind of parking lotfor the unemploved. We must enable people to carryout useful work n the general interest or in specificprojects. We car also reallocate workers threatenedwith unemploym,lnt in the steel industry by means oftemporary retrain ng. If they are found lower paid jobswe can pay them income supplements, a system thathas been applied to mine closures in the past.Measures of this kind can also be taken into considera-tion, and in principle they qualify for support fromthe ECSC budget But aid payable under Article 55 isinsufficient for tt e simple reason that there are newforms of aid whi< h the Member States can make useof and which are not provided for under Article 55,and because there are limits to how far we can go withrestructuring ; we can accept some measures, but mustreject others that do not fall within the terms ofrestructuring under the Davignon plan. \Ve haveopted for restructrrring, because we feel it can lead toeconomically and socially responsible rationalizationand modernizatiorr, with the possibility of complete orpartial closures, a! well as renovation or enlarging offirms, or parts ol firms, in the steel industry. Thismust conform to overall objectives set down by theCommission from time to time.

Now the new forns of aid which we have proposedcome partly with n the scope of job-redistribution.This is connected with the previous question relatingto early retirement and the improvement of contin-uous shift workinl through partial unemployment orshortening of the working week. I already referred tothe German systern, the introduction of a fifth shiftand so on. These are measures which should createthe right social cir< um'stances for the large numbers ofworkers laid off by the steel industry to enable theprocess to take plr,ce in 'a responsible manner.

'Without these measures some 8l 200 jobs stand to belost in 1979 and 1980, most of them in Belgium,France, Luxembou g and the United Kingdom.


Vredeling

I turn now to the financial aspects : we estimate thetotal cost of these measures at 89 million EUA, 44million of which are earmarked for the new policywith 53 million for 1980, half of which will be neededfor the new poliry we are proposing. The financingarrangements have not yet been quite rounded off.'S7e are still working on this at the Commission.There will certainly be more detailed proposals fromthe Commission to the Council. I would recall thatthe Council has not yet rounded off the financing ofthe current budget. I would recall the 28 million thatthe Council was kind enough to approve when wehad asked for 50 million : That shows how seriouslythe problem is being taken. But that need not stop us

from coming along with new measures and statingthat these measures will cost more money, even if weare talking about amounts that would not be thoughtexcessive in a debate on agricultural policy.

A final word about the Tripartite Conference, in parti-cular for Mr Albers. I am grateful to him for thesupport he has given us on behalf of the Committeeon Social Affairs, Employment and Education.'!fle are

aware that the trade unions have stated that unless theprocedure and also the objectives of the Conferenceare improved they no longer wish to take part in it. Inthe debate at the informal meeting of the Council ofMinisters of Employment and Social Affairs, wereacted to this by producing a specific proposal. Ishall not repeat what that document contains. Youcan all read it for yourselves. In my view it expresses

agreement with Mr Albers' report. I readily agree thatif we could devote a little more time to this and ifthings were better organized we could also keep theParliament informed and better advised. Mr Alberswas perfectly correct to say that. In the past there hastended to be considerable confusion because there wasa much shorter time between the production of thedocuments and the holding of the Conference itself.

I know that the problem will not be solved simply byproposing better procedures. !7e must go into thematter much more thoroughly. It is not only proce-dure but poliry itself that needs to be improved. Inour proposal on redistribution of work and on thesocial aspects of the steel problem we have taken thisinto account, so that to that extent the proposals forma balanced whole. These are important issues. TheCommission has already discussed them at greatlengh. It did not complain at our proposals beingtaken so late. The matter has been discussedthoroughly and the decision was not an easy one. Ithink it is a courageous decision on the part of theCommission, and I am glad that it has been possibleto submit it to Parliament and to the Council in thisform at precisely this time of economic difficultiesand high unemployment.

The Community's social policy is no luxury, but anintegral part of our crisis policy. The European

Economic Community must evolve as a close-knitsocial communiry to which its citizens feel theybelong, and I believe that our proposals will also be ofvalue in connection with the forthcoming direct elec-tions to the European Parliament. As a Member of theCommission I am grateful to'have had the opportu-nity of bringing our proposals before Parliament andbefore the Commission at an opportune moment.

15. Procedural motions

President. - I call Mrs Dunwoody on a proceduralmotion.

Mrs Dunwoody.- I understand that my report hassimply been removed from the agenda. Now, when Ileft the House this morning - and I have beenpresent in this Chamber on and off most of the day,including the whole of Question Time - I was of theopinion that there was still another debate before myparticular subject. I think it is absolutely extraordi-nary, if, the report that I have heard is true, that therewas no single Member of this Parliament who thoughtequal pay was sufficiently important to get up andmake one single statement about it. If that was whathappened, and it was passed over because I was not inthe Chamber, then I think it is both arbitrary,outrageous and undemocratic.

It seems to me that there should have been at leastone person who could have made some kind ofprotest, apart from anything else, at the extraordinaryway in which at least four very important, or so-called-important, reports have been lumped together, so thatthe amount of time given to them was absolutelyminimal. The speaking time given to the groups onthe question of the 35-hour week was absolutelyminimal, and it now appears that a report on equalpay will go through this Parliament without one wordof discussion having been to it. I regard that as totallyunacceptable. I would have thought that the Commis-sioner might at least have made a small speech tocomment on all the things that he says he agrees withso strongly.

If you don't agree with these things, then don't saythat you do: don't get up and make speeches whichyou manifestly don't mean. That is true of all of theother Members of this Parliament who did not thinkequal pay worth one single word.

Now, I want my report put back on the agenda, if nottoday, then before the end of this part-session.

President. - Mrs Dunwoody, it is not so that yourreport has been removed from the agenda. My predec-essor in the Chair called this report. The rapporteurwas not in the Chamber, although we tried to find therapporteur - in other words, yourself. No-one else


President

spoke on it. All the necessary conditions for the reportbeing debated were satisfied : i. e., there was an explan-atory statement there, and a motion for a resolution.The President decided - and in my opinion decidedrightly - that the debate was thereby closed, and thatthe motion for a resolution would be put to the votein due form tomorrow at 3.45 p.m. Thus nothing has

been removed from the agenda, and a vote on themotion for a resolution will be taken in due formtomorrow at 3.45 p.m. I would suggest, Mrs

Dunwoody, that, in respect of the report, which we

cannot now insert in the agenda for today, you deliveran explanation of yote when voting takes place

tomorrow. This opportunity is still open to you.

I call Mr Vredeling.

Mr Vredeling, Vice'President of tbe Commission. -(NL) Mr President, may I comment on this because

Mrs Dunwoody has just reproached me withremaining silent on this matter. The reason, Mrs

Dunwoody, is that at that precise moment I was notin the Chamber. The matter slipped my notice

entirely. I am sorry that I did not have an opportunityto say anything about this extremely importantsubject. All I can say is that I regret this, though I do

not wish to blame anyone for it. Nor do I accept theblame for not saying anything because I was not inthe Chamber when this happened.

President. - I call Mr Bertrand on a procedural

motion.

Mr Bertrand. - (NL) Mr President, I should like torefer to the Rules of Procedure. I am surprised at theway in which this debate is being conducted' I refer tothe oral question with debate by Mr Fellermaier onemployment policy. This is exactly the same questionas the one to which Mr Vredeling gave a full reply this

afternoon and I am wondering whether we shall be

discussing this again tomorrow. !7hat has become ofthe agenda ? The question to the Council in Doc.125179 is somewhat different. But the question to theCommission in Doc. 126179 should have been takenin the same debate. I draw your attention to this toavoid this debate being opened again tomorrow. So

much for that point. My second question is this : what

are the arrangements for the debate on the extremelyimportant and sensitive political problems which MrVredeling has just raised ? Are we getting only 5

minutes on this ? And are we going to give the impres-

sion that we are no longer interested in the threemajor problems which are at present headline news ? Iwould have liked to know how speaking time was tobe allocated so that we should at least have a chance,

despite being unprepared to state our views clearly onthis subject.

President. - Mr Bertrand, I am dreadfully sorry, butyour complaint is misplaced. The plenary session

agreed yesterdal on an agenda - the one, indeed,which lies befor,: you. That also means, therefore, thatthis motion for a resolution by Mr Pisani, Mr Lange

and Mr Fellermz ier will be taken tomorrow. I am verysorry, but that vas accepted by the plenary session.

16. Tripartite Conference - Council of Ministers ofSocial Affatrs of 15 lVay 1979 (resurnption)

President. - I call Mr Dinesen to speak on behalf ofthe Socialist Gr('up.

Mr Dinesen.- (DK) Mr President, I will be brief. Imerely want to say that on behalf of the SocialistGroup I supporl the report submitted by Mr Albers.As has been saic, we in the Social Affairs Committeehave frequently Ciscussed the problem of the Tripar-tite Conferences that have been held and we attach

great importancr: to them provided, of course, thatthey are well prepared ; that is the main thing. On theother hand, the trade unions have pointed out thatthey served no rrseful purpose and that they do notwant to attend trem.

In my opinion it is extremely important to have theclosest possible cooperation between the labourmarket partners Ln the Community. This is obviouslyespecially impor:ant in view of the economic crisisthat exists in all (lommunity countries. The unemploy-ment rate is quite unacceptable ; the hardest hit are

young people, on whom our future depends and

women; women are particularly hard hit by unem-ployment becaure, despite repeated efforts, there is

still discriminatir)n against women, not only on thelabour market brrt also in many other sectors.

The trade union movement is particularly interestedin many labottr problems, economic structuralproblems, regionrrl policy and the social well-being ofall Community < itizens. !7hen we think that almost80 % of all citizens in the nine Community countriesare wage-earners we can understand why the Euro-pean trade uni(,n movement is so interested inhelping to solve rll these serious problems. I am verywell aware that the Communiry cannot effectivelyintervene to solvc all the problems we are faced with.There is a lack of goodwill among the governments,there is a lack of meney and, in my view, there is also

a lack of imaginzLtion. I am obviously also aware thatit is no easy task and that there is no Patent solution-But nevertheless, it must be possible in my view to getsomething done and I hope that the Commission'scommunication rdll be instrumental in this althoughI must admit that I am rather sceptical about many ofthe views put forward by Mr Vredeling.

It is admirable that special campaigns are beingstarted to comba: youth unemployment and to findjobs for more women. But the problems facing us onthe labour markt t today are much greater and mayhave very serious consequences unless we give them


Dinesen

full consideration in time. It has also been mentionedtoday that proposals have been made to divideexisting work and the work expected to be available inthe next few years. !7e have also discussed the propo-sals for shorter working hours, earlier and more flex-ible retirement age, reduction of overtime and a leng-thier education for young people. They are good prop-osals as far as they go, especially in view of theexisting heavy unemployment, but in my view thetechnological developments in the wake of theeconomic crisis are now so rapid that we must reckonwith there not being 40 hours of work a week for allwho want to work in the 80s. But after all there is nolaw of nature that says we have to work 40 hours a

week.

Let me just give one example of what I mean by rapidtechnological developments. !(/e have a famousbrewery in Denmark, which I am inclined to think allMembers of Parliament know. A new modern breweryhas just been built in keeping with recent technolog-ical developments which means that 144 workers cannow produce the same amount in the new brewery as

700 workers have so far produced in the old brewery.That is just one example but much the same thing ishappening in many areas ; technological develop-ments are progressing so rapidly these days and, as Isaid, the economic crisis has increased the trend. Sowhat does that mean ? There is certainly no-one thatcan give an answer today, but perhaps in l0 to 15years' time we will be down to a 20 hour week toensure that there is work for everyone unless weaccept that it is only the employers, i.e. owners ofcapital, that are to benefit from technological develop-ments. But I don't think that would be fair.

I want to emphasize that economic growth is notenough in this situation. I would, therefore, like to askthe Commission whether it does not feel that despitecrisis and economic structural problems, technologicaldevelopments are progressing so rapidly today thatthey could become crucial to future labour marketpolicy, and does it therefore not think that it is hightime to initiate research and studies in this, in myview, very important field, to get long-term planningunderway in this field ? I myself feel that it is soimportant that it should be given priority at the forth-coming Tripartite Conference.

That is all I have to say; I agree with what Mr Albershas already said and I thank the Commission for itsnew initiative for which Parliament provided the inspi-ration. I hope it will have the effect of, initiating theconstructive dialogue we have called for with thelabour market partners.

President. - I call Mr Bertrand to speak on behalfof the Christian-Democratic Group (EPP).

Mr Bertrand. - (NL) Mr President, I should like tothank and congratulate Mr Vredeling firstly on getting

his plan through the Commission on 2 May last andalso on his introduction here today. I very muchregret the fact that this debate on one of the Commu-nity's most acute problems has been so poorlyattended.

I should like to discuss the three documents Mr Vred-eling has forwarded to the Council on behalf of theCommission.

Turning first to the document on the amendment ofthe procedure with a view to making future TripartiteConferences more effective, Mr Albers has expressedin his report our disappointment at the failure of theTripartite Conference of 9 November 1978. TheSocial Affairs Committee warned you that this confer-ence had not been properly prepared und wasdoomed to failure. And fail it did. The disappoint-ment in the European trade union movement was soacute that you will have understood their hesitation inagreeing to attend another tripartite conference. Thatwas why the Commission was urged to propose a newprocedure to ensure that account could be taken ofthe presence of the trade unions at the TripartiteConference. !7e are aware of the fact that you havemade an effort to achieve this and have proposed thisnew procedure, which, I hope, will create new confi-dence in the usefulness of European Tripartite Confer-ences. It is absolutely essential that the social partnersshould be able to meet the governments at Europearilevel on an equal footing and under the Commission'sauspices.

The role played by the Council in the TripartiteConference is not satisfactory. National ministerscome to the Tripartite Conference in order to puttheir national points of view. The President of theCouncil is present but can only make one or twoannouncements at the end of the Conference.

The Commission is not, however, at present respon-sible for making sufe the Conferences are a success. Itherefore fully agree with you rhat in future the initia-tive must lie with the Commission. It is an executiv6body and as such it must prepare the TripartiteConferences.

I should like to associate myself with Mr van der Gunand Mr Albers in urging the Commission to take stepsas quickly as possible to organize sectoral tripartiteconferences to discuss problems arising in particularindustries. I refer in particular to the steel, textile, foot-wear and shipbuilding industries. Sugar refiningshould also have its turn. All these industries arecurrently struggling to survive and it would be logicalfor the employers and unions in those industries tomeet and investigate suitable measures with theCommission. The steel problem is the most obviousexample of such a need. 'We therefore urge you toorganize tripartite conferences for specific industries,not on a regular basis, but whenever there is an acute


Bertrand

need for one, in order that the opinions of the threepartners can officially be made known and shaped

into a decision of some kind by the Commission.

On behalf of my group therefore, I fully support themotion for a resolution tabled by Mr Albers on behalf

of the Committee on Social Affairs.

The second document you introduced relates to thedistribution of work.

On this subject I am inclined to agree with MrDinesen. I regard the measures on the redistributionof work as short-term measures designed to Preventthe worst. I cannot regard them as a lasting solution tothe problem of unemployment. They are emergencymeasures proposed on a short-term basis in order todeal with the worst problems caused by rising unem-ployment.

A few days ago I read a study by economists fore-casting that 15 million new jobs would have to be

created in the Community by 1985 to absorb thesupply of labour on the market. Of these 15 million 9

million would be young people looking for their firstjob. That is the situation which awaits us and you willtherefore understand that while I approve of themeasures you propose I regard them as no more thana short-term solution. They must be followed as soon

as possible by a Commission proposal for a long-termemployment policy. I shall be returning to this pointpresently.

You yourself, Commissioner have sensed a certainambiguity. Our experience of the unions has taught us

that the reduction of working hours is a problem thatthe social partners consider to fall within their ambit.If we observe the development of legislation in thevarious countries we note that the social partnersagreed to reduce working hours from 48 to 45 hours,

and then from 45 hours to 40 hours and thatsubsequently the legislature, when this had been esta-

blished in a collective labour agreement berween thesocial partners, made such hours mandatory even forsectors which had not been involved in the consulta-tions. I refer in particular to the many small and medi-um-sized undertakings. That has always been thestandard procedure so I do not quite see what chanceyou have at the moment of putting the variousmeasures into order at Community level. One pointon which I do fully agree with you, however, is that itis, at all events, necessary to Prevent the existence ofdivergent measures on the reduction of working hoursfrom causing a distortion of competition in theCommunity of which the workers would themselves

ultimately be the victims. I can therefore accept thatwith your proposal to the Council on the reduction ofworking hours you want to get something from theCouncil. But you will not get a directive. You will notget a regulation either. lUhat then, an opinion ? Or do

you expect the Council to take the initiative of layingdown a procedure with the social partners with a view

to preventing any harmful effects arising from thismeasure ? what kind of steps are you expecting theCouncil to take in respect of the reduction of workinghours ? A regula:ion, a directive or an opinion ? It is

important to knr>w this if we are to be able to assess

the decision the Council is to take. In some countriesovertime is a corrmon practice because wages are veryIow and worke rs need overtime to boost theirincomes. A further point to bear in mind is thatreducing workinl; hours might lead to a fall in produc-tion. Fall in production, I said, not fall in productivity.Certain firms and sectors would then resort to over-time arrangements in order to offset this reduction inworking hours arrd keep up production levels. This is

an obvious problem, but what can the Council doabout it ? I7hat do you expect from the Council ?

Should the Coun,:il come up with a directive or a regu-lation on this tco ? Herein lies the anbiguity of theproposals you t ave made. !7e musg however, be

cautious and not play a game of cat-and-mouse, withthe Commission making proposals and the Councilbeing unable to rake a decision. That would result inthe Council refusing to do anything and we shouldthen be in a real mix-up. Ve must proceed morecautiously becaut e that would be highly detrimentaland shake the wrrkers' belief in the whole thing.

Then there is the matter of shift work. You say that 20million workers are cuffently engaged in shift work,i.e. about 20 o/o ol the Community's wage-eamers.And you want to make this system more flexible so as

to achieve a redi:;tribution of work. You thus want tointroduce a fifth shift in certain plants with contin-uous working.

The Commission also believes that early retirement is

one possible solution, provided that it is on a volun-tary basis at the r3quest of the workers themselves. If Ihave understood your proposal correctly, you do notwant to oblige wc'rkers of 50 years of age to stop workand go into retitement. This early retirement wouldtherefore be a 'roluntary arrangement. I have mydoubts, however, rrs to whether it is possible to achieve

any results in this way, except perhaps in plants inwhich insalubriotLs and strenuous work is carried out.

Finally, there is the question of the voluntary exten-sion of part-time work, which might be an interestingarrangement in i:rdustries and firms employing large

numbers of women. Here too, however, I am rathersceptical. The po nt is that you have to be careful toavoid any discrinrination against women in the waypart-time work is organized as this might have veryserious consequences.

Then there is the matter of temporary work, i.e. partialunemployment. '[hat is another of your proposals.

You then also rr ention, of course, the extension ofvocational trainin,g, i.e. raising the schoolJeaving age,

and in-service tnLining and training during workinghours, which worrld also lead to extra workers beingtaken on.


Bertrand

Those, then, are the five main proposals which youput before the Council and which are not enrirelyunambiguous. I would therefore ask you to stateclearly what you are in fact expecting from theCouncil, what the Council can do and how youenvisage the role of the social partners in all this.

To be frank with you, I would much prefer it if thesefive points were submitted to the Tripartite Confer-ence and if the social partners from the nine MemberStates were to reach agreement at that conference onthe ways and means of implementing these five propo-sals on the basis of an outline agreement reachedbetween the social partners with the participatidn ofthe governments. I think we should then have a

clearer picture and I suggest that a solution be soughtalong those lines.

The third and final document concerns special newsocial measures to back up restructuring in the steelindustry. The proposals made by the Commission areas follows. Firstly, early retirement, which would giveworkers threatened with redundancy the opportunityof continuing to receive a certain income for the restof their lives ; secondly, partial unemployment orreduction of the working week ; thirdly, introductionof a fourth or fifth shift which might lead to a berterdistribution of work in the steel industry, and fourthly,reduction of overtime in the steel industry.

Those are the four social measures you have putbefore the Council to back up the restructuring of thesteel industry. For this purpose you ask for extra appro-priations in addition to those which may normally begranted under Article 55 of the EEC Treaty. Youyourself said that of the 80 million units of accountyou had asked for the Council has granted only 28million. Now you are proposing a further amount of142 u.a.,70 million of which would be used for inrer-ventions of a new type for which there is no provisionin Article 55. You say that you hope with these fundsto be able to keep 80 000 workers at work a littlelonger in the steel indstry and protect them fromimmediate redundancy. Those are the terms of theproposal as presented to the Council.

Until I have made contact with our friends in thetrade unions and with experts in industry it is difficultfor me to pronounce on the value of these fourmeasures or on the prospects for of carrying them outin the context of present restructuring in the steelindustry. So I hope that after the meeting of l5 Maywe shall get the opportunity of reopening this debatebefore the new Parliament holds its flrst meetingbecause this is a matter of the utmost importance forpublic opinion. As far as I am concerned that debatecould be held after l0 June. I do not wish to make a

vote-catching issue of this or utter a few fine phrasesjust for the sake of the elections. \fhat I amconcerned about is finding an effective solution to theproblem.

Articles 54 and 55 of the EEC Treaty provided anexcellent social solution for the miners maderedundant through pit closures. But that was duringan economic boom when there was a shortage on thelabour market and these workers were easily absorbedby other sectors because there was a big demand forlabour. Now, however, there is a threat of redundan-cies as a consequence of the restructuring of the steelindustry in these times of recession, crisis and 6million unemployed. The supply of available labour isso vast that I really do not see how at the present timethe surplus can be absorbed. That explains mycautious attitude. Do not let us make exaggeratedpromises or arouse too much hope among the peoplewho are directly threatened. Let us instead stress thatwe take their problems seriously and that we areseeking the most suitable, socially responsible solutionfor them. That is the approach the Christian Democ-rats recommend.

You will remember that during the discusion of themotion for a resolution in connection with the diffi-culties in northern France I personally proposed thatall redundancies should be suspended until an agree-ment was reached. That proposal was not accepted.Ve have now seen the scenes which have occurred innorthern France. I hope there will be no repetition ofthis, Mr President. Consequently I urge you to adoptan effective, vigorous approach but to be suitablycautious so as not to arouse vain hopes amongstpeople who are already suffering great hardship.

President. - Mr Bertrand, I shall be happy ro take

up your suggestion concerning a further part-sessionafter the Council meering. The Bureau will in anycase have to discuss the question of another part-ses-sion of Parliament on Thursday for a different reason.

I call Mr Pistillo to speak on behalf of the Commun-ists and Allies Group.

Mr Pistillo. - (I)MrPresident, Jo,,.urr.r, I think it

is significant that the European Parliament, now inthe last stages before its renewal through direct elec-tion, is once again turning its attention to the employ-ment problem which is the subject of two reports byMr Albers, the Van der Gun document and the oralquestions which will probably be discussed tomorrow.I agree with Mr Bertrand's comment and I think thatin a sense today's debate sums up the whole question ;I cannot see that anything will remain to be saidtomorrow on the two questions. However, it is clearfrom all this that even now, as we are preparing forthe election of the new Parliament, unemployment isstill one of the Community's major problems.

The srx million unemployed referred to earlier reflectsuch a dramatic and glaring situation that the electorsin the nine EEC countries will inevitably give some


Pistillo

thought to it, ask us what we think and what we

intend to do about it. If I have understood correctly,Mr Bertrand spoke of a study by some economistspredicting that l5 million new iobs will be created by1985. I hope that this will indeed be so because thereare other economists in Italy who predict that we willnot achieve full employment. Furthermore, the

growth rate which was expected to rise to 4'5 % has,

according to the information available, only reached

2'5-3 o/o. I am very wary of certain economic rePorts

and forecasts, partly because, despite the fact that we

were told there would be full employment by 1980, itis now quite clear that this will not be so ; full employ-ment was also forecast for 1985, but again, as Commis-sioner Vredeling clearly indicated today after his state-

ment to the Committee on Social Affairs, full employ-ment will not be achieved by 1985.

The situation is therefore extremely difficult and

extremely complex and and in the light of this Ishould like to make a few brief comments on thereport by Mr Albers on the conclusions to be drawnfrom the Tripartite Conference of 9 November 1978-

I7e disagree with some of the views expressed in thisreport. I can understand Mr Albers' caution and the

points he has made concerning the European Commu-nity's present position, its responsibilities and its

powers. However, I feel it is going too far to say :

'Notes that the European Community is not in a posi-tion to fight against unemployment on all fronts.'This is tantamount to abandoning our powers and

saying that we can only take minor, piecemeal action

to reduce the number of unemployed and cannotdefine a major Community programme. It is perfectlyclear that we have reached the stage where action at

Community level is absolutely essential, both throughprovision for the future and private and public invest-ments - I purposely put private first in case anyone

should think of accusing us of advocating a collectivistprogramme. IUTe find it necessary to make these

points today because we have been dealing with thisproblem for years now and every year we see howwrong the various forecasts have been.

Furthermore, Mr Albers, who is extremely aware ofsuch matters, knows that specific provisions for social

policy are laid down in Articles ll7 and ll8 of the

Treaties of Rome and Article 117 refers to the need toimprove living and working conditions. It is true thatup to now, private initiative, the multinationals and -it must be said - the market and production chaos,

have predominated. Mr Albers, in paragraph 13 you

praise the liberal economic policy which has broughteconomic advantages to all trading Partners. However,I feel that a distinction must be made : while it has

indeed brought economic advantages to certain indus-trial sectors, it has not been of any benefit to the

workers. In a situation whete we have six millionunemployed, what are the economic advantages and

who is benefiti rg from them? That is the wholepoint. I questic n therefore the wisdom of relyingexclusively on a liberal economic policy, with all itsmanifest problems and contradictions, which has

clearly shown tl at new measures are needed. \7e do

not expect everything to be achieved in a day but we

do insist on th€ need for new measures. The worldwas created in seven days and then God rested. It maywell take years but let us at least decide on a

programme of coordinated action. If we do not, thefuture Parliament will also spend a great deal of timeon these problerns without any practical results.

We reiect Mr Albers' report, not because we disagreewith the individ ral and sectoral proposals. We agree

with these but v,e disagree with the general spirit ofthe report and tte view that the Community's presentpowers do not allow it to take action to resolve thesituation. To tak: that attitude is to acknowledge thefailure of all Ct,mmunity measures in a key sectorwhich is of maior importance to the lives of ourpeoples and ou- workers. I think that instead ofconsidering the srtuation a failure we should assess thedifficulties and al the same time see what can be doneto resolve them.

As regards the cjocument on the Commission's newproposals for improving the organization of the Tripar-tite Conferences, we approve both Mr Albers' reportand the Commi;sion's proposals. Ve consider thatthese proposals are in line with the ideas and propo-sals put forward on several occasions by theCommittee on S,>cial Affairs and by Parliament as a

whole. In particu ar, we feel that they take account ofthe points mad,: by the European Trade UnionConfederation aft er the failure of the last TripartiteConference ; in ,rur view, this should lead to morepractical and ca'eful preparation for the TripartiteConferences and we think that the points concerningcollaboration and agreement between the Council, theCommission and Parliament, the trade unions andbusiness interests, should be strictly complied with so

that practical proposals can be put forward at theTripartite Confer:nces and the participants do notcome away empty-handed as on previous occasions,with everything irrst as it was before.

Mr President, colteagues, we will unhesitatingly votein favour of the report on the organization of theTripartite Confert nces ; we intend to abstain on thevote on the other report and ask the Commission, as

Mr Bertrand has already done, to take a new approachto the whole issur'. In view of the way the economiesof the EEC countlies are developing and of the contin-uing world economic crisis, if we go on as we have

done up to now the unemployment problem willundoubtedly get worse and we will only have

ourselves to blame for the plight in which we findourseIves.


IN THE CHAIR: Mr Deschamps

Vice-President

President. - I call Mr Christensen.

Mr Christensen. - (DK)Mr President, I think thereis a contradiction between paragraph I of the motionfor a resolution, which states that it is not possible tofight against unemployment on all fronts with thepowers assigned to the European Communiry, and therest of the motion for a resolution. Although it isquite correct to assert this, there are no limits to whatcan be done for migrant workers and transfrontiercommuters, women, young people and handicappedpersons, all areas in which the European Communiryorgans must take action. As regards the powers to doso, I refer you to Articles I 17 and I 18 of the EECTreaty, particularly the penultimate paragraph ofArticle ll8 which states that the Commission shalldeliver opinions and arrange consultations both onproblems arising at national level and on thoseconcerned with international organizations. In otherwords, the topics that the motion for a resolution latercalls on the Commission to submit proposals on arenot provided for in what I have just read out, whichcontains the main provisions as regards the Commis-sion's powers in this area.

Next, I would like to comment on paragraphs 3, 7, 10,

12 and l5 (a) of the motion for a resolution. Paragraph3 mentions binding Community criteria for nationalpolicies. Paragraph 7 states that the Commissionshould take measures as regards vocational trainingand retraining of workers. Paragraph l0 states thatstructural overtime should be abolished by means ofuniform Community arrangements and that actionshould be taken on the question of minimum wages.Paragraph 12 advocates an investment control policyto be implemented by the Member States and theCommunity institutions. Paragraph l5 (a) advocatesextension of the powers of the Economic and SocialCommittee.

It seems to me that we are going beyond the provi-sions of Article 118 of the Trealy which I have justread out. But not only are we exceeding the provisionsof the Treaty and intervening in national affairs, weare also meddling in matters that should be thesubiect of free and responsible negotiation betweenworkers and employees in which neither the state northe European Community institutions, should, in myview get involved to any appreciable extent. Thecrucial thing is that most Community countries,including Denmark, are pursuing an economic policythat leads to mass unemployment and it is that policythe national governments should change, preferably inconsultation with the other Member States of the Euro-pean Community. It therefore seems to me to be

merely affectation to put forward these fine proposalsabout matters that we know perfectly well the Euro-pean Community institutions neither have the rightunder the Treaty or the power to implement. Realiza-tion of the fact that internal economic policy is thecrucial factor, would have rendered proposals such as

this superfluous. But perhaps the intention is toconceal the fact that the Communiry is conducting a

policy whose consequences can be seen from theunemployment statistics in the Member States. Inconclusion, Mr President, I reject the motion for a

resolution contained in Mr Albers' report.


Mrs Dunwoody.- I must say, Mr President, that Iregard it as very extraordinary that because of someprocedural nonsense an entire report on equal paysomehow seems not to have been worthy of discus-sion by any single Member of this Chamber or by anyMember of the Commission, and I have no doubt thatthis is actually a practical demonstration of thenonsense that is frequently talked in this Chamberabout the commitment of the Community to equaltreatment or to protecting the interests o[ workers inthe Community, because, frankly, what is it that weare talking about ?

Even when we talk about the Tripartite Conference,we are talking about a meeting that was plainlyacknowledged by everybody to be a minor disaster. Itis all very well for members of various parties to getup and say they cannot accept any of the resolutionsbecause the Community has no right of interference :

what is proposed in these reports is direct interferenceand some of it such unrealistic rubbish that one isastonished that it actually got into print. Apart fromanything else, if we are seriously going to suggest thata reduction in hours without a reduction in paymentshould be negotiated with constrltation at Communitylevel - which is what is included in this report -then, frankly, you are going to set up a bureaucraticmachine of such vast and absolutely ridiculous sizethat it would be absolutely unworkable. Let us look atwhat is said in the nsro reports. I would like to refer tothe report on the conclusions to be drawn from theTripartite Conference, because the resolution appearsto say that the Commission has accepted the ideascontained in this report. Now if that is so, let us lookat it. It has got the ritual dance, the ritual gesture inthe direction of women ; it says that you must dosomething for those women who are working in part-time employment and you should do everything thatyou can to do away with any discrimination againstthem. It also makes some comments about themigrant worker, but what in fact is is contained in thereport itself in the section on migrant workers ? Thatsays :


Dunwoody

In addition, purchasing-powet must be improved and

new ;obs created in the migrant workers' own countriesby nrearrs of a purposive financing and investntent policy

- that from a Community that has not managed to

raise its level of investment in third countries to I 0/o

of its gross national product -

so that, on the one hand, the flow of migrant workersmay be stemmed and, on the other, present migrantworkers can return home.

Now that is a vast attempt to interfere in the internalpolicies of the Community countries.

lve go on to say, of course, that we are going to have

equal treatment in the work-place and on the employ-ment market, equal pay and social insurance riShts,

and are going to support the handicapped and theyoung, but what do we then see later in the reportwhen we are talking about economic measures topromote employment ? 'We are suggesting that there

should be deveopment of the public services sector.

\fell, I can tell you as a Socialist that I should be

quite happy to see that, but there are many people,

including the new government in Britain, that willregard that as the very antithesis of everything theyare trying to do.

It says that we should improve the quality of life byimproving public assistance services. I do not knowwhat public assistance services are, but if we are

talking about social security I can tell the Commis-sioner he is going to have a certain amount of diffi-culty with some of the Member States on that as well.

'!7hat we then say is that protectionist measures mustbe ludged specifically against the Community's ruleson competition : not in the interests of the unem-ployed, not to deal with the workers in the Commu-niry who are already without a job, but to make sure

there is no distortion of competition between one capi-talist country and another ! \7ell, if that is the basis on

which your employment programmes are actuallygoing to be pushed forward, then they will be totallyunacceptable not only to the trade-union movementsbut more certainly to any enlightened employeranywhere in the Community, because that, frankly, is

absolute nonsense. You cannot have a reduction inworking hours, which, you say, will be central toannual wage negotiations and consultations at

Community level, unless you are going to tell thepeople concerned where the money is going to comefrom. One reason why the unions were so disgusted

with the Tripartite Conference was that when theywere prepared to talk very seriously about a reductionin the working week, or an expansion of the week's

holidays, there was never any serious assessment ofwhat this was going to cost or how it could be dealtwith without damaging the interests of the workers

concerned. If you are talking about rejigging shiftpatterns, doing away with overtime on an absolutely

conipulsory basis, you have a moral responsibility totell everybody concerned where the money is going tocome from. It is really not good enough to take uponyourself powers which, it seems, you have a verydoubtful right to exercise without at least makingsome effort to assess what it is going to cost theCommunity and the workers concerned, and thateffort is totally lacking in both of these documents.

I believe that when you next have a Tripartite Confer-ence you are going to have to do more than say thatpurchasing-power must be improved and new jobs

created. What do you think temporary employmentsubsidies are doing if not protecting jobs temporarily ?

No government expects to have to put large sectors ofits work-force onto the street simply because theCommunity doesn't want to have its rules of competi-tion distorted. There has been no really constructivesuggestion from the Community either in the sectoralfield or in the employment field. Indeed, the onlything that happened when there were vast numbers ofunemployed in Britain was that the Commissionerconcerned did his damnedest to do away with thestate aid that was protecting the jobs concerned, eventhough that would have meant something like 80 000people put back onto the street, and it was onlybecause of the representations of the Labour Govern-ment of the time that he did not carry it out and carryit out immediately. That is the attitude of the Commu-nity towards its work-forces. It is prepared to putforward a whole lot of meaningless and absolutely ill-thought-out suggestions, but it is not prepared toassist either the ETUC or the Employer's Associationsin looking for a practical way of implementing some

of the suggestions they have put forward in order to

Protect employment.

The Community has got one thing that it carriesalmost to its extreme. It believes in saying that we

should have a Community policy and it believes indoing absolutely nothing to carry it out. If we were

talking about agriculture today, every one of these

seats would be accupied. If we were talking aboutstructural aid to the agricultural industry there wouldbe representatives of every single parry here. If we

were voting a supplementary budget in order to givemoney to farmers to maintain a standard of livingwhich is not in anybody's interests, then there wouldbe every single Member of this Parliament here votingin support of it. Vhen we are talking about equal pay,

about support for the handicapped, about funding a

reduction in the working week, then all we have are a

series of clich6s of monumental superficiality. It is a

shame that we can actually have this sort of documentbrought before us, and I will go down arguingstrongly that this Community has absolutely no inten-tion to do anything constructive about unemploy-ment, because it finds it easier to produce documentslike these that simply say it would be very nice if we

could do something about it but of course we can't.


Dunwoody

I hope that the Commissioner, when he comes toreply, will surprise us by saying that before he callsanother Tripartite Conference he will seriouslyconsider where he thinks he can support both theemployers and the trade unions and what he intendsto do that can be demonstrated to the ordinary peopleof Europe as really caring about them, because so farat no point has the Community done any such thing.

President. - I call Mr Jakobsen.

Mr Jakobsen. - (DK) Mr President, now that we areon the eve of direct elections, I think there is reasonto draw attention to the contradictory things that arebeing said about the Community in connection withunemployment. !fle supporters of the Communiryhave an easy job; we do not have to contradict itsopponents, they do that very well themselves. Oneminute they tell us that the Community is powerlessagainst unemployment, that the Community has notbeen able to do anything and the next minute theysay that the Community should try to intervene innational affairs. For goodness sake ! How can theCommunity do anything when it cannot intervene innational affairs. That is downright contradictory:anyone can see that the Community cannot and willnot do anything; it is the individual countries thathave to do something.

Having said that, I have much to criticize in thesedocuments, not those who have prepared them ortheir intentions, but because no-one should think thatwe can change the employment situation by talkingin this Parliament or in our own parliaments. Nor willdocuments or action by the Commission, no matterhow appropriate, change anything.

I think it is time we became realistic and admittedthat if we talk of unemployment as a departure fromfull employment, then we must admit that we willalways have unemployment. !7e will never have fullemployment again if by full emplyment we meanthere should be 40 hours'work a week for everyone. Itwill never happen again because there is no need forit. Experts in the USA envisage a 15 hour industrialworking week in the year 2 000 and we would be wiseto listen to them. I did say industry, I did not say inservice areas, public or private; the situation is so badin all countries that everyone is shocked. !flhere areall the clever postmen, where are all the clever rail-waymen, where are all who should be helping the sickand so on ? !flhere are the people who should be deliv-ering goods ? In my country there aren't any, therepeople have to collect their own goods. The servicesprovided in our countries are very poor, but peoplecannot find full employment in industry.

I think in this situation it is impossible for theCommission or for Parliament to tell the governmentswhat they should do. But we could start by taking a

realistic look at the situation and we will see thatno-one is trying out experiments.r'

To give one example from my own country: a tradeunion, and a Communist-led one at that, which is notso common in Denmark as it is in Great Britain, hasproposed working four days and being paid for it butclaiming assistance on the fifth day. The employerwill not have to pay more ; he will merely pay for thehours worked and the state will pay assistance. !7hensome people stayed at home on the fifth day a fewhundred colleagues would go to work instead and sothe state would be able to save on assistance.

It is admittedly a small practical thing but the ques-tion is whether we should not try it. If we maintainthat the employer should pay just as much for a

35-hour week as he now pays for 40, then at least in a

country like Denmark with its typical small undertak-ings, even more firms will decline and then there willbe no exports and no employment. But we couldarrange it so that the employer paid for what he gotand the state allocated assistance in a different way.For instance : instead of allowing 10 % of the labourforce to be unemployed the whole year, why not letthe whole labour force be unemployed one-tenth ofthe year, i. e. reduce the number of hours by l0 %which would be paid for by the state and not by theemployer.

I admit that a lot more thought needs to be put intoit, in fact I warn against attacking the Commissioneror those who have prepared these reports so fiercelyfor they are after all a sign that some people aretaking the problem seriously, as we should do in thisParliament. But let us start by realistically admittingthat there is no easy way ; it cannot be done byspeeches or documents ; we need to be very realisticbefore we can even start.


Mr Vredeling. Vice-President of the Comrnission. -(NL) Mr President, I should like to make a few briefremarks in reply to the serious questions that havebeen put. Mr Bertrand referred to the parallel that wasnecessary between what we have proposed for theTripartite Conference and sectoral consultation. Thatis quite right, but actually we already have, as regardssectoral consultation, a situation which you want tosee develop in respect of the big Tripartite Confer-ence. The Commission can itself take the initiativeand monitor progress. Sectoral consultation is not in

Sitting of Tuesday, 8 May 1979 8l

Vredeling

the Council's power, but the Tripartite Conference is.The chairmanship of the Conference is, as you know,held by the Council. The only difficulty is securingagreement between the employers' organizations,which are autonomous, and the workers, who are alsoautonomous. These must agree,. The steel industry isan extremely good example. In that industry,employers' and workers' organizations have cooper-ated successfully from time immemorial. In theConsultative Committee cooperation is an establishedthing. The same applies to the footwear industry,where, with the approval of both sides, we have set upa similar committee. Discussions are in progress inother sectors. In agriculture and fisheries we have hadcooperation for a long time now, while in othersectors, such as shipbuilding and textiles, ad boc talksare being held. I hope, with you, that these talks willlead to the establishment of a Joint Committee.

You used the term ambiguity. In Dutch we talk aboutbeing 'in two minds'. On the one hand there are thesocial partners and on the other there are regulationsof a legislative nature. !7e have not yet come up withany very concrete proposals of a legislative nature. Thereason for that is that we wish first to hold discussionsat Council level and then in the Standing Committeeon Employment, which in fact comprises the sameparties as the Tripartite Conference, albeit in ratherless spectacular form. I am informed that the tradeunion movement in particular would like to raise thestatus of the Standing Committee on Employment tothat of a genuine Community organ in which a

consultative structure could be set up in a less ostenta-tions, less noisy fashion and with less televisioncoverage than at Tripartite Conferences.

That is precisely our objective. An example of some-thing that might be the subject of legislation is theregulation of overtime. In almost every country,including your country, Mr Bertrand, the regulation ofovertime has been the subiect of legislation. It is a

matter which lends itself to legislation.

There are other things which lend themselves less toit, such as holidays. I do not mean a minimumholiday period, but the possible extension of holidays.That is a typical example of a matter for collectiveconsultation and agreement and there can be no ques-tion of legislation in that area.

Another subject on which I have no set opinion butwould like to stimulate discussion is early retirement,or flexible retirement, as we call it. That too might bethe subiect of legislation. In Germany early retirementis possible at the age of 53, the normal pensionableage being higher. So this is a subject which might welllend itself to regulation at institutional level.

There are a number of other things that might bementioned, but we would very much like to have a

discussion on this in the Council to find out what theCouncil thinks of guidelines, general rules which haveto be converted into national legislation in theMember States according to national circumstances.The Council has already stated its position on this atan informal meeting of the Ministers of Social Affairsand Labour. They raised this point themselves. It wasalso mentioned in the President's conclusions. Useshould be made of the instrument of outline directives

- as the President called it - in various fieldsincluding the redistribution of labour.

By ambiguity you probably mean being in two minds.In this context ambiguity is a very negative term inthe northern country from which I come. To be intwo minds is a better expression because the problemis to decide whether to deal with the matter by legisla-tion or by consultation between the social partners.You are absolutely right to note that the documentcontained no final opinion. I have indicated a numberof examples of the things that the Commission has inmind but we should first like to hear the social part-ners. I think they ought also to make their wishesknown as regards legislation. As you know, the tradeunion movement has long been asking for legislationon the occupational protection of workers and weshould very much like to hear them expressing theirviews on this subject at European level. I have noted a

growing desire in the trade union movement to haveconsultations at European level with the organizationof European employers. I hope that the Europeanemployers organizations have understood this. Suchopportunities can also be frittered away. It seems tome to be in the interests of both parties for suchconsultation to be arranged, so I think that a specialpoint can be made of this. I am extremely curious tosee what the European Trade Union Congress willcome up with on this subject next week in Munich.The Commission will be very attentive to what is saidthere. The President of the Commission will himselfbe addressing this conference. I believe, therefore, thatthe present situation does offer positive prospects incertain areas, including the establishment of outlineagreements between the social partners, which areabsolutely essential. In that respect I fully agree withMr Bertrand, who said that no matter what you planto do, if you do not have the agreement of the socialpartners - and the trade union movement is ofcrucial importance here - then you might as wellforget about it. That is very true ; that has been theexperience of the Member States in cases when thetrade unions have not wanted to cooperate. Fortu-nately, in all our countries we have constructiveunions which do cooperate. But in cases when they donot do so the situation usually degenerates into chaos,as it did last winter, for example, in one of ourmember countries.

I am sorry that Mrs Dunwoody has now gone. Sheused some very harsh words. She said that all of what


Vredeling

we, Mr Albers and I were doing here was absolutenonsense. Absolute nonsense, she said. Well, I shalltreat that in the manner it deserves, Mr President. Ishall not dwell on the matter, although if it had beensaid by a genuinely politically responsible person Iwould have thumped the table a little harder, I think.However, I shall treat that in the manner it deserves,

Mr President.

Mr Albers said that part-time work could be organizedon a voluntary basis, and also through certain regula-

tions. It must be possible, however, for these to be

coordinated in some way. I am thinking, for example,of the performance of part-time work and the right tosocial benefits. There are certain gaps in the old social

legislation. !7e must bear this in mind when we want

to encourage part-time work and take care not to givewomen a twofold task with work both in the homeand outside, but instead try to bring about a moreequitable distribution between husband and wife ofthe burdens. of gainful employment and domestic

work.

A Commissioner never concerns himself directly withmotions for resolutions. But I want to try to be objec-tive. I think that Mr Pistillo and Mr Christensen - /es

extr|mes se touchent - were both right to say thatparagraph I of Mr Albers resolution is rather strange. Iwould remind you - and I have the right to say whatI think inasmuch as, after all, as Commissioner Idefend the interests of the Communiry - that para-graph I states : 'notes that, in view of the powersassigned to it, the European Community is not in a

position to fight against unemployment on all fronts'.

!7ell, Mr President, if that is the case then we can allgo home ! I should have an easy task, whatever youwere to say. If Parliament adopts this and then criti-cizes me at some later date for not doing enough thenI shall say: you yourself said that I have no powers so

how can you criticize me ? I am batting on an easywicket ! I am sure, however, that Mr Albers does notmean this and he quite rightly has no intention ofgiving me an easy wicket to bat on. But you mightinterpret it in that way, as Mr Pistillo and Mr Chris-tensen have pointed out. There is, of course, sometruth in the statement but I do not think that that wasMr Albers' meaning. I personally think that theCommunity has all the powers it needs in the unem-ployment field. I call to mind the words of Mr Albers'own party leader for the European elections, a certainMr VondelinS, who has rightly argued that everythingthat is not forbidden by the Treaties is permissible.There is nothing in the Treaties forbidding thepursuit of a European employment policy.Consequently, there is no reason why we should notpursue one !


Mr Albers, rapPortear. - (NL) Mr President, Ishould like to say a few words in connection with theCommissioner's reply and the comments that havebeen made by other members.

Mr Vredeling said he was thankful that he hadsucceeded in getting the Commission's decisionsthrough before the European elections. This gives mean opportunity of congratulating him on behalf of theCommittee on Social Affairs but also on behalf ofothers here in this Assembly because I think it is a

matter of the utmost importance that this questioncan now be further dealt with in the Council.However, towards the end of my statement I asked theCommissioner what chance he thought there was ofthe Council approving these proposals and I havereceived no answer to that question. However I realizethat it is difficult to give a definite answer ro that one.I am very grateful to the Commissioner for reactingpositively to our observation that the European Parlia-ment must henceforth be consulted when prepara-tions for the Tripartite Conference are of lengthy dura-tion. I consider it extremely important that Parliamentshould be able to take part in what is being donewhenever it wishes to do so.

I should like to add one remark in a personalcapacity. The document we are discussing has onlyiust reached us and I had to write the report and drawup the resolution at great speed, but on re-reading itone question occurs to me.

In their comments on the Tripartite Conference thetrade unions requested that a press conference shouldbe organized, after the conference, on the resolutionadopted - possibly with comments by the partiesconcerned. Now it is our experience that at pressconferences these resolutions, though drawn up ingood faith, are often interpreted differently by thosetaking part in the conference. Consequntly, it mightbe very useful to make at least part of the TripartiteConference public to allow the press to gain their ownimpressions of the speeches made. I think that thatmight be an excellent way of avoiding misunderstand-ings.

I should now like to comment briefly on MrBertrand's remarks about these five points.

According to the procedure applicable at present it isnot for the Commission to make proposals to thesocial partners; it is the Council which decides whichsubjects are to be discussed. The Commission is thusdependent on the Council. That point has to be madein defence of the Commission.

Turning finally to paragraph 1, which has given rise toa misunderstanding and in which I state explicitlythat it is not possible for the Community to fightagainst unemployment on all fronts, I think my five


Albers

years' experience as a Member of the European Parlia-ment entitle me to say this. Practice has shown thatthe hundreds, nay thousands of utterances made here,the answer given by the Commission and thepronouncements by the Council and the EuropeanCouncil on the fight against unemployment have sofar had little effect. That is why I begin my report bystating unequivocally that we should not cherish over-optimistic expectations or hope for things that are notpossible. However, in the subsequent paragraphs Ithen give a long list of the many possibilities whichthe Treaty and the Social Fund Regulation offer, and Iadvocate, on behalf of Parliament, that those possibili-ties be used. The resolution as a whole can thereforeby no means be regarded as detracting from thepowers available to the European institutions.

President. - I have received from Mr Van der Gunon behalf of the Committee on Social Affairs, Employ-ment and Education, in conclusion of the debate onthe oral question (Doc. l4l/79), a motion for a resolu-tion with request for a vote without referral tocommittee, pursuant to Rule a7$) of the Rules ofProcedure. The vote on this request for a vote withoutreferral to committee will take place at the start oftomorrow's sitting.

The motions for resolutions contained in the Albersreports will be put to the vote - as they stand -tomorrow at voting time.


17. Agenda

President. - Mr Lange, chairman of the Committeeon Budgets, has informed me that at its meeting of 7May 1979 it had decided that it would be unaLle tosubmit for the present part-session the report on thebudgetary discharge lor 1977 which was scheduled forthe sitting of Thursday, l0 May.

This item is therefore withdrawn from the agenda.

18. Urgent debate

President. - I have received from Mr Glinne, onbehalf of the Socialist Group, a motion for a resolu-tion (Doc. 168/79) with request for urgent debate,pursuant to Rule 14 of the Rules of Procedure, on thetrial of Mr J. Sabata.

The reasons supporting this request for urgent debateare contained in the document itself.

The vote on this request will take place at the start oftomorrow's sitting.

19. European Centre in Berlin

President. - The next item is the report (Doc.90179) druwn up by Mr Bertrand on behalf of theCommittee on Social Affairs, Employment and Educa-tion on

the results obtained to date by, and the future work of,the European Centre for the Development of VocationalTraining in Berlin.

I call Mr Bertrand.

Mr Bertrend, rapporteur. - (NL) Mr President, themotion for a resolution and report on the Centre forthe Development of Vocational Training were drawnup by the Committee on Social Affairs on its owninitiative but also at the express request of the Manage-ment Board of the Centre itself. The reason for thiswas that, owing to certain circumstances which I shallnot go into today, the starting-up of this Centre wasdelayed for some time and this gave rise to certainmisinterpretations and also a number of budgetarydifficulties. The decision to set up the Centre wastaken by the Council on l0 February l97S and theseat of the Centre was fixed in Berlin. There can beno questioning the fact that the Berlin authoritiesmade every possible effort to facilitate the accommoda-tion and organization of the Centre and to enable it tocarry out its function. It is nonetheless true that theCentre's seat is on the periphery of the Communityand thus easily escapes the attention of Parliamentand the other institutions. At the time we in theSocial Affairs Committee asked to be allowed to makea visit to the Centre but the Bureau of Parliament, inits superior wisdom, did not see fit to authorize such avisit and as a result we did not find out earlier enoughabout the causes of the delay. This, in my view, ischiefly attributable to the fact that the Centre is situ-ated on the Community's external frontier and enjoysconsiderable independence as regards decision-making and financing. The Management Board is ajoint body composed of. 27 members, including 9workers' representatives, 9 employers' representativesand 9 representatives of Member States' governments.The Centre is thus run by a kind of tripartite body.The composition of the directorate is based on thesame principle. The Director-General of the Centre isa representative of the workers, one deputy Director-General is a representative of the employers and theother depury Director-General is a representative ofthe governments; in addition there is a Commissionrepresentative. This body administers the Centre. !7etherefore considered it was necessary to draw attentionto the possibilities which the Centre offered in thepresent crisis situation affecting the Communiry andto the fact that it is repreatedly being stressed thatthere are a number of available jobs on the labourmarket but no qualified workers to take them owingto inadequate vocational training facilities.


Bertrand

Situations of this kind lead us to ask what role thisvocational training centre might play in the future.Hence paragraph 4 of our motion for a resolution inwhich we urge the Director of the Centre to channelits activities as far as possible towards work that is ofpractical value in the present social and economicsituation. I wish to draw attention to this so that theCommission will draw the necessary concrete conclu-sions and come up with appropriate proposals. Atpresent the Centre has 7 fields of activity in prepara-tion. It has set up a working party which is studyingthe problem of youth unemployment and vocationaltraining. Another problem currently being studied bythe Centre and on which a number of working parties

have been set up is vocational training aimed at

providing women with better career oPportunities.This too is an important matter, given the fact thathalf of the 5 million unemployed are women and 2

million are young people under the age of 25. These

two issues seem to me of such importance that Parlia-ment must pay the utmost attention to the efficientoperation of the Centre. A further area of study is thevocational training of immigrant workers' I do notneed to underline the importance of this' Fourthly,there is in-service training. Fifthly, a comparativestudy is being made of the national vocationaltraining systems. Finally there is a working partymaking a study of the effects of technical develop-ment on vocational training. In other words, thisCentre is not a research institute ; it is concerned withthe practical results emerging from specific studies.

That is why in paragraph 5 we urge that there shouldbe closer coordination between the various depart-ments of the Commission and the Centre itself. TheCommission is currently drawing up plans, it has a

department which is working on this subject and atthe same time there is a centre, financed by theCommunity, investigating the same problem. Contactsbetween the two have not been institutionalized and

their efforts are not being coordinated. In additionthere are a number of international organizations inwhich these problems are also being studied, and wetherefore urge that the Centre should work in closeconsultation and in close cooperation with the rele-vant Commission departments.

\7e recently held a debate on the proposals on theredistribution of work, in which reference was madeto in-service training and extended schooling as oneof the proposals submitted to the Council as a meansof redistributing work. N7ell, I think the Centre mustbe equipped for this, i.e., for the drafting of concrete,practical conclusions. Finally, there is a request thatseems a little strange in a resolution, that we shouldask the Committee on Social Affairs set up after theforthcoming direct elections to keep under closereview developments at the Centre and at the Founda-tion for the Improvement of Living and Working

Conditions in Dublin. You are of course aware of thefact that the Centre for the Development of Voca-tional Training and the Foundation for the Improve-ment of Living and lTorking Conditions in Dublinhave been established at the two extreme points of theCommunity and that it is absolutely essential for thenew Committee on Social Affairs to pay more atten-tion to the operation of these bodies to ensure thatthey really fulfil the obiectives assigned to them. Iwould therefore urge Parliament to approve thismotion for a resolution. By doing so, it will be givingreal support and encouragement to the work of theCentre for the Development of Vocational Training inBerlin.


Mr Vredeling, Vice-President of tbe Commission. -Mr President, fortunately I can be very brief incommenting on what Mr Bertrand said and on thecontents of his report because I am in entire agree-

ment. There is no point in repeating what he has said.

You have cut the grass from under my feet, MrBertrand. In the notes I have before me in preparationfor this debate I say exactly the same things as youabout the Berlin Institute. So I can skip over thatpoint.

I would, however, like to make one comment aboutthe motion for a resolution, paragraph 2 of whichreads as follows : 'Notes further that the seat chosenby the Council of Ministers - Berlin - and the size

of the Management Board contributed to the delay.'

I should be grateful if Parliament, if that is at allpossible, were not to accept the wording of thatsentence as it stands. I do not think that the size ofthe Management Board itself contributed to the delayin the starting-up of the Centre. It is true that theManagement Board has a four-tier structure, as

described by Mr Bertrand: governments, employers,workers and three Commission representatives. But ifyou want to have links with the various Member States

there is no getting round the need to have representa-tives of those States on the Management Board of theinstitute. A similar set-up was opted for at the DublinInstitute.

As for the fixing of the seat in Berlin, I do not thinkthat this was altogether a good idea and at the timethere were, I believe, obiections from the SovietUnion. Mr Bertrand will never accept that, I knowhim too well for that but I think it gives the wrongpicture of the matter if you put it like that. I do notbelieve that the choice of the seat has itself influencedthe operation of the Centre. Even if the seat had beenin Luxembourg, Paris or Amsterdam, there wouldhave been the same starting-up difficulties. I agree

with Mr Bertrand, however, that the Berlin authoritieswere extremely cooperative. Moreover, many of the


Vredeling

drawbacks, slight in themselves, arising from theremoteness of the Centre are more than made up forby the facilities provided and the cooperative attitudeshown by the municipal authorities in Berlin. This,Mr Bertrand, goes a long way to make up for the factthat the Centre is in such a remote location. Indeed,from the point of view of decentralization, which weare keen to achieve in each of the Member States so as

to avoid concentrating everything in the same place,from that point of view I think it was a good idea toestablish these rwo institutes in Dublin and Berlin.

I think I shall be repeating myself if I were again tounderline the role and the importance of vocationaltraining. Mr Bertrand has already adequately demons-trated this. I am sure Parliament realizes, from theamount of money being spent under the Social Fund,that we are doing everything possible in this area andthat we fully share Mr Bertrand's views on the subject.


Mr Sieglerschmidt. - (D) Mr President, ladies andgentlemen, I was not intending to speak until I heardMr Vredeling's remarks. As a Member of the EuropeanParliament from Berlin I did of course pay specialattention to this passage, but I feel, in the light of theEuropean Parliament's known attitude to Berlin, thatno criticism of the siting of these institutions inBerlin can be read into it. I should have thought it farmore likely - and I assume that Mr Bertrand willgive us his view on the matter - that it refers to a

difficulty which we in Berlin have to live with.Perhaps he meant that it is difficult to bring in staff toset up any body, office or other institution in Berlin,as many people, living hundreds of miles away fromthat city, have exaggerated ideas of the dangers or diffi-culties of living in Berlin. It is thus well known that,while it is not in general difficult to get staff to cometo Berlin, it can in certain circumstances take a littlelonger. That is how I interpreted this passage in theresolution, and I should be glad if Mr Bertrand couldconfirm that I was right in doing so.

President. - I call Mr Bertrand.

Mr Bertrand. - (NL) Mr President, as paragraph 2has given rise to varying interpretations and as I amalways willing to adopt a conciliatory approach andfind a compromise, I propose that paragraph 2 of theresolution be deleted. This would remove all the diffi-culties and any danger of misinterpretation. The restof the resolution would still be perfectly clear.

I would therefore request you, Mr President, in case Iam not present tomorrow, to announce that therapporteur has himself asked for the deletion of para-graph 2.

President. - Mr Bertrand, Parliament takes note ofthe withdrawal of paragraph 2 of the motion for a reso-lution.

I note that there are no more requests to speak.

The motion for a resolution - thus modified - willbe put to the vote tomorrow at voting time.


20. Discrimination in France againstmigrant uomen

President. - The next item is the oral questionwithout debate. (Doc. 124179) by Mrs Squarcialupi tothe Commission:

Subject: Discrimination in France against immigrant

Is ihe Commission aware that the French Government ispractising serious discrimination against immigrantwomen, from both Communiry and non-Communitycountries, with regard to the special card which giveswomen who are pregnant or are accompanied by smallchildren priority in queues in offices, etc. ? Does theCommission not consider that this violates the principleslaid down by the Treaty of Rome and other internationalagreements ?

I call Mrs Squarcialupi.

Mrs Squarcialupi. - (I) Mr President, my questionconcerns a very small card which does not eveninvolve taking money from the French treasury.However, it is an important card since, under Frenchfamily law, it gives prioriry to women who are preg-nant or are accompanied by small children so thatthey are spared long hours of waiting in offices, publictransport ticket queues and shops, which would beparticularly tiring for them in certain circumstances.The position is that this prioriry card is refused tosome immigrant women unless their children areFrench nationals. The sad thing is that this discrimina-tion started in 1940 at the time when many Jewishfamilies were sent to concentration camps and foreignfamilies were not allowed to move. The ban ongranting priority cards to foreign women dates back tothat time. The histroy of this discrimination isshameful and it is equally shameful that is still existstoday.

ln 1973 the French Ministry for Social Affairs askedfor the ban to be lifted and in 1974 the local authori-ties were ordered to remove this discrimination.However, certain prefects refused to grant prioritycards to immigrant women on the pretext that therewere too many of them. Since the large number ofimmigrants is indicative of their usefulness to thecountry, it is hard to see why these people should bedenied such a small privilege which, in any case, coststhe Community nothing.

A few months ago when an Italian immigrant womanprotested, the reason given was that her childen werenot French nationals.


Squarcialupi

Such discrimination is contrary to all humanitarianprinciples, and particularly to Articles 7 and 48 of theTreaty of Rome which prohibit any discrimination onthe grounds of nationality. It also violates the regula-tions on the free movement of workers within theEEC which is a fundamental right of workers and

their families and also entitles them to social and taxa-

tion benefits. The family should not be treated differ-ently to the worker. Discrimination against womenfrom non-member countries should also be prohi-bited.

Community regulations cannot be interpreted as refer-ring only to working conditions and remuneration.They should go much further than that. I am there-fore asking the Commission to ensure the removal ofthis particular discrimination against the first trulyEuropean citizens so that they will be able to have

confidence in a Community which is preparing totake a first step towards the democratization processon l0 June.


Mr Vredeling, Vice-President of tbe Commission -(NL) Mr President, the Commission has taken note ofthis case of alleged discrimination which has beenraised by the Honourable Member. She refers todiscrimination in France against immigrant womenwho are alleged to receive different treatment fromFrench women, even as regards the granting of a

national 'priority card'. I can inform the honourableMember that on 22 February of this year my depart-ments drew the attention of the French authorities tothis situation. I have so far received no reply from theFrench authorities concerned. I shall take the opportu-nity provided by this question to remind the Frenchauthorities of the letter I addressed to them on thiscase of alleged discrimination. 'S7ere the Commissionto receive no answer, or no satisfactory answer, Iwould not rule out the possibility of a procedurebeing initiated against the French Govemment forinfringement of the Treaty. One of the objectives ofthe action programme in favour of migrant workersand their families was to guarantee equal treatment interms of living and working conditions to womenfrom Member States and from third countries. TheCommission will therefore remain vigilant wherecases of discrimination, such as this one, are broughtto its attention, in so far as they are at variance withthe principles of Community law.

President. - This item is closed.

21. Agend.a

President. - I call Mr Ripamonti on a point oforder.

Mr Ripamonti. - (f Mr President, I wish to informthe House that the Committee on Budgets whosemeeting has just ended and was attended by the Presi-

dent of the European Parliament" has asked for thereport on draft supplementary budget No 2 for the1979 financial year to be postponed until tomorrowand taken preferably after consideration of the oralquestion wiih debate and before Mr Pintat's report onenlargement of the Community. It also asks that, inview of the close connection between the two subjects,the report on the draft estimates of the revenue andexpenditure of the European Parliament for the finan-cial year 1980 (Doc. 648178) should also be placed ontomorrow's agenda.

President. - As this report stood on our agendawith the qualification'possibly', I see no reason why Ishould not accord your request a favourable responseand propose to Parliament that it be placed on theagenda for tomorrow, after the oral question on theprotection of the waten of the Rhine.

Similarly, it appears logical that we should alsoconsider your report on the draft provisional accountof receipts and expenditure of the European Parlia-ment for 1980 tomorrow.


That is agteed.

22. Regulation arnending tbe Financial Regulationof 21 December 1977

President. - The next item is the report (Doc.161179) drawn up by Mr Shaw on behalf of theCommittee on Budgets on


regulation amending the Financial Regulation of 2lDecember 1977 applicable to the general budget of theEuropean Communities.

I call Mr Shaw.

Mr Shaw, rapporteur. - Mr President, my remarkson this report can be very brief, because the explana-tions for the proposed changes are set out withcommendable clarity and succinctness by the Commis-sion. Incidentally, I would point out that a documenthas been produced today as a result of the budgetmeeting last night, so that the document before us isPE 58.286lfinal.

Briefly, the proposal falls into two parts : the firsttightens up a number of deadlines, set out in theFinancial Regulation for the preparation and the trans-mission of accounts. It also gives one extra month tothe Court of Auditors for the completion of its workunder Article 83/1. The second part of the amend-ment is aimed at reducing the additional period forentering EAGGF Guarantee Section expenditure in


Shaw

the accounts. The Committee on Budgets deliberatedon these amendments at its meeting last night, andagreed unanimously to endorse them. Now as rappor-teur, I had to raise with the committee the issue of theopinion of the Court of Auditors which Parliamenthas not yet seen. I would emphasize that at all timeswe feel that, where it is relevant, we ought to have theopinion of the Court of Auditors, and I might add,incidentally, we do not regard it as acceptable that theopinion should only be sent to the Council.In the present case, we took account of two facts, inspite of not having the opinion of the Court of Audi-tors. The first fact was that the amendments seemedto us to be intrinsically desirable - I think everyonein principle wants them. Secondly, the present Parlia-ment is coming to the end of its term, and that meansto say that if we do not pass these things this week,then the whole matter will have to be held over untilautumn and possibly late autumn, and this was felt byall parties to be undesirable. So in the light of thesecircumstances, Mr President, the Committee onBudgets decided to approve the proposals in theirentirety, subiect to the proviso that recourse be had tothe conciliation procedure - that is to say betweenCouncil and ourselves - should be Council come toa different conclusion on the proposals. Of course inview of the special nature of the Financial Regulation,the Council would normally open the conciliationprocedure should there be a difference berween thetwo partners in the Budgetary Authority with regardto amendments to this central piece of Communitylegislation.

That would give us an opportunity to review it, shouldsome significant comment be made by the Court ofAuditors.

So, finally, Mr President, I must add that in any eventthe Financial Regulation as a whole is due to bereviewed fully next year in accordance with the provi-sions of a three-year review which I wrote into therevision in 1977 under Article 107. And so with thesewords, Mr President, I can assure the House that thisis something desirable. It tightens up the FinancialRegulation in a significant way, and I commend it tothe House for is adoption.


The motion for a resolution will be put to the vote -as it stands - tomorrow at voting time.


23. Agenda for next dalb sitting

President. - The next sitting will take placetomorrow, I7ednesday, 9 May 1979, with thefollowing agenda :

10.00 a.m. and 3.00 p.m.:

- Early vote on two motions for resolutions

- Vote on the request for urgent debate on two motionsfor resolutions

- Oral questions with debate to the Council and theCommission on employment policy

- Oral question with debate to the Council on theprotection of the Rhine

- Ripamonti report on draft supplementary budget No2 fot 1979

- Ripamonti report on the draft estimates of Parliamentfor 1980

- Pintat report on enlargement of the Community

- Zagai report on human rights in Ethiopia

- Statement by the Commission on the Harrisburg acci-dent

- Flemig report on cooperation with developing coun-tries in the field of energy

- Flamig report on the JRC multiannual programmel 980-l 983

- Brown report on electriciry production

- Flamig report on the energy situation in the Commu-nity

- Schmidt report on the protection of the interests ofmembers and others in soci6t6s anonymes

- Castle report on economic and trade relationsbetween the EEC and New Zealand

3.00 p. m.:

- Question Time (questions to the Council and ForeignMinisters)

4.30 p. m.:

- Voting time


Qhe sitting was closed at 7.10 p.m)


SITTING OF WEDNESDAY, 9 NIAY 1979

Con te nts

l.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Approaal of minutes

Documents receiaed

Agenda

Tribute to Aldo llloro

Decisions on requests for ear\ aztes

Decision on urgenE

Tabling of two motions for resolutionsseeking to arnend thc Rules of Procedure

Oral questions uitb debate: Employmentpolicy (Docs, 12t/79 and 126/79):

.fuIr Pisani; Mr Bcrnard-Relmond, Presi-dent-in-Office of the Cauncil; lWr Vred-eling Vice-President of tbe Commission;lWr Bertrand, on bebalf of tbe Cbistian-Democratic Group (EfP); lWr Ansquer, onbebalf of the Group of European Progres-siae Democrats ; Mr Pisani; Mr Scbwdrer;l4r Albers ; lllr Bemard-Reymond; MrPisani;Air l/redeling

9. Oral question witb debate : Agreement on

tbe Protection of tbe Rbine (Doc. 548/78):

Mr Baas, author of tbe question

JlIr Bernard-Reymond, President-in-Officeof tbe Council; Mr aan Aerssen, on bebalfof tbe Cbristian-Democratic Group (EPP);Mr Bernard-Reymond ; lllr Baas

10. Enlargement of thq Communitl - Report(Doc. a2/79) bX A4r Pintat on bebalf of tbePolitical Affairs Committee :

Ailr Pintat, tapporteur

)llr Hoffmann, on bebalf of tbe Social*tGroup ; lVr Bernand, on bebalf of tbeC b is t ian - Dem o crct ti c G roup (E PP)

ll. Agenda

12. Question Time (Doc. 142/79) (continued)

Question to tbe Council:

90

90

90

90

9r

92

92

Question No 18, by lllr Radoux: Issue of aEuropean passport to citizens of tbe.fuIember States of tbe Community :

.fuIr Bernard-Relmond, President-in-Officeof tbe Council ; lV.r Radoux ; Mr Bernard-Relmond; Mr Ellis ; fuIr Bernard-Reynond; .fuIrs Dunwoodl ; fuIr Bernard-Reymond; lV.r Scbyns ; hlr Bernard-Reymond ; ll4r Blumenfeld; hlr Bernard-Reymond; lllr aan Aerssen ; Mr Bernard-Reymond; tVrs Dablerup; lllr Bernard-Reymond; .fu{r Fletcber-Coohc ; MrBernard-Relmond; lllr Brugba ; llrBernard-Relmond ,

Question No 19, by lllr Houell:'Salt andpepper' turhey imports :

hlr Bernard-Reyrnond; Mr Howell ; llrBernard-Reymond; hlrs Dunwoody ; llrBernard-Reyrnond; iVr Scott-Hopkins ; MrBernard-Reyrnond .

Question No 21, by ^fuIr Osborn : FalklandIslands :

hlr Bernard-Reynond; lllr Osborn ; hlrBernard-Reymond .

Question No 22, by Mr Kauanagb: Impactof Greek entty on Community sbcepmeatpoliE:

Alr Bernard-Reymond; hlr Kaaanagh ;ll[r Bernard-Reymond ; lllr Scott-Hop kin s ;.fuIr Bernard-Reymond; lllr Houtell; MrBernard-Reymond

Question No 23, by Lord Bessborougb: TheCommunity's relations utitb tbe People\Republic of China:

lllr Bernard-Reymond; Lord Bessborougb ;Mr Bernard-Reynond; Mr Kaspereit ; MrBernard-Reymond; .fuIr aan Aerssen ; llrBernard-Relmond; Nr Fletcber-Cooke;Mr Bernard-Relmond; llr Fitcb ; lllrBernard-Reymond .

Point of order: -fuIrHopkins; Mr Scbyns;

Howell; Mr Scott-tVr Scott-Ifopkins ;

ll3

tt4

lr593

104

104 lt6

tt7

106

109

tt2

112

Mr Houtell r 18

Sitting of l7ednesday, 9 May 1979 89

13. Statements to narh tbe last part-session oftbe non-directll elected European Parlia-nrent

l{r Bernard-Reymond, President-in-}fficeof tbe Council: llr Jenkins, President oftbe Commission

14. Enlargentent of tbe Commuttitl ftesump-tion)

.fuIr Sandri, on bebalf of tbe Communistand Allies Group

Votes

Ansquer report (Doc. 162/79): Communitlsupplies of raw materials:

Adoption of tbe resolution .

Dunwooiljt report (Doc. 98/79): Equal payfor men and uomen in tbe Member Statesof tbe Communitl:

Explanations of aote : fuIrs Dunwoody;Mrs Squarcialupi

Point ,fDablerup

order: lllr Klepscb ; .fuIrs


Albers reports (Docs. 31/79 and 147/79)and Van der Gun ,notion for a resolution(Doc. 153/79) : Tripartite Conference -Council of hlinisters of Social Affairs andLabour on 15 hlal 1979:

Adoption of tbe tbree resolutions

Bertrand report (Doc. 90/79): EuropeanCentre in Berlin :

Mr Bertrand, rapporteur

Adoption of tbe resolution

Sbaw report (Doc. 161/79): Regulationamending tbe Financial Regulation of 2tDecember 1977 :


Enlargement of tbe Community (resump-tion):

.rVr Ansquer, on behalf of tbe Group ofEuropean Progressiue Democrats I MrDankert, on bebalf of the Socialist Group;Llr fuIitchell ; ,fuIr Norrnanton; Nr Natali,Vice-President of tbe Commission

Human rigbts in Ethiopia - Report (Doc.132/79) b1 Mr Zagari on bebalf of tbePol itical Affairs Committee :

lVr Bertrand, deputl rapporteur

hlr Bersani, on bebalf of the Cbristian-Democratic Group (EPP); lllr Sandri, onbebalf of tbe Communist and Allies

Group; )llr Jakobsen; -fulr Natali, Vice-President of tbe Commission .

18. Statement by tbe Commission on tbe acci-dent at Hanisburg:

tVr Natali, Vice-President of tbe Conmis-sion ; Mr Flcimig on bebalf of tbe SocialistGroup; lllr Normanton, on bebalf of theEuropean Conseraatioe Group ; .fuIrs lValz,on behalf of the Cbristian-DemocraticGroup (EPP); lllr Natali

19. JRC multiannual prograrnme 1980-1983

- Report (Doc. 5a/79) b1 Mr Fltimig onbehalf of tbe Committee on Energl andResearcb :

hlr Fltimig rapporteur

Lord Bessborougb, draftsman of Anopinion ;.tuIrs lValz, on bebalf of tbe Chris-tian-Democratic Group (EPP); *Ir Baason behalf of the Liberal and DemocraticGroup ; Mr Normanton, on bebalf of tbeEuropean Conseraatiae Group; Mr Vero-nesi, on bebalf of tbe Comrnunist andAllies Group ; -tr[r Branner, Member of tbeCommission;LIr Fkimig

Draft estirnates of Parliarnent for 1980 -Report (Doc. 176/79) b1 LIr Ripamonti onbebalf of the Committee on Budgets :

lllr Riparnon t i, rapp o rt e urlllr Dankert, on bebalf of tbe SocialistGroup;Mr Ripamonti

Cornrnunication on cooperation witb deae-loping countries in tbe field of energ -Report (Doc, 7a/79) b1 Mr Flcimig onbebalf of tbe Cornmittee on Deuelopmentand Cooperation:

125,fuIr Fltitnig rappo rt eilr

r30l l8

il8

15.

r22

122

123

124

124

132

134

147

123

136

20.

143

t44

124

124

125

21.

144

16.llr Verones| on behalf of tbe Communistand Allies Group; llr Osborn, on behalfof the European Conseraatioe Group ; lllrBrunner, llletnber of tbe Cotntnission 145

147

125

22. Limitation of speaking tirne

23. Electricity production Report (Doc.19/79) fu AtIr Broun on bebalf of tbeCommittee on Energ and Researcb :

-fuIr Brown, rdpporteur

Airs lValz, on bebalf of tbe Cbistian-Democratic Group (EPP); IlIr Osbom, onbebalf ,f tbe European ConseroatiaeGroup ; lllr Broeksz ; )lIr Brunner, illemberof tbe Commission;A,Ir Brown

17.

r30

149


24. Energy situation in tbe Commuttity -Report (Doc. 95/79) by lllr Fltinig on

behalf of the Conntittee on Energy andResearch :

lllr Flrimig, rapporteur

Lord Bessborough, on bebalf of tbc Euro-pean Conseraatiue Group ; lllr Brunner,lVember of tbe Comnrission

25. Directite on tbe protection of tbe interests,f members and others in soci4tis

ArronJmer - Report (Doc. 136/79) b1 MrScbntidt on behalf of tbe Legal AffairsCommittee:Mr Scbmidt, rdpporteur

Mr Sieglerscbnridt, on bebalf tf tbe

Socialist Group ; IlIr Caro, on bebalf of tbe

Cbistian-Democratic Group (EPP); fuIrFeit, on bebalf of tbe Liberal and Demo-cratic Group ; Mr Stetter, on bebalf of the

European Conserttatiae Group ; lVIrAnsquer, on bebalf of tbe Group of Euro'pean Progressiae Democrats ; llrDauignon, hlember of tbe Comtnission

Urgent procedure

Agenda

Tabling and inclusion in the agenda of adocument

Agenda for next sitting 159

Annex 160

3. Agenda^'-'

President. - Since they are still under discussion incommittee, the Ripamonti reports which are entered

on the agenda for today's sitting after the oral ques-

tion (Doc. 648178) on the Rhine will be considered

later in the day. The exact time will be decided later.

4. Tribute to Aldo ,lloro

President. - Ladies and gentlemen, a year ago inStrasbourg we were horrified to learn of the murder ofAldo Moro, slain in a moment of mindless and brutalterrorism after a long and terrible captivity.

The tragedy of that event has left such a mark on

contemporary history, and so great is the significanceof Aldo Moro as the symbol of the established order

under attack, that we feel the desire, on this first anniv-ersary of his death, to Pay tribute to him and to his

work on behalf of democracy in Italy and on behalf ofthe European Community.

But we must also take heed of the grim lesson to be

learned from an event which, alas, is not alone of itskind.

The terrorist violence which struck down an innocentvictim in Aldo Moro was an affront to every Personwho believes in human values, in peaceful coexistence

in society and in the daily Practice of the democratic

ideal.

After cruelly holding to ransom the established order,

the feelings of so many people and sociery as a whole,

political tirrorism chose as a victim one of the most

iminent politicians in Italy. This was the horrifyingand dramatic admission that such terrorism is impo-tent in its struggle to overthrow the free and democ-

ratic order.

150

l5l26.

27.

28.

29.152

154

158

158

158

GB 0631 ll 05


President

Qhe sitting was opened at 10.20 a.m)


l. Approaal of minutes

President. - The minutes of proceedings of yester-day's sitting hive been distributed. -

Since there are no obiections, the minutes of proced-dings are approved.

2. Documents receioed

President. -

I have received from the committeesthe following reports :

- by Mr Shaw, on behalf of the Committee on Budgets,on the list of requests for the carry-over of appropria-tions from the 1978 to the 1979 financial year (non-automatic carry-overs) (Doc. 165179) ;

- by Mr Notenboom, on behalf of the Committee onBudgets, on the proposal from the Commission to theCouncil for a regulation on the measures to be takenin the event of irregularities affecting the ownresources referred to in the decision of 2l April 1970and the organization of an information system for theCommission in this field (Doc. 167179);

- by Mr Ripamonti, on behalf of the Committee onBudgets, on the draft estimates of revenue and expen-diture of the European Parliament for the financialyear 1980 (Doc. 176179).

Sitting of l7ednesday, 9 May 1979 9t

President

But the violent and destructive pattern of terrorism isstill with us, and has since claimed other victims.Hardly a day passes in our countries without the conti-nued challenge of international terrorism to our well-being, to civil liberties and to the state itself. As onewho always sought to bring into the democratic arenathe discussion of contemporary events, and in a

typical expression of the democratic beliefs he held,AIdo Moro once said, when commenting on a violentdemonstration :

The cause and nature of violence are all too oftenshrouded in mystery. But we know for certain that anykind of violence, when directed against the free system,is unthinkable and inadmissible. lThatever the cause itserves and whatever the ideal it upholds, these can andmust be pursued within the law, by means which are

sometimes slow and beset with difficulties but by whichfreedom and progress can flourish. !flhere there isfreedom, nothing is impossible ; where there is violenceand tyranny, all may be lost. The condemnation ofviolence, from whatever source and whatever itssupposed credentials, must be strong and unequivocal.!7e expect and we can be sure that the wheels of democ-racy will move in a framework which must not be autho-ritarian, but strong and reliable. !flhere prevention anddeterrence are needed, we expect to see set in motion themeasures which, although of a democratic order, neednot be any less effective.

Public and political opinion must be mobilized to rejectany attack on democracy and uphold the freedom whichis the ideal of our nation.

It is significant, of course, that this inadmissible violenceis often directed against the political parties and the tradeunions which, although inviolable like every other expres-sion of civilized life, symbolize freedom as the supremeideal, because it is in the parties and unions that socialideas and interests meet, merge and are established. Anyattack on them is an attack on the whole system, ofwhich these institutions are the tangible expression. IIone is threatened, all the others, without distinction, are

also threatened.

The Europe of the Community -

whose peoples arerepresented by this Parliament

- emerged as a resultof the determined reiection of every form of oppres-sion, tyranny or violence, be they the work of totali-tarian r6gimes or terrorist groups which, reiecting thevalues of civilized life, resort to every means fromintimidation to political violence, including brutalexecution, to undermine freedom and civilized exist-ence.

The direct elections in this Europe of democraticnations and peoples will provide the ultimate proofthat we are a community of free men and women whohave chosen the way of democracy in preference toviolence and oppression. !7e call on Europe to do itsutmost to isolate the terrorists, to expose their subver-sive bases and to oppose their violence, using everyavailable means

- while respecting the rights of indi-

viduals and the communiry -

which our constitu-tions and our laws allow.

If terrorism seems to threaten some societies morethan others, we must remember that it is an affrontand a threat to the common ideal of freedom anddemocracy in all our countries. It is only through therejection of violence by every citizen in the Commu-nity, and through legislative and administrativemeasures coordinated at Communiry level, that wecan extirpate this canker which is a barrier to the iointdevelopment of our societies towards a more civilizedway of live and the greater respect of human rights.

This Parliament is meeting for the last time before thehistoric direct elections by universal suffrage. Here,before this Parliament, I want to pay tribute to theviews of Aldo Moro on the value of the EuropeanCommunity. For many years, as a politician and as a

leader of the Italian Government and Italian politicallife, he dedicated himself to the construcrion ofEurope with all the commitment born of his huma-nistic and legal background, of his deep-rooted democ-ratic ideals and of his Christian upbringing. In hiswords:

As Italians and as Europeans, we look to a united Europewith a tremendous sense of hope. Other than the solid-arity of Europe, we cannot conceive of anything whichwill be more effective in overcoming within us distrust,the allure of decadence and the risk and disappointmentof isolation.

Throwing off the chauvinistic trammels of the past, wehave turned towards a Europe which is our neighbourand our equal in the hope that, apart from the pricelessbenefits of an economic Community, we shall alsoachieve a similar political development towards a suprana-tional structure and a dimension which is suited, throughreasonable expansion, to the aspirations of our citizensand the needs of the times.

These words are bequeathed to us by a man who wasmurdered for the very ideals in which he believed andfor which he laboured. They are an admonition to usto remain true to the aims for which this Parliamenthas worked so hard and for which the people ofEurope are now involved in the largest and mosttypical expression of democracy at work in moderntimes.

Sflith sadness we again pay tribute to the memory ofAldo Moro, and we offer our humble condolence tohis family and to the Italian nation, which is still a

prey to terrorism and violence.

5. Decisions on requests for early aotes

President. - The next item is the decision on tworequests for early votes.

!7e consider first the motion for a resolution (Doc.162179), tabled by Mr Ansquer on behalf of the Groupof European Progressive Democrats, requesting an

early vote to wind up the debate on the oral question(Doc. I l2l79lrev.l on Community supplies of rawmaterials.


President

Since no one wishes to speak, I put the request to thevote.

The request for an early vote is adopted.

The motion for a resolution will be put to the vote

this afternoon.

'We now consider the motion for a resolution (Doc.163/79), tabled by Mr Van der Gun on behalf of the

Committee on Social Affairs, Employment and Educa-tion, requesting an early vote to wind up the debateon the oral question (Doc. l4ll79) on preparation-t

for tbe rneeting of the Council o.f Ministers o.l' SocialAffairs and Labour on 15 May 1979.

Since no one wishes to speak, I put the request to thevote.

The request for an .arly vote is adopted.

The motion for a resolution will be put to the votethis afternoon.

5. Decision on ilrgerrc)'

President. - The next item on the agenda is the

vote on rwo requests for urgent procedure Pursuant toRule 14 of the Rules of Procedure.

I consult Parliament on the adoption of urgent proce-dure for the motion for a resolution (Doc. 164/79),tabled by Mr Hamilton, Mr Brown, Mr Ellis, MrDalyell, Lord Bruce of Donington, Lord Castle, MrFitch, Mr Edwards, Lord Ardwick, Lady Fisher andLord Kennet, on a single seat for tbe exeottil'e .tildparliamentary institutions of the Contntunitl.

The reasons supporting the request for urgent proce-dure are contained in the document itself.

I put to the vote the request for urgent procedure.

The request for urgent procedure is rejected.

Pursuant to Rule 25 of the Rules of Procedure, thismotion for a resolution is referred to the appropriatecommittee.

I now consult Parliament on the adoption of urgentprocedure for the motion for a resolution (Doc.168/79), tabled by Mr Glinne on behalf of theSocialist Group, on tbe trial of Mr J. Sabata.

The reasons supporting the request for urgent proce-dure are contained in the document itself.

I put to the vote the request for urgent procedure.

The request for urgent procedure is adopted.

I propose that this motion for a resolution be placedon the agenda for the sitting of Friday, ll May 1979,before the \Talker-Smith report on the appointmentof a Community ombudsman.

Since there are no objections, that is agreed.

7. Tabling o_l' tro notiont .l.or rcsoltttiotts .sct,kin! tottntcnd tbe Rtrler o-f Pro*dtrrt

President. -

I have received two motions for resolu-tions seeking to amend the Rules of Procedure ofParliament :

- a motion for a resolutron (Doc. 170/79), tabled by MrFellermarer on behalf of the Socialist Group, MrKlepsch on behalf of the Christran-DcrrrocraticGroup (EPP), Mr Pintat on behalf of thc Liberal ancl

Dcmocratrc Group, Mr Rippon on behalf oi tlre Euro-pean Conservative Group, Mr A.nrendola on beh.rli otthe Conrmunrst and Allies Group and Mr dc la

Maldne on behalf of the Group of Etrropcarr Progrcs-

sive Democrats, on the creation oi a Rule 7a ot theRules o{ Procedure of the Europcan Parlianrent :

- a motion for a resolution (Doc. 17ll79), tablcd by MrFellermaier on behalf of the Socralist Group, MrKlepsch on behalf of thc Christian-DcnrocraticGroup (EPP), Mr Prntat on bchali ot the Liberal .rnd

Democratrc Group, Mr Rippon on behall of thc Etrro-pean Conservative Group and Mr Anre rrdola otr

behalf of the Comnrunist and Allics Group, ort tltc.rmendment of Rtrle .15 (.5) of the Rulcs of Procetltrrcof the European Parlranrent.

In accordance with Rule 5a (l) of the Rules of Proce-dure, these motions for resolutions have been referredto the Committee on the Rules of Procedtrre and Peti-tions, which will meet this afternoon so that Parlia-ment will have the opportunity of stating its views orr

these motions for resolutions during the current part-session.

8. Emplo.T'mcnt poliq'

President. - Thc next item is the joint debate onthe oral questions with debate tabled by Mr Feller-maier on behalf of the Socialist Group to the Council(Doc. I 25/79):

Subiect : Community employmcnt policy

l. At rts meeting of 7 and {l Aprrl l97ti rn Copcnlragcn,the European Council statetl that rt was csscntial forthe Conrnrunrty to achreve an annual growth rate of4 5 o/o by the middle of. 1979.lt callcd for a commonstrategy to be dcveloped to rcvcrsc thc unsatrsfactorytrend in the Community. In Bremcn the EuropeanCouncil decided on a comnron approach by nrcans ofconrplementary mcasures in order to achievc a consid-crably higher rate of economic growth and thusrcduce the level of unemployment.

However, according to the Commissron's latest esti-mates the growth rate in the Community in 1978

amounted to only 2'8 o/o and a rate o( .l'4 o/o is fore-cast for 1979.

How does the CounciI explain this discrepancyl>etween the 1978 obiectives and the present economicfacts or forecasts ? Can it explain why this commonapproach has clearly been unsuccessful, since unem-ployment has increased still further since the begin-ning ol 1979 ? lVhat docs it intend to do once and forall to combat unemployment in the Community effec-tively ? Are not new measures to stimulate the

Sitting of !(ednesday, 9 May 1979 93

President

economy and nrore effectrve actron specrfrcally relatedto enrployme nt and labour market policy urgentlyrequrred as part of a determined effort to combat thecontlnulng unenrployment problem ?

2. In hrs conclusrons to the Tnpartrte Conference of)une 1977 the Presrdent-rn-O(fice of the Councilcalled for conrparative and quantrtative studres on a

nuntber of nratters whrch could serve as a basis (or

Conrnrunity actron. These matters irrcluded the rnrplr-catrons of work sharrng and the role of the tertiarysector, rnclrrding the public sector, in ;ob creatron.

rWhat rs the outcome of these studres ? What practrcalmeasures have so far resulted from thenr ?

and by Mr Fellermaier, Mr Pisani and Mr Lange onbehalf of the Socialist Group to the Commission (Doc.t2617e):

Subicct : Enrployment policy

l. Vhat rate of econonric growth would ntake rt possrble,within a reasonable time, to elrmrnate current unem-ploynrent ? Is thrs rate of growth conrpatrble (bearingrn mind the current state of the nrarkets ln raw mate-rrals and encrgy) wrth the balance of paynrents require-merrts of the Mentber States ?

2. In the light of these consideratrons does the Commrs-slon not think that constructlve measures for the redis-tnbutlon of work should be taken as a ntatter ofurgency ; if so, what proposals rs rt drawrng up ro thisend ?

.1. On a more gencral level, can the Commission provrdeany rnformatron on tts overall standpoint on theemployment situatron and on what proposals itrntends to submit in this freld to the Socral Counciland the Standing Committee on enrployn.rent at futuremeetrngs ?

4. How does thc Comnrissron tntend to improve thetripartrte compromises ; will it be subnrrttrng propo-sals to the Council on this sub,ect ?

I call Mr Pisani.

Mr Pisani. - (F) Mr President, an ill-disposed

person, witnessing our persistent requests for a debateon this oral question concerning employment mightaccuse us of trying to pull a cheap electioneeringstunt. However, as politicians

- and above all as

candidates for election -

it is our duty at this Parlia-ment's final part-session to recount what we see andhear, when talking to the voters and telling them whatEurope is all about during the run-up to the election.

At our various meetings, where we all encourage thepublic to vote in the elections to rhe European Parlia-ment, we are often asked what is the use of Europe,and how can it resolve what is the most pressingproblem in most, if not all, the member countries.Today's debate therefore provides a foretaste of theanxieties which will be expressed when the new Parlia-

nrent is elected and when, with its newly acquiredcapacities, it sets out to tackle the Community's majorproblems.

The oral question which I have tabled on behalf ofthe Socialist Group is addressed, from rwo differentviewpoints, to the Commission and to the Council,and it serves as an introduction to a motion for a reso-lution which the Housc will be invited to vote on at a

later stage. The first question which comes to mind -and we have put this to the Commission

- is whatrate of growth would make it possible to eliminateunemployment ? Speaking on behalf of my Groupalbeit in rather general terms, I have on occasion saidthat growth does not result in the creation of jobs.However, I ought to have said - and I say it now

-that growth alone, while an essential prerequisite, isnot sufficient to increase employment. As we know,investment is aimed more at increasing productivityin the face of international competition than atincreasing employment.

Nonetheless, even with investment aimed at boostingproductivity, growth is necessary for more employ-ment. The first question we ask is this

- and it is an

all-important question in view of the state of oureconomies, our production structures and the state ofthe international market : what level will growth haveto reach in order to trigger off a process wherebyunemployment can be eliminated on the basis ofgrowth ? This is an imporrant question, especially as itwill have to be linked to another issue, namely that ofthe Community's external trade balance, becausegrowth invariably leads to an increase in our importsof raw materials. The purpose of the question is there-fore to consider the employment problem in thecontext o[ the general factors influencing economicgrowth.

Having raised this question, I shall now put anotherquestion to the Council. At the recent summit meet-ings a number of theories were put forward and a

number of plans expounded for the Community toreach a certain growth rate. However, this growth ratehas clearly not been achieved; although there havebeen rather more encouraging signs in recent weeks,we have to admit that the goals have not beenreached, nor are they likely to be reached in the nearfuture, and the recent increase in energy prices hasintensified our anxieties.

The question we would like to put is this : why havethe forecasts and objectives

- as they both went hand

in hand -

not been realized, and what forecasts andobjectives is the Council now proposing to theCommunity ? In other words what common proposalsare the national governments making ? !7hat likeli-hood is there that the Community will achieve itsgoals more fully than in the past ?


Pisani

These two questions express our deep concern, a

concern which is a very accurate reflection of the feel-ings of responsible people in the face of persistent

unemployment. The purpose of both questions is toencourage the search in another direction and indeed

to continue a political process which was begun at theBremen, Brussels and Paris summits. Growth alone -and I have been trying to explain how we think itshould be analysed -

is not sufficient to solve the

unemployment problem because apparently it allowsus to accept certain levels of Srowth which do not

create jobs, and we need to look elsewhere for a solu-

tion to this intolerable problem of unemployment.Rather than continue to speak optimistically about

changing the future employment labour balance, we

should seek a solution in other directions.

'We have specified these directions in the motion for a

resolution which we have tabled. The approach we

advocate certainly involves the boosting of consump-tion -

although this is linked to the Seneral policy

- as well as the creation of a certain kind of employ-

ment which, in parallel with the production sector

and in line with the kind of society we wish to have

in the Member States, would be likely to create iobs inthe service sector -

i.e. in hospitals and schools etc.

- and which would enable the Community to

develop a society which is more human and morepleasant to live in.

But we go a stage further and believe that despite the

results which we are entitled to expect from these

methods of job creation we shall not overcome theproblem if we fail to tackle the question of distribu-tion of work among those seeking employment. Thisis bound up with the whole question of the reorganiza-

tion of working time. We feel it is not enough todiscuss this in very broad terms, and that we shouldnow begin to analyse the situation more carefully and

try to determine ways and means of increasingemployment and reducing unemployment by shor-tening the working week, by lengthening trainingcourses which would be systematically available to allworkers. Obviously, these methods must not lead to a

loss of earnings, as this would be socially intolerableand would lead to a drop in consumption, whichwould in turn increase unemployment.

Some might regard this as trying to square the circle.But we must tackle this problem and overcome it.The present situation cannot continue. Ve cannotoblige management and workers to adopt one or otherof these alternatives

- one category of workers may

prefer to lower the age of retirentent while othcrs nray

opt to cut working hours -

but all these possibiliticsmust be open to all those who deternrinc policy, and

each must be able to choose on the basis o{ the nrost

pressing requirements, and in accordance withregional, professional or even temporal considerations.

The second comment I would like to make on behalfof my Group is that a reduction in working time willnot automatically lead to the creation of jobs and thatsuch cuts should be accompanied by efforts to ensure

that they result in the employment of those whoexpect their right to work to be respected.

This is therefore a very major issue. It calls into ques-tion our definition of the Community, the responsibili-ties of the public authorities with regard to workers,and the place of workers in society. It is an urgentproblem however, and the work of improving and ofstudying the situation should be carried out side byside. For this reason our motion for a resolution speci-

fies the procedure to be followed so that this study

can be intensified and the necessary measures imple-mented.

I shall leave it at that, Mr President. I have been endea-vouring to point out on behalf of the Socialist Groupthat Europe can not be viable or enioy the support ofits citizens unless it solves its most serious problems,and that there can be no acceptable modern society inwhich workers are out of work.

(Apltlausc)


Vice-President

President. -

I call Mr Bernard-Reymond.

Mr Bernard-Reymond, President-in'0ffice of tbe

Council. - (F) Mr President, at its meeting in Brus-

sels on 5 Decetrber 1978, the European Councilnoted that, since its meeting in Bremen on 6 and 7

July 1978, the conditions necessary for strengtheningthe process of economic growth had improved. Itconsidered that it was necessary, Particularly in view

of the disturbing employment situation, to ensure

immediately the rapid implementation of the

nreasures adopted.

It reaffirmed its view that only a common coordinatedapproach by all Member States could bring about a

greater convergence of economic development in the

Communities. It considered that the efforts of all

Member States to combat inflation must therefore be

intensified in order to ensure the durability of the

European Monetary System.

At its meeting in Paris on 12 and 13 March 1979 the

European Council noted that there had been a

resunrption in growth in most Member States owingirr particular to the concerted action undertaken. Itwas of the opinion that this growth should continuedurirrg thc coming months unless the world economicsituation was disturbed by a continuation of the

tc'nsions currently being experienced on the oilmarket.

Sitting of \Tednesday, 9 May 1979

Bernard-Reymond

Further to the brief given to it by the EuropeanCouncil, the Council (Economic Affairs and Finance)called on the Commission on 19 March 1979 tosubmit a report to it on the possible consequences ofthese tensions on the Community's economic pros-pects so that it could discuss them in the near future,which it will be doing next Monday.

The Council - aware that the dialogue between theworkers' and employers' organizations and theCommunity constitutes an essential element insolving the problems of growth, stability and employ-ment - intends to take the measures necessary toimprove the work of the Community tripartite meet-ings. The Council has just received a Commissioncommunication on the improvement of relations withboth sides of industry in the context of Comnrunitytripartite conferences and intends to discuss thematter at its meeting planned for 15 May 1979 with a

view to establishing guidelines.

At its meeting on 12 and 13 March 1979 the Euro-pean Council also called on both sides of industry totake the appropriate steps to develop their dialogue ona Community level, where appropriate on a sectoralbasis.

The Council is awaiting documenrs from the Commis-sion on the following items concerning the employ-ment programme : a better adaptation of training toemployment by developing staggered trainingschemes ; limitation of the systematic use of over-time; improvement in the employment of women ;social problems in the iron and steel industry. TheCouncil will examine these documents as soon as theyare received.

Following discussions on 29 June and 27 November1978 and contacts organized by the Presidency, theCouncil adopted on l8 December 1978 rhe texts onstrengthening the activity of the European SocialFund for the benefit of young people under 2.1 yearsof age who are unemployed or seeking employment.These texts came into effect on I January 1979.According to the new system the Fund may grantassistance to the following types of national aid : aidto promote recruirment by means of additional jobscreated by employers engaged in an economicactiviry ; aid to promote employment by means ofprojects for the creation of additional jobs which fulfila public need.

Following the Tripartite Conference in Luxembourgon 27 June 1977, the Standing Committee on Employ-ment discussed questions connected with worksharing on 2l March 1978, and on 12 May 1978 therole of the tcrtiary sector (including the public sector)in achieving growth, stabitity and full employment.

The Tripartite Conference in Brussels on 9 November1978 discussed in particular the problem of worksharing. The workers' representatives wanted toconclude a basic agreement throughout the Commu-

nity to reduce working hours overall by l0 0/o in thenext four years, by reducing the working week,increasing annual holidays and lowering the retire-ment age. The reaction of the employers representa-tives was cautious, if not unfavourable. They stressedin particular that no hasty conclusions should bedrawn until the impact of the proposed measures onthe working methods and costs situation of the under-takings concerned had been more closely analysed. Itwas their opinion that such reductions might impedeproduction, particularly because of the reducedmobility and additional costs these would involve,with a corresponding adverse effect on the labourmarket situation. The Council is awaiting a Commis-sion communication on the adjustment of workinghours which, according to the latest information, isdue to arrive a few days before its meeting planned for15 May 1979.


Mr Vredeling, Vict-Prtsidcnt o.f tl.tt Connri.ttion. -(NL) W President, to start with I should like toexpress my regret that this morning's debate was notcombined with the debate we held yesterday onexactly the same topic in connection with the reportby Mr Albers and the question tabled by Mr Van derGun on behalf of Parliament's Social AffairsCommittee. This is a pity, as Mr Pisani has just madesome very pertinent comments which I would reallyhave welcomed yesterday, when I gave a detailedreply. I cannot afford to repeat what I told Parliamentyesterday, when I spent about 40 minutes expoundingthe Commission's proposals. Incidentally, I wouldpoint out to the President-in-Office of the Councilthat these proposals, which he said he expected toreceive shortly, have already been submitted to him.'We sent them to the Council last week, and nextweek we shall be discussing these matters - whichare extremely important for the Community's futuredevelopment

- in particular with the Council ofMinisters of Employment and Social Affairs.

I repeat what I said yesterday, namely that, as a

member of the Commission and as a former memberof this House, I cannot remember any more far-reaching social proposals being submitted by theCommission to the Council and Parliament.

1'hc qucstions put by Mr Pisani on behalf of hisGroup wcrc answcrcd by mc ycsterday. However, Iwill rcpcat, as I fccl this is an important issuc, that thegrowth figurcs for gross domcstic product since 197-1,

which markcd a turning point in our economicgrowth, lrave becn as follows : in 1974 the real growthin thc gross donrcstic product was l-[i o/o in 197 5growth fell to l'5 o/o. In 1976 thcre was a rccovery,with .5 Yo growth in the economy and in 1977 ancl197t3 growth amounted to 2'4o/o and 2'll o/o respcc-tively. The Commrssion's forecast for 1979 is a growthrate of. 3'4 o/o.

95


Vredeling

There is the background against which we shouldview the development of unemployment in theCommunity, which between 1973 and 1978 rose from2'5 o/o of the working population to no less than5'5 o/o. lt is expected that unemployment in the

Communiry will at best stabilize at around 5'5 %. Theforecast lor 1979 is 5'4 %, and I would underlinewhat has already been pointed out by Mr Pisani : thereare signs of a recovery, especially in Germany, wherethe employment situation seems to be improving.

However, in certain other Member States, namelyGreat Britain, France and ltaly, the picture is less

encouraging. And I do not think that the fact that the

situation is improving in some Member States means

that the Community as a whole has solved all its

problems or that the healthy trends will be main-tained.

There are too many factors which suggest that the situ-ation is rather more gloomy. I do not wish to be over-

pessimistic, but we must not think that we are out ofthe wood yet and that things will right themselves ontheir own - far from it, and the Commission is also

aware of this.

Furthermore, our medium-term forecasts Point to a

demographic trend which will further complicate theemployment situation. Of course, it is difficult to say

exactly what percentage of economic growth is neces-

sary to achieve a high level of employment, but we

need a growth rate of at least 4'5 Yo.

I should like in this connection to correct a slip of thetongue I made yesterday, when I mistakenly said thatthe minimum growth rate was 5'5 0/o, whereas it is inf.act 4'5 o/0. That is the minimum we need to achieve

in order to attain anything approaching full employ-ment by 1985. But this figure is of course shrouded inuncertainty. For example, we do not know exactly towhat extent the percentage of the population on the

labour market will increase. An assessment can be

made for young people, as demographic forecasts

concerning the young are fairly reliable. However, we

are uncertain about the percentage of women who willbe working in a wage-earning capacity. But if the

percentage of working women increases, which can be

regarded in itself as a welcome trend, this will affectthe policy we must pursue to provide iob opportuni-ties for all those who want to work. If economicgrowth revives, we shall find that the Percentage ofthe population wishing to enter the labour market willincrease, while with a lower growth rate this percen-tage will also be lower. As Mr Pisano has alreadypointed out, the situation as regards productivitytrends is uncertain.

I should like to make a point here which in fact fitsin with what Mr Pisani said. I dealt with this at lengthyesterday, but I should now like to put it in a nutshell.'!7e have found - and all the forecasts agree on this

- that we shall not succeed by merely re-establishing

economic growth as such. 'We appreciate that growthis extremely important, but it is not the be all and endall of economic prosperiry. Jobs are in short supply. Ifpresent trends continue, any prospect of full employ-ment in 1985 will be out of the question. This facthas prompted the Commission -

acting also at therequest of the Council, which shares the Commis-sion's concern -

to submit to the Council a docu-ment on the redistribution of work.

This is a highly important subject, which the Commis-sion raised last year in the Standing Committee onEmployment. I believe that the Commission has an

important part to play in this field to stimulate discus-

sion at European, i. e. Community level on thisproblem, which is facing all the Member States. lVe

need to achieve the necessary coordination and tochannel developments, otherwise the situaion in theMember States could develop along divergent lines,which would be dangerous and could damage theeconomic development of the Community as such.

It is difficult to predict productivity trends. It is said

that there is a certain pattern, which can be seen, forexample, in the United States. But Mr Pisani was rightabout the ueed to develop the tertiary sector. In theNetherlands we also speak of a fourth sector, which is

extremely important, and indeed essential if we are, as

Mr Pisani said, to give our society a more human face.

This is perfectly true, since during the tumultuouseconomic development in the fifties and sixties thissector, which is important to the people of Europe,

was neglected in all Community countries althoughthe Community and its people could derive greaterbenefit from it. This sector has lagged behind socialprogress in general. However, we urgently need thissector of we are to create jobs for the future, especiallyfor the young. I therefore fully agree with Mr Pisani,who attaches such great importance to the develop-ment of this sector, although I am aware that produc-tivity here is low. Productivity is always measured ineconomic terms. But the social productivity whichresults from better equipped social services cannot be

expressed in terms of money.

Human well-being cannot be measured in financialterms, and that is why we tend to overlook develop-ment in this field.

Productivity is expressed in figures with an economicbasis, but they fail to reflect the underlying humansituation. A trend towards the creation of jobs in thetertiary and in particular in the 'fourth' sector could,however, be beneficial to society as a whole. The otherside of the coin, of course, is the development of newtechnology, the standard example of which is theintroduction of chips. Mr Christensen gave a veryvivid illustration of this yesterday when referring tothe situation in a well-known Danish brewery. He didnot want to advertise and so mentioned no names. Hesaid that as a result of modernization, the production

Sitting of lTednesday, 9 May 1979 97

Vredeling

hitherto achieved in this ma.lor Danish brewery by700 workers will in future, if I remember right, be

achieved by 140 workers.

Just think what adverse effects this will have onemployment. This is only an example, but the same is

happening everywhere. The same pattern is also

clearly apparent in the United States, which meansthat more and more people will have to find jobs inthe tertiary sector. In the United States 70 o/o of theworking population is already in the services sector,while the figure for Europe is a little over 50 %, butthis will clearly continue to rise.

Of course, this raises all kinds of problems. If we stim-ulate economic development there is a danger thatinflation will flare up again and that there will be

increasing wastage of raw materials because wemismanage our environmental problems. TheCommission has come to the conclusion that therevival of economic growth is not in itself sufficienteither to ensure full employment or to provide forreasonable social development in the Communiry.

I should like to point out that investment is also

extremely import4nt for employment. Hitherto wehave been able to afford the luxury of allowing invest-ment to be freely determined by market forces.

At any rate, we thought we could afford this luxury,but it will not be possible for much longer, and thishas led the Commission to draw certain conclusions.The proposals we have put forward, in particular thosedrawn up by my colleague Mr Ortoli - the so-calledOrtoli facilities - have been accepted by the Council.Investment must be stimulated in a given direction,i.e. with a view to guaranteeing employment, whichwould be jeopardized if investment was left to marketforces.

A question has also been asked on the relationshipbetween growth and the balance of payments. In1977, the Community as a whole achieved a balanceof payments surplus of 2000 million EUA. In 1978

the surplus was greater at I I 000 million EUA, andIor 1979 a current account surplus of 9 500 millionEUA is expected. This gives the Community a safe

margin and is a healthy trend. I should point out,however, that the situation is not the same in allMember States. Some have a deficit, albeit relativelysmall ; I think, however, that the general situation issufficiently healthy to provide a basis for furthermeasures to combat unemployment, even thoughaccount will have to be taken of certain obstaclesalluded to by Mr Pisani, such as the prices of energyand raw materials.

I must be brief in replying to questions 2 and 3, other-wise I shall be repeating what I said yesterday. Ourdocument on the redistribution of work, the docu-ment on the accompanying social measures in thesteel sector and the document on improving the proce-

dure for the Tripartite Conference must all beregarded as a whole. These documents, which we have

already submitted to the Council, will provide a verygood basis for reaching positive policy decisions, bothin the Council and for the forthcoming EuropeanCouncil. Mr Pisani referred to the importance ofconsultation between both sides of industry, especiallyat European level. This is in fact the novel aspecthere, namely that the Commission has emphasizedthe importance of such contact and of outline agree-ments at European level between trade union andemployers' representatives. This is the policy onwhich we have embarked. Of course, managementand workers are independent and we cannot imposeanything on them, but in our text we referred to theirresponsibility to engage in discussions, and we also

mentioned this point to the Council, referring to whatwas discussed at an informal meeting of the Ministersof Employment and Social Affairs held at the begin-ning of March in Paris.

At this meeting the ministers emphasized the impor-tance of drawing up 'outline directives' - as theywere referred to by the chairman of the meeting - inthe social field and in the field of work sharing ; parti-cular reference was made to overtime both at thatmeeting and at the subsequent meeting of the Euro-pean Council. The subiect of work sharing has thusrightly been raised at European level, in connectionwith the policy which we shall have to carry out.

Mr President, I can be brief concerning the proposalfor improving the procedure for the Tripartite Confer-ence. This was discussed at length yesterday on thebasis of Mr Albers' report, and this proposal has

already been submitted. I can very briefly outline thepoints contained in our proposal. We have proposedthat the Council, which attends the conferences in itsown right and can also speak in that capacity, shoulddetermine the subjects to be discussed at the Tripar-tite Conferences after consulting the Commission andboth sides of industry. We have also proposed that theCommission should prepare a preliminary draft of theconclusions to be reached at the Conference, on thebasis of which the participants - i.e. the Council, theCommission, both sides of industry and the nationalgovernments can determine their positions.Subsequently the chairman of the conference, inconjunction with the Commission, would be able todraw up the draft conclusions and submit them to theplenary Tripartite Conference. At the conferences,final conslusions can be drawn up by the chairman,together with the representatives of the Council, theCommission and both sides of industry. The jointconclusions can then be included in the communiqu6along with the comments of management andworkers, the Council, the Commission or of certaingovernments.


Vredeling

I shall conclude by expressing the hope that theCouncil of Ministers of Employment and SocialAffairs will be able to accept our conclusions and

suggestions in a positive spirit. The Commission willthen finalize its position and submit it to the Euro-pean Council which, as you know, will be meetingagain in Strasbourg in June. I believe that this willmark the beginning of a trend in Europe which is inline with that advocated by Mr Pisani. In the past wein the Community have placed rather too muchemphasis on economic progress. Is is time we made

up for lost time and began to see the development ofEurope -

just before it is too late, on the eve of directelections to Parliament - in terms of social progress,with which people can identify.

People do not normally identify with Communirytrade policies or with the technical problems ofharmonization, but with matters of concern to them.'We see this in all Member States in discussions onwork sharing, or on the intractable problem of unem-ployment, particularly among the young. I think theCommission has acted just in time in commendingthese proposals to the attention of Parliament ; theycan serve as a guide for those who will shortly, with a

view to direct elections, have to explain to the publicwhat Europe has in store for us. We have placed theproposals before you, and I hope, Mr President, thatthe directly elected Members will make good use ofthem.


Mr Bertrand. - (NL) Mr President, like Mr Vred-eling, I regret the fact that our activities are so badlyorganized that we have to discuss what the FrenchPresident has referred to as the challenge of the futurenwice in nvo days. Unemployment and everythingconnected with it is indeed the great challenge whichwill be facing the Community in the years to come,

and I should therefore like to repeat what I said

yesterday on behalf of the Christian-DemocraticGroup concerning the documents which the Commis-sion has submitted to the Council - the documenton improving the procedure for the Tripartite Confer-ence and the document on the redistribution of work,which we regard as a temPorary means of stabilizingunemployment at 5'5 o/o in 1979. However, thiscannot remedy the problem of unemployment in thelong term. We must not cause any misunderstandingor raise any false hopes among the large numbers ofpeople now affected by Europe's decline in employ-ment. The work sharing plan submitted to theCouncil has our full support. I hope that on l5 Maythe Council will draw a clear distinction between ques-

tions to be resolved by both sides of industry on thebasis of consultation and problems which must be

remedied by means of a Community directiverequiring Member States to introduce legislation onpensions, increases in holidays and other matters.

I hope that on the basis of this document the Councilwill be able to draft appropriate policies so that it canput the necessary proposals to the European Councilon 22 June.

And finally we come to the third document dealingwith the accompanying social measures for the struc-tural reorganization of the steel industry, measureswhich lie outside the scope of Article 56 of the ECSCTreaty and for which we have requested 142 millionunits of account over and above the 70 million, ofwhich the Council has approved only 28 million.

Mr Davignon has publicly protested against this,saying that if the Council does not approve the accom-panying social measures the plans for the restruc-turing of the steel industry will collapse.

The Commission has now submitted certain clear-cutproposals, requesting that 70 million of the 172million units of account should be earmarked forsupport measures. It is hoped that this will make itpossible for the time being to maintain 80 000 jobs inthe steel industry in order to give those affected theopportuniry to retrain and transfer to other iobs.

You have an enormous moral responsibiliry, MrBernard-Reymond, especially as you have called a

meeting of the Council before the elections on l0June. I can assure you that all categories of workers inthe Community are very eagerly, awaiting 15 May tofind out what decisions the Council will have reachedon the Commission proposals on 15 May. I thereforeendorse the comments of Mr Pisani, but things shouldhave been better organized because we now have todiscuss three motions for resolutions - the motionfor a resoluion on behalf of the Committee on SocialAffairs, Mr Fellermaier's motion and my own motionon employment. We could have avoided this if wehad organized our agenda more efficiently.

As far as our long-term policy is concerned, I shouldlike to make the Christian-Democrats' position quiteclear. lVe believe that the Community's economicpolicy must serve the interests of ordinary people,both in family life and in society. First and foremost,therefore, everyone must have a steady iob because

without work the individual cannot achieve his fullpotential. This is particularly true of the dramatic situa-tion facing young people in the Community. Thereare at present 6 million unemployed, including 3

million women and 2 million young people under theage of. 25. It has been estimated that l5 million new

iobs will have to be created by 1985 in order to keeppace with demand.

Among these 15 million iob-seekers there will be 9

million school leavers. That is the task facing theCommunity. In the meantime we are trying to allev-iate the disastrous situation by introducing temporarymeasures on work sharing. The Christian-Democrats


Bertrand

therefore call upon the Council and the Commissionto draw up a balanced, comprehensive structuralpolicy covering industry and small and medium-sizedundertakings and designed to exploit all the Commu-nity's economic means of achieving full employment.!7e feel that such policies must be aimed primarily atthe continuous modernization of industry. Perhapsnot every undertaking will be able to create extra jobs,but in macroeconomic terms this will make more jobsavailable, especially if we have the courage to breaknew ground in the general structural policy: in otherwords, we should cater for new products, newprocesses, new markets, greater investment and expan-sion.

I was interested to hear the Council's statements andknow what measures have been taken hitherto. But wemust examine the results realistically ! In Copen-hagen, Bonn gnd Bremen the European Council wasforecasting a growth rate of 4-5 o/o Lor 1979.

We warned you that this figure was illusory. Theresult for 1978 was a growth rate of 2.8 Yo, and not4'5 %. Nothing has therefore been achieved in thisfield. However, we are pleased to note that we havebeen successful in our fight against inflation and thatthis has enabled us to set up the EMS. But as far as

unemployment is concerned, all the measures we havetaken to date have not produced any positive results.On the whole, unemployment is still rising despite allour efforts.

!flith your permission, I shall wind up by brieflyoutlining the Christian-Democrat programme. If weare to unite Europe we must show a common politicalresolve. \U7e must map out the Member States'economic policy in mutual consultation. rWe mustdevelop a Community competition policy. !fle mustprevent further industrial mergers. rve mustharmonize taxation as well as commercial andcompany law. !7e must harmonize our environmentallegislation. !7e must draw the appropriate conclusionswith respect to economic policy, bring about the freemovement of capital on the basis of the Commissionreports, remove obstacles to trade and customs formali-ties, and respect the four principles of the socialmarket economy - personal freedom, private prop-erty, competition and social security. Any long-termemployment policy must be based on these principles,which will enable us to meet the challenge of 1985 tothe best of our abiliry, otherwise we shall face a catas-trophe which could pose a serious threat to theCommunity and its further development.

(Applause)


Mr Ansquer. - (F) It is clearly impossible, with thespeaking time at our disposal, to discuss all aspects of

this highly important problem, but I have no doubtthat the House will have another opportunity todiscuss ways of combating unemployment. For thisreason, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, my briefcomments will have only one purpose toencourage the Community to adopt a coordinatedapproach to unemployment.

\7e believe that a return to improved and sustainedgrowth should be regarded as a priority, as this willimprove the employment sitution in Europe. We werevery gratified at the declarations and indeed agree-ments made in this field at the most recent Europeansummits. However, the intentions expressed in thesedeclarations have not yet been put into practice. \U7e

therefore feel that such decisions should from now onaim at promoting investment, particularly in certainkey sectors, but also with respect to small and medi-um-sized undertakings.

In the field of energy, increased growth should resultin the preparation and implementation of joint indus-trial programmes to counter the major structuralchanges brought about by international competition.Of course, we are not advocating a return to outdatedprotectionism : we propose that a highly organizedform of cooperation should be developed with thecountries which are now becoming industrialized. TheCommunity should plan and apply a real trade policyto offset the effects of the unfair competition whichhas arisen, and to encourage the dynamism requiredto improve exports.

Ve all agree that other joint policies should be imple-mented to resolve the problems facing certain regionsor categories of workers, for example, the problem ofunemployment among young people and women. !7etherefore feel that vocational training should be fore-most among the joint measures to be undertaken andthat four main objectives should be pursued : schoolsshould be made more aware of industrial undertak-ings, and viceversa; workers should take an active partin organizing their work and take on responsibilities,the movement of workers across European frontiersshould be organized, and assistance should beprovided for those who wish to become self-em-ployed. I need hardly add that a more dynamic familypolicy would increase the freedom to choose betweenworking at home and working outside. Part-time workshould be extended and, for social as well as economicand demographic reasons, mothers should be coveredby a comprehensive set of provisions including specialfinancial assistance.

Finally, it is becoming increasingly clear to unpreiu-diced observers that a general drastic reduction inworking hours cannot be iustifiably presented as a

means of re-establishing full employment. Indeed, theincreased production costs which would ensue could


Ansquer

even worsen unemployment. For this reason the reor-ganization of working time, whether on a daily,weekly, monthly or annual scale, should be in linewith social requirements and, as Mr Pisani pointed outa moment ago, it should be based on more detailedanalyses and on negotiations between the rwo sides ofindustry. The same applies to the fixing of the age ofretirement.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we must refuse toallow unemployment to become inevitable, and use allthe means which the organization of Europe makesavailable to us to ensure that our old continent meets

the challenges of the modern world.


Mr Pisani. - (F) Mr President, the advantage ofholding two debates on this question is that we are

able to address the official representatives of theCouncil of Ministers, which would have been moredifficult yesterday. Although I am in no way respon-sible for holding this second debate, I am not sorrythat it is being held, as it allows us to clear up a

number of things.

I am about to flout the rules of decorum, Mr Bernard-Reymond, and imagine what the report of the nextCouncil meeting would look like if the Councildecided to try to fulfil the ambitions - if ambitions is

the right word - and demands which we are

expressing here in our representative capaciry. Youmay interpret my lack of decorum as you see fit, butbear in mind that for the first time I am reading froma written document - something I do not normallydo. Each word, then, means something.

The Council reaffirms the need to return to a higherlevel of growth. It calls,upon the governments tofoster the development of activities aimed at socialprogress.

The Council is in favour of adopting, by the end of1979, a plan covering several years (for example, five)and aimed at reducing the duration of work by l0 %,with no loss of income. This plan will lay down, inparticular

- firstly, the forms which this reduction may takeand the conditions under which these forms are tobe negotiated;

- secondly, the procedures whereby reduction inhours of work will lead to a drop in unemploy-ment;

- thirdly, the conditions under which this necessary

trend will be linked to the desired overalleconomic trend and with the contribution whichthe Communiry intends to make to the new inter-national economic order.

The council solemly calls upon both sides of industryto contribute towards this difficult task.

If we could read a report like that, Mr Bernard-Reymond, we would really feel that we had madeprogress !

President. - I call Mr Schw<irer.

Mr Schwiirer. -

(D) Mr President, ladies andgentlemen, Mr Bertrand has already spoken on behalfof my Group, and I agree with everything he has said.However, I would lust like to comment on the moder-nization of our economy by means of a modern struc-tural policy. !tr7e know how important modernizationis for the European economy, especially since ourcompetitors on the world market are very active inthis field. We all know that Japan's investment ratioin relation to its national product is twice as high a

that of the Communiry, and we all know that the pres-ident of the US central bank a few days ago called fordrastic improvements in the conditions of deprecia-tion for undertakings in order to boost investment.The American depreciation rules were already muchmore favourable than in the Community. \We want topromote real competition in the world economy -but competition which provides long-term opportuni-ties for the European economy. Such opportunitiescan only be created if we constantly strive for innova-tion and modernization, which will lead to improve-ments in the quality of goods on the Europeanmarket. No other measures offer any hope in the longterm, and we all know that we will not be helped byprotectionism directed against the rest of the world.

I would ask the Commission and Council to considerthese individual measures, of which I shall mentiononly two : firstly, the industrial measures aimed atimproving European industry's ability to undertakecapital spending. In my view this can only beachieved by reducing the tax burden on undertakings,and we feel in particular that the demand for betterdepreciation terms is justified, especially in view ofthe rapid technological developments in plant andequipment. The Commission and Council shouldmake a serious effort to tackle this problem andencourage the governments of the Member States tobecome active in this field.

Secondly, I would mention tax concessions in connec-tion with the capital formation policy wherebyworkers participate in the profits of their companies,and leave this capital with the companies in the formof shares. Tax concessions should be applied to thispolicy in order to provide an additional means offinancing for undertakings and also to improvemanagement worker cooperation. The CommunityInstitutions should also carry out preparatory work inthis field. In its medium-term programme theCommission announced measures to be applied underthe capital formation policy, but unfortunately noaction has yet been taken. The Commission shouldencourage the Member States to do more in this field.

Sitting of !(ednesday, 9 May 1979 l0l

Schwiirer

Perhaps I can mention a third point, namely thatconsiderably greater effort should be devoted toresearch and development in order to secure Europe'slong-term position in the world economy.

Finally, however, it is very important that this measureshould not be applied to large undertakings on a selec-tive basis but that all undertakings should be affectedequally, as Mr Bertrand has already said. I am refer-ring to the millions of small and medium-sized under-takings in the Community. They are the main sourcesof employment, as about 65 o/o of jobs are to be foundin this sector. Allowing them to benefit equally fromall these opportunities is not only in the interest offairness but is also politically advisable, for withoutthe initiative hard work and enterprising spirit ofthese millions of small and medium-sized undertak-ings, we shall certainly be unable to solve theproblems which we are discussing here today.

President. -'I

call Mr Albers.

Mr Albers. - (NL) Mr President, despite everything

which was said yesterday I still feel it necessary to joinin this debate because of the way in which it is deve-loping. Mr Schworer's speech sounded quite differentfrom that of Mr Bertrand, and I get the impressionthat the European People's Party adopts various appro-aches to politics. Obviously, it is extremely importantthat capital expenditure should be increased in theCommuniry. And obviously, we can stimulate this bymeans of tax concessions, including those affectingdepreciation, but all these measures have been appliedfor quite a long time, and we have found that massiveunemployment has arisen nonetheless.

The Socialist Group therefore contends that far greateremphasis should be laid on the social policy. Restruc-turing measures are unacceptable to us unless thesocial factor can play a prominent part. For thisreason too, our programme advocates that checksshould be carried out on the movement of capital andon the multi-nationals. If rationalization and new tech-nology lead to a loss of jobs, there must be an obliga-tion to draw up plans to create new jobs.

Mr Schworer tried to sugar the pill by saying that ifundertakings achieve profits because of all the taxconcessions, the workers could earn more than theynormally would and can have a share in these profits,but he says that they should invest their share in theirundertakings. However, we have seen in practice whatreally happens. !(hen industries close down workersare left with their share in their companies but arestill empty-handed. This has happened on numerousoccasions and is a major problem which we in theEuropean Community are now facing.

The Socialist Group and the Confederation ofSocialist Parties therefore favour a different approach

- greater supervision coupled with a selective invest-

ment policy. Capital investment must be geared tosociety's needs, funds must be invested where they areneeded, where unemployment is greater than else-where. That is what we want to achieve, and we intendto uphold our position on this issue. I am pleased tohave had the opportunity to state our views on this tohave had now that the Council is present, and thePresident-in-Office of the Council can make it clearthat Parliament wants its draft resolutions on the steelindustry, the Tripartite Conference and on theCommission proposals to be examined carefully andimplemented by the Council.

President. - I call Mr Bernard-Reymond

Mr Bernard-Reymond, President-in-Office o.f theCouncil. - (F) Mr President, I was very interested tohear the argument presented a moment ago by MrPisani. I may say without hesitation that I share hisview of this problem, even though my solution to itwould differ substantially from his. Mr Pisani has heldresponsible posts in government and is therefore a

realist -

by definition I would say -

though hesometimes manages to free himself from realism or atleast not to be tied down by it, a fact borne out by hislatest book.

But because Mr Pisani is a realist and has held govern-ment posts, he will know that it is easier to talk aboutsolving problems than actually solve them. I agreewith him that there are two ways of tackling unem-ployment - achieving the highest possible growthrate and redistributing available work. But where wediffer is that I do not believe that the two approachescomplement each other. They run parallel and lead tothe same goal, but the one cannot be regarded as

complementary to the other. Depending on how avail-able work is redistributed, the rate of economicgrowth is adversely affected, and so we should notimagine that we can aim for the highest possiblegrowth rate while at the same time striving for themaximum redistribution of available work accordingto socialist ideals.

An attempt must be made to find a balance betweenthese two measures, which do not add up to thesimple sum total - that is the essential point to beborne in mind. This is the question on which wediffer, and I must crave your indulgence for saying'we', when I should more rightly speak for myself ; butI was very careful to fulfil my responsibilities a

moment ago in reading out word for word the textagreed on by the Nine. I shall therefore answer MrPisani's question rather more freely now, as he hasraised a very important point, and the other speakersshowed similar concern.


Bernard-Reymond

It is pointless to create 100 000 jobs by redistributingavailable work if this redistribution leads to a declinein the growth rate, which in turn leads to the loss of200 000 jobs. Ifle should therefore be very wary of any

repercussions which the redistribution of work couldhave on the growth rate. I am convinced that of thesetwo approaches, the first is more effective incombating unemployment. The first consequence ofredistributing available work in the way you suggest,

that is, a reduction in work without any reduction inincome, would be an increase in the undertakings'expenditure and, as pointed out a moment ago, someundertakings could close down, which would exacer-bate the problem of unemployment rather thanremedy it.

You also advocate other solutions, such as boostingconsumption. But what purpose would a boost inconsumption serve if it were accompanied by anincrease in inflation and difficulties in external trade ?

As you know, many Europeans nowadays depend onexternal trade for their livelihood. To boost consump-tion without the necessary precautions would, be torekindle inflation and upset the external tradebalance. Furthermore, although growth is not suffi-cient in itself to remedy the problem of unemploy-ment - nor will it be for a long time to come - weshould nevertheless envisage a situation, admittedly inthe distant future, in which the growth rate alone willsuffice to solve this problem. This was clearly the case

before the international economic crisis.

It was argued iust now that the conventional approachof increasing the growth rate had failed because itcould not now live up to expectations. However,between the previous situation and today's situationthere has been an oil crisis, and an international crisiscompletely changes the factors governing a situation.Thus, in re-arranging our working hours we should be

careful not to include in our economic structures rigidpatterns and habits which we will be unable to get ridof when things improve. \7hile it is true that thegrowth rate cannot now cure the problem of unem-ployment and that we must therefore adopt the alter-native approach of improving the distribution of avail-able work, we can only do this if we remember thatthese two approaches have to be balanced and that theone cannot simply supplement the other. If we gettoo far in redistributing available work, the firstalternative - that of striving for maximum growth -is made less effective.

If we allow ourselves to get into the habit of believingthat all employment problems can be remedied byimproving the distribution of available work, we willcreate a society in which it would be impossible, onceeconomic growth has been re-established, to maintainthe effectiveness which we expect of it. It seems tome, therefore, that while Mr Pisani's suggestions pose

the problem realistically and are highly objective andinteresting, they cannot be adopted in their entirely,not as far as the proposed solutions are concerned atany rate. I was by no means shocked by yourcomments, Mr Pisani, first of all because we are

familiar with your views. I did not find them indeco-rous, though I did think they were unrealistic. !7hilewe agree that we must try to improve growth as far as

possible and we must be receptive to measuresdesigned to promote social well-being a five-year planto reduce work or hours of work which ignores thequestion of income does not create revenue - in fact,the opposite is true. It is occasionally necessary topoint out a few basic truths over and above our debate.Mr Pisani always delivers his speeches so passionately,but unfortunately, policies - least of all social poli-cies - cannot be founded solely on passion. It is a

pity, Mr Pisani, but there we are ; I iust wanted topoint out a few basic economic ideas and hope thatyou, in your turn, will not think this is indecorous ofme.

I should also like to tell the other speakers very brieflythat today I shall be unable to give very detailed andconcrete replies to most of their questions. They willbe answered in a few days' time at the Councilmeeting of 15 May, and I cannot now forecast theoutcome of that meeting of social affairs ministers.

In any case the meeting will generally be guided by a

keen awareness of the very difficult and delicatehuman problems of unemployment. This House isunanimous as to the objectives to be pursued, even ifit disagrees on the method of pursuing them. I canassure you that all the ministers are very concernedabout the problem of work sharing. Very wide rangingviews have admittedly been expressed concerning themethods of tackling this problem, and emphasis is

clearly placed on the greatest possible development ofeconomic growth. Although the Council or theCommunities have been criticized for not reachingthe target of 4.5 o/o. I think they would have been

equally criticized for not setting a target of 4.5 o/o even

although we knew from the outset that it would be

very difficult to achieve. I recall debates in several

national parliaments in which the national govern-ments were in fact criticized for their timidity insetting growth targets which were too low, at least toolow to achieve the ultimate objectives or standards. Ibelieve the Council was quite right to aim at a growthrate of 4.5 7o even if the worsening international crisisand constantly rising oil prices prevented it fromachieving this goal. In the words of l7illiam ofOrange : 'It is not necessary to hope in order toembark on an action, nor to succeed in order to Perse-vere'. I can assure you that the Council hopes and

acts, and will succeed and persevere.

(Applause)

Sitting of lfednesday, 9 May 1979 r03


Mr Pisani. - (F) To make a serious point it is notenough merely to cloak it in fine words, but - as youhave shown, Mr Bernard-Reymond - fine words are

no obstacle to making a serious point. However, I didnot feel that your reply to my question was altogetherpertinent. Thank you, at least, for saying that youshared my view of the problem.

So you do not think it possible to reconcile growthand an employment poliry - as we define it - withmonetary stabiliry. S7e, on the other.hand, contendthat there is no other way of solving the problem.lflithout such a policy we would be blinding ourselves

to all hope of a solution, clinging to the idea thatmore sustained growth is the only answer to theproblem of unemployment. We maintain that theunemployment problem must be resolved withoutdelay.


Mr Vredeling, Vice-President of tbe Commission, -(NL)Mr President, I should like to address the House,if only to introduce a Germanic voice into this -albeit interesting - French debate. I welcome thisdebate and agree with Mr Bertrand that it mayperhaps be incomplete on the technical level, but it is

nonetheless politically interesting. When we hear thereactions of Parliament's various political groups and

the position adopted by the President-in-Office of theCouncil, we do not need to agree on all points torealize that the debate is developing in a very inter-esting way. I also feel it is of the utmost importancethat we should stop regarding economic growth as asacred cow, for this sort of attitude led to the presentunemployment situation. I am not blaming anyone,

but I am well aware - as is the President-in-Office ofthe Council - that the international crisis is one ofthe reasons for the Community's sluggish economicgrowth.

However, it is unacceptable that this crisis should auto-

matically lead to a situation in which there are six

million unemployed. If the President-in-Office of theCouncil is saying that he is in favour of maximumeconomic growth, I should like to make s light amend-

ment. The Commission is in favour of optimumeconomic growth, which is a different matter, because

optimum econonric growth leads to full employmentwhile maintaining general progress. I think it is very

important that Parliament and the President-in-Officeof the Council have taken this approach to the ques-

tion. Finally, I should like to thank Mr Pisani for hissuggdstions concerning the conclusions to be reached

at the Council meeting. You know - and Mr Pisani

knows from experience - how much hard work is

needed to get particular conclusions accepted in the

Council. Of course, there is always close cooperationhere bemeen the Commission and the Council. Thefirst draft has not yet been finalized, but a draft mustbe produced, and Mr Pisani has tabled an interestingtext. I hope that this spirit will prevail in the Councilof Ministers' discussions on l5 May, as well as at thesubsequent meeting- and I shall wind up on thispoint - of the European Council, which bringstogether the political leaders of the Community. Ihope that this will create a situation in which, withthe directly elected Parliament, we can arrive at somedefinite decisions, taken in conjunction with bothsides of industry. Next week the European TradeUnion Confederation will hold a congress to be

addressed by the President-in-Office of the Council,Mr Boulin, and Mr Jenkins, President of the EuropeanCommission. I am curious as to how the trade unionmovement will react.

President. - Before I close the debate, I should liketo thank all those who spoke. A debate of this impor-tance was bound to be incomplete in the time we had

at our disposal, but it was very interesting and highlytopical.^ -

I have received two motions for resolutions withrequests for early votes, pursuant to Rule 47(5) of theRules of Procedure:

- motion for a resolution (Doc. 166179), tabled by MrBertrand, Mrs uValz, Mr Schwdrer, Mr Pisani, MrKlepsch, Mr Nod, Mr Ripamonti, Mr Granelli, MrVan der Gun, Mr Caro and Mr Santer on behalf of theChristian-Democratic Group (EPP), requesting an

early vote to wind up the debate on the oral question(Doc. 126179) on employment policy;

- motion for a resolution (Doc. 169179), tabled by MrFellermaier, Mr Pisani and Mr Lange on behalf of the

' Socialist'Group, requesting an early vote to wind upthe debate on the oral questions (Docs. 125/79 and

126179) on employment policy.

I shall consult Parliament on these requests at thebeginning of tomorrow's sitting.


9. Agreement on the protection of the Rbine

President. - The next item is the oral question with

debate (Doc. 648/79) by Mr Berkhouwer, Mr Jung, MrMeintz, Mr De Clercq, Mr Baas and Mr Geurtsen tothe Council :

Subject : Agreement on the protection of the Rhine

against pollution

Does the Council not consider it a matter of overridingconcern to the European Community as a whole that the

agreement on the protection of the Rhinc against pollu-tion concluded in 1976 should enter into force as soon as

possible ?

I call Mr Baas.


Mr Baas. - (NL) Mr President, I must apologize onbehalf of Mr Berkhouwer, who is campaigning in theNetherlands as his party's top candidate in the Euro-pean elections. Emotions are running high in theNetherlands on the pollution of the Rhine, and thereis general indignation. I shall try to list the factsbriefly again.

Each breakfast-time, the 14 million Dutch receive I

kilogramme of salt from the salt discharges in Alsace.To this must be added another kilogramme of saltfrom other waste discharged into the catchment area

of the Rhine. On average, the following quantities ofwaste products were carried over the German-Dutchborder by the Rhine in the years 1973/74 and 1975:47 tonnes of mercury, 400 tonnes of arsenic, 130

tonnes of calcium, l2 000 tonnes of zinc, 2 000tonnes of chromium and 12 million tonnes of chlo-rides.

If this situation is not to get worse, there is an urgentneed to reduce the amount of pollution, since theindustrial plants in the catchment area are endan-gering the environment more and more every day.

Twenty percent of the industrialized world's chemicalindustry is situated in the vicinity of this river anddischarges its waste into it. The legal proceedingstaken by the market gardeners in the !7est of Hollandagainst the potash mines are moving at a snail's pace.

The writ was issued in October 1974 and the replyfrom the potash mines arrived in February 1978, alterall of 40 months. The plaintiffs' replication dates fromMarch 1978 and the potash mines' rejoinder from th6end of June, while the provisional judgment was

prcnounced at the end of 1978. !7ould the Councilbe willing and able, with the support of the Commis-sion, to give financial aid to this test case, which hasimplications going far beyond those of a simple claimfor damages by Dutch market gardeners ? Studies intothe iniection of salt waste into the earth are beingcontinued, but are any other possibilities being investi-gated ? !7ill the alternative of closing down the potashmines completely also be looked into ? !7hat stepscould the President-in-Office of the Council take toensure that France also ratifies the Salt Waste Conven-tion and the Chemical Convention already ratified byall other Member States and by the Communiry ?

The vital interests of one Member State, the Nether-lands, are at stake here. Environmental groups are nowtaking to the barricades to protest against the dangerto the environment - we can see this happening inAlsace, in Gorleben and elsewhere. However, a

Community approach still seems a very far-off pros-pect although it is this very field, in which there areso many opportunities for the Community to demons-trate solidarity, which could prove a test case. Poliri-cians will have to find the courage, the manner, thetenacity and the willingness to accept justified criti-cism to decide, after weighing all the factors involved,that the only way to achieve any improvement at all

in this unacceptable situation in the short term is touse this injection process. rVe know that this is askinga lot of the people of Alsace and we fully understandtheir situation.

It is true that the people of Alsace will have to put upwith a certain amount of risk

- more than in other

parts of France or of the Community -

but what is atstake here is the credibility of our efforts, the credi-biliry of the politicians and, in the final analysis, thecredibiliry of the Members of the Council, who are

among those responsible for achieving the Salt tU7aste

Convention. AIso at stake, finally, is the credibiliry ofthe French Government.

IN THE CHAIR: MR LUCKER

Vice-President


Mr Bernard-Reymond, President-in-Oftice o.f tbeCouncil. - (F) Mr President, as the honourableMember is aware, the Council has for several yearsbeen working constantly towards Community levelaction on the environment, in particular on the protec-tion of waters agaist pollution. The Community isthus a party to the Convention for the protection ofthe Rhine against chemical pollution, signed in Bonnon 3 December 1976, and to the Berne Agreementconcerning the International Commission for theProtection of the Rhine against Pollution. In additionto the Community, all the states which were signato-ries to the Bonn Convention on Chemical Pollutionhave ratified the agreement which entered into forceon I February 1979.

The Community is not, however, a parry to the Agree-ment on the Protection of the Rhine against ChloridePollution, which was also signed in Bonn on 3

December 1975.

President. - I call Mr van Aerssen to speak onbehalf of the Christian-Democratic Group (EPP).

Mr van Aerssen. - (D) Mr President, ladies andgentlemen, on behalf of my colleague, Mr Jahn, allowme to say that the Christian-Democratic Groupsupports the general concern expressed in this oralquestion. However, in our view the problem relatesnot only to the Convention for the Protection of theRhine against Chemical Pollution, conclud6d on 3December 1976,but indeed primarily also to the Chlo-ride Agreement and the related problems of thepotash groups in Alsace. Although the EuropeanEconomic Community is not a party to the ChlorideAgreement, the Council should in principle extend itsreply to cover this problem also.

In this connection may I point out that our Parlia-ment is represented by three Members - MessrsAdams, Baas and Jahn - in the lTorking Parry of the

Sitting of l7ednesday, 9 May 1979 r05

Van Aerssen

Interparliamentary Conference on the Pollution of theRhine. As you know this conference was firstconvened in The Hague on 24 February 1977, that is

two years ago. At the request of this conference - Ithink this fact is very relevant - Mr Baas and Mr

Jahn each drew up a report on respectively:

- proposals for more intensive and lasting cooperationwrth a view to cleanrng up the Rhine, between theparliaments of the srgnatory states to the Bonn

Convention, the European Parliament and the Consul-tative Assembly of the Council of Europe ;

- the evaluation of existing data on the pollution of the

Rhrne and proposals for prioriry measures to be taken

by the signatory states to the Bonn Convention.

I should like to confine myself to enurnerating brieflya few important conclusions arrived at in the rePorts

of Mr Jahn and Mr Baas, and to presentinS, on behalfof our Group, a list of prioriry measures.

First point: the discharge of toxic substances into thewaters of the Rhine must be totally prohibited, at least

to the extent that the best available technologypermits.

Second point: the noxious substances contained inwaste water must be removed at the place of origin,namely in a waste water purification plant. Dischargeinto the Rhine must be monitored according to theprocedures laid down in the Convention on ChemicalPollution.

Third point, which we consider very important : allundertakings disposing of waste water into the Rhinemust be required to undertake extensive self-moni-toring, paying particular attention to possible noxioussubstances. Fourth point : immediate measures shouldbe taken to ensure that all substances contained inwaste water comply with the limits fixed by the Inter-national Commission for the Protection of the Rhineagainst Pollution, because if these limits are not

respected all this work will be in vain.

Fifth poinr : a further important obiective is to have

Rhine water of such a quality that untreated water fordrinking water supplies can be obtained by means ofnatural processes, e. g. bank filtration.

Sixth conclusion : international measures against pollu-tion of the Rhine, in particular with phosphatesubstances, are urgently required. These should be

introduced under the direction of the InternationalCommission for the Protection of the Rhine against

Pollution, with particular emphasis being placed on

combating the phosphates contained in detergents.

Seventh point : the cleaning-up measures - and in

particular the construction of purification plants -

must be taken primarily at the seven main discharge

lines, in other words at the locations of the seven prin-cipal culprits, which together account for 50 Yo of the

biological pollution of the Rhine.

And finally the eighth point : the provision ofdrinking water from the Rhine, taking into accountpossible uses, in particular for drinking water supplies,

must be the principal determining factor for all pollu-tion prevention measures ; the criterion in assessing

the waste-water discharge lines must be the quantityof waste-water substances emitted per unit of time and

not iust the concentration of such substances, sincedilution of waste water is not the same thing as purifi-cation. Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the nextplenary session of the International Conference onthe Pollution of the Rhine is scheduled to take place

in Strasbourg at the end of May. It will have to decide

on the proposals I have lust presented. !7e appeal to

the Assembly to give these proposals its full suPPort.

I should also like to point out that Mr Jahn addressed

a written question to the Commission some time ago,

in which he expressed the fear that the ChemicalConvention might not enter into force within the fore-seeable future because some essential elements - two,in particular lacking : firstly the limits to be

fixed for emission levels of toxic substances, as part ofthe procedure of prior approval, must be proposed bythe Protection Commission, and that has not yet been

done, and secondly, when these limits have been fixedby the Protection Commission they require the unani-mous approval of the contracting parties. These twopreconditions have not yet been met. There is a great

danger that the agreement will remain one on PaPeronly, and lose its validity because of its inability to

function.

The Commission was asked at that time what itintended to do in view of this situation, i. e., firstly,what the Community as a contracting party intendedto do to overcome these obstacles, secondly, when the

limits and the quality objectives would be fixed and,

thirdly, within what time period a real solution to thisproblem could be expected.

The Commission conceded the difficulties involved;however it was not able to give any concrete indica-tion of how soon this agreement could come intoforce.

'We note with great regret that today the Council has

not proposed any further concrete steps to this end. Imust therefore once again say quite plainly on behalfof my Group that it is now urgently necessary that the

appropriate decisions are taken at the next meeting ofthe Protection Commission in May.

President. - I call Mr Bernard-Reymond.

Mr Bernard-Reymond, President-in-Office of the

Council. - (F) Mr President, I should simply like torecall briefly that when this question was asked the

Convention concerned had not yet been ratified and

that consequently the Council's reply nonetheless

contains some positive elements.


Bernard-Reymond

Let me say also that I have listened with great atten-tion to your various proposals for cleaning up theRhine. However, I am quite aware that in fact whatyou want me to do is to take off my President-of-the-Council hat and put on that of the French Secretaryof State for Foreign Affairs, and to give you some infor-mation on the problem of chloride pollution.

It is true in effect that rhe ratification of this Conven-tion has posed and continues to pose problems withinthe French Parliament. And rather than face an irre-versible setback, the French Government preferred towithdraw this text provisionally from the agenda ofthe French National Assembly so as to leave timebefore the next agenda to convince unwillingMembers of Parliament, with the aid of technicalevidence, of the merits of ratifying this convention.

As you know, the technical solution advocated -which Mr Ansquer knows well because he had toexamine this question himself when he was Ministerfor the Environment - is to bury the chlorides in theAlsace subsoil. However, a certain number of ecolo-gists in Alsace were very disturbed by this proposal.The result is that we are witnessing an ideological-ecological conflict between German ecologists who donot want salt in their subsoil and Dutch ecologistswho do not want salt in the Rhine. We nonethelesshope to be able to find a solution once we have elimi-nated all the alternative proposals which have provedtechnically impracticable. At present our very closeand very intensive contacts with Members of Parlia-ment suggest that it will be possible to put this issueon the agenda of the French National Assemblyshortly, and we very much hope that there will thenbe a successful outcome.

I must acknowledge that in the meantime the Nether-lands Government has displayed both wisdom andpatience about this affair, and I should like to takethis opportunity to say how grateful we are to them.Moreover, I am quite sure that this attitude will weighextremely favourably in the debate which should takeplace in the National Assembly after the elections ofl0 June next, probably at the beginning of theautumn session.

President. - I call Mr Baas.

Mr Baas. - (NL) Mr President, while we appreciatethe reasons for the formal position adopted by thePresident-in-Office in his initial reply, I am particu-larly grateful to him for the remarks he made in hissecond reply about the difficulties in the FrenchNational Assembly. I have sufficient informationabout the position of the Netherlands Government. Itwas not our aim to force the matter, but simply todraw attention to the dangers which might arise if itcame to a public confrontation with the attendant criti-cism, recriminations and so on.

I am fully aware that the people of Alsace are alsocalling for their voice to be heard on a proiectinvolving certain dangers, but in the final analysis it isthe politicians and the authorities who will have tomake a decision based on a detailed study of all therisks and dangers otherwise involved.

I hope that this debate has helped to make the variousstandpoints somewhat clearer. \7e for our part werenot trying to force the matter, since this might havehad a negative effect on the course of events.

President. - The debate is closed.

10. Enlargentent of the Comnrunity

President. - The next item is the debate on thereport (Doc. 42179), drawn up by Mr Pintat on behalfof the Political Affairs Committee, on enlargement ofthe Community - Part 2 : sectoral aspects.

I call Mr Pintat.

Mr Pintat, rapporteur. - (F) Mr President, I nowhave the pleasure of presenting to Parliament thesecond part of the report of the prospects for enlarge-ment, covering the sectoral aspects, which concludesour statement on the position of the European Parlia-ment regarding the accession to the Community ofthree new Member States: Greece, Portugal and Spain.Although it is in t'wo parts, it is nonetheless the inten-tion of the Political Affairs Committtee that thisreport should be seen as a single document, as thedecision to publish it in stages was only taken for prac-tical reasons, in particular to enable the first part toappear in time before negotiatons with Greece enteredthe final phase. Indeed, the subject, the committeeconcerned and the rapporteur are the same for bothparts. You will recall that at its meeting of 20 and 2lNovember 1978 the Political Affairs Committee,finding that some of the opinions from the othercommittees consulted were not available, decided toadopt the present report in two stages: a first partdealing with political and institutional aspects whichhas already been dealt with and a second on sectoralaspects which we have before us today. The aim wasto enable Parliament to pronounce as soon as possibleon the broad principles governing enlargement.Accordingly, on 18 January this year the EuropeanParliament adopted the first part of this report on thepolitical and institutional aspects of enlargement.

There is, however, a difference between the two partsof this report in that the Political Affairs Committeegave the committees which were to provide it with anopinion an undertaking that it would scrupulouslyrespect their views. The rapporteur has therefore had a

rather special task here since, in preparing the draftpresented to the Political Affairs Committee, hishands were in a sense tied by the opinions of theother committees consulted.

Siaing of Wednesday, 9 May 1979 107

Pintat

Nonetheless - and I feel I must stress this point -it is actually a report by the Political AffairsCommittee that I am presenting to you today since,

despite what I have just said, which relates only to thepreparation of the draft, it has been discussed,

amended and adopted by our committee. The proce-dure I have just described explains the fact that thisreport has been set out in a rather analytic or method-ical fashion, with a separate chapter for each sector

corresponding to the eight opinions submitted by theCommittee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, theCommittee on Budgets, the Committee on Social

Affairs, Employment and Education, the Committeeon Agriculture, the Committee on Regional Policy,Regional Planning and Transport, the Committee onEnergy and Research, the Committee on ExternalEconomic Relations and the Committee on Develop-ment and Cooperation. In giving a brief sunmary inthis introduction, I shall keep to the chapter-by-chapter presentation in our report.

Thus, with regard to the economic and monetaryproblems, the Political Affairs Committee's reportconcludes that despite the encouraging prospects and

long-term promise of enlargement we must be

prepared in the short term to face difficulties whichwill be all the more serious because of the fact thatthe sectors that will be affected by enlargement, Parti-cularly Mediterranean policy, already pose problemsin the Nine.

This means that it is all the more important to giveattention to transitional arrangements, and I wouldremind you here that this problem has already been

dealt with in more general terms in the first part ofthe report. These transitional arrangements will have

to set out the conditions for bringing about the newMember States' compliance with the full range ofCommunity rules. These conditions will have to be

suited to the situation of each of the new Memberswithout any systematic attempt to apply parallel treat-ment to them all.

The Political Affairs Committee, accepting the conclu-sions of the Committee on Economic and MonetaryAffairs, expressed concern at the disparities in develop-ment between the applicant countries and the present

Community avetage, because of which a particulareffort will be needed to avoid a general weakening ofthe Community.

However, while aid must be given to the new membercountries, it must be accompanied by efforts toachieve a reasonable rate of sustained growth, closer

cooperation in economic, budgetary and monetarypolicies and a strengthening of the machinery foreconomic decision-making.

As regards the budgetary problems, it is clear thatenlargement will mean above all an increase in thevolume of Community expenditure. This does notmean that this new expenditure will not be accompa-nied by savings in certain sectors, but a realistic view

must be taken of the consequences of enlargement forthe Community budget. In this respect the Commis-sion should revise its financial forecasts concerningenlargement to take account of the dynamic aspects ofdeveloping common policies and of measures takenin relation to Economic and Monetary Union. Thereare two ways of looking at these dynamicconsequences : either by simply adding in the contri-bution resulting from the accession of three MemberStates, or by taking account of the development poten-tial resulting from the enlargement of the Commu-niry's economic area.

As regards the increase in the budgetary volume, we

would ask the Commission to take account of this inputting forward its proposals concerning the ceilingon own resources.

Enlargement also implies greater economic solidarityamong all the Member States, which means concreteproposals on financial questions, i.e. the creation ofnew financial instruments and of a special reserve, as

called for by the European Parliament. This request

was formulated on the occasion of the adoption of thereport by the Committee on Budgets, presented by MrBangemann, on the Community's 1979 general

budget. The aim would be to create a special reserve

to deal with the problems o[ enlargement, from whichfunds could be allocated as need arose to this or thatchapter of the operating budget This extremely flex-ible instrument would be a way of dealing with theinadequacy of the existing financial instruments forcoping under present circumstances with theconsequences of enlargement.

The Political Affairs Committee found in the opinionof the Committee on Budgets the expression of a

concern to which it attaches particular importance, i.e'

the need to warn the Council and the Commissionagainst resorting to non-Community or extra-budge-tary means to cover the costs of accession. Apart fromthe question of upholding Article 199 of the Treaty,which requires all Community expenditure to be

shown in the budget, any such measures would be

particularly harmful in that they would create dispari-ties between the Member States and, more generally,would introduce, on the accession of new MemberStates to the Community, an anti-Communityelement which would inevitably be seen as a feature

of enlargement. The new Member States would thusrun the risk of being regarded not as full members ofthe Community but as the beneficiaries of privilegedforms of aid granted by the Community or its

members.

The relevant chapter on the budget also contains a

reference to the achievemeirts of the Communiry.This does not, however duplicate paragraph 4 of thissecond part or paragraph 9 in the first part of thisreport as it is concerned with budgetary questions,which is precisely where these achievements are parti-cularly important.

r08 Debates of the European Parliament

Pintat

As regards the problems of social affairs, employmentand education, enlargement will affect countriessuffering from an economic crisis in which industrialredevelopment is unavoidable, which means that thesocial problems and questions of training are of parti-cular importance, and the motion asks that everyeffort should be made, both by using the existingfinancial arrangements and by exploiting the possibili-ties for revising or extending the provisions of theTreaty, to facilitate these changes.

With regard to the particularly important problem ofmigrant workers, those from the new Member Statesmust be given the same advantages as citizens of thepresent Member States of the Community.

As regards the problems of regional policy, regionalplanning and transport, the emphasis is on the diffi-culties of enlargement for the Southern part of theCommuniry and what is wanted is the establishmentof a proper'Southern plan' aimed, on a medium-termbasis, at developing industrial and social infrastruc-tures in the Mediterranean region.

Special reference is made here to the case of Portugal,in view of the particular difficulties facing thatcountry. The Commission is asked to submit propo-sals to the Council for granting Portugal financial aidand technical assistance.

As regards the problems of energy and research, Ishall not dwell on the difficulties the Community isexperiencing in working out a proper energy policy orthe fact that enlargement will only accentuate itsinability to make progress in this field - we shall bediscussing this at greater length this afternoon. Spain,as the only applicant country pursuing a nuclearpower programme, should be given aid to encourage itto persevere in this direction - provided, of course, itcomplies with the provisions of the Euratom Treatyand the Nuclear Arms Non-proliferation Treaty.

In all the applicant countries, however, Communitypolicy must be to reduce their energy dependence.Support must be given to the modernization ofdomestic energ'y production, particularly in the coalsector, and in the case of Portugal special aid will beneeded to speed up the process of electrification,which is a pre-requisite for the country's industrializa-tion.

Enlargement will have consequences regarding theCommunity's trade relations at all levels. The links itmaintains with all the associated countries, as well as

those which depend on its overall Mediterraneanpolicy, will be particularly affected.

That is why the Commission musr be particularly vigi-lant in this respect, so that it can modifiy its forecastsand proposals as the negotiations progress.

Special mention is made here of Turkey, which is inan extremely serious economic situation and has seena considerable deterioration in its balance of payments

and its trade balance with the Community. This pointis of particular importance in view of the Commu-nity's commitments towards Turkey and the recentCommission proposals for granting special aid to thiscountry.

In welcoming three new Member States, the Commu-nity must not neglect its development policy, whichremains an essential element of its relations with thecountries of the Third !florld.

Particular attention will be necessary on the part ofthe Communiry institutions and the Member States toensure on the one hand that direct development aidcontinues to increase steadily and on the other handthat there is no decline in the Communiry's importsunder its development policy of agricultural productssimilar to those from the applicant countries.

It goes without saying that the European Parliamentwill be especially vigilant in ensuring that enlarge-ment does not adversely affect the terms of tradebetween the Community and the ACP countriescurrently being negotiated within the framework ofthe second Lom6 Convention.

Finally, to conclude a presentation which has beensomewhat technical but involves problems that areunquestionably of vital importance, I should like tomake the following general remark. This second partof the report on the prospects for the enlargement ofthe Community belies the fears that there would be a

radical difference between the first, excessively opti-mistic, part of the report on the political andeconomic aspects and a much more realistic secondpart which would be more pessimistic in tone.

Firstly, it can be seen that there is a remarkable conti-nuity benween the two texts : the political will exhi-bited in the first part had already been tempered by a

number of warnings and proposals for particularmechanisms and gradual adjustments. The same warn-ings and the same adjustment proposals are to befound in the second part, with further technicaldetails regarding the particular sectors. But in all theopinions from the committees consulted enlargementis seen as a positive step and a milestone in thehistory of the Community, even though this enlarge-ment is expected to give rise to considerable diffi-culties.

In other words, the Political Affairs Committee hashad the proper approach to the problem of enlarge-ment and has demonstrated in realistic fashion itsdetermination to welcome into the European Commu-nity three states, three nations which have alwaysbelonged there but which dictatorship had keptoutside. Now that these three countries, these threenations have regained their freedom, it seemed to usthat the most important thing was to recognize themas our kin and assure them of our fraternal support ina Community which, besides being economic andEuropean, is above all a democratic Community.


President. - I call Mr Hoffmann to speak on behalfof the Socialist Group.

Mr Hoffmann. - (D) Mr President, we are nowonce again discussing the question of the enlargementof the European Community to include the threeapplicant countries Portugal, Greece and Spain, and as

we can see from this very well-documented report a

whole host of problems are involved. I do not want togo into this report in all its aspects but should like totake up particular chapters and refer in particular tothe sections on regional policy and agricultural policy.To start with, let me remind you of a few figures to

bring out the circumstances and the associated

problems of this enlargement of the European

Community.

Firstly, of the people who will be joining the Commu-nity some 34 million have an average per capitaincome which. corresponds to the present level in theMezzogiorno. The three new countries represent, with53 million inhabitants, 2l o/o of the population of theenlarged Community, but produce - and this is

likely to be a key factor - only l0 o/o of the gross

domestic product of the l2 Member States. The differ-ence in living standards between the nine old MemberStates and the three new ones is considerable. To drawa comparison, if we take a basic of 100 0/o for thepresent Communiry, the figure for Greece is 44 o/o, forSpain 54 o/o and for Portugal as little as 32o/o. A funda-mental structural indicator is the proportion of thepopulation employed in agriculture, and in the threecandidate countries this is particularly high. Thefigure there is between 23 and 35 0/0, whereas in theEuropean Community the average is 9 o/o. Add to thisthe contribution of agriculture to the gross domesticproduct, which in these countries is between 14 and19 o/o, and I think the structural difference betweenthese three countries and the old Member States is

sufficiently clear. For ffi€, however, the mostdisturbing feature is the differences in incomes.

The European Communiry has been in existence nowfor a good 20 years and started with a difference inliving standards of I :4 between the poorest andrichest regions. Now this ratio is no longer 1 :4, butI : 6 or I : 7. That means that even the old Commu-niry has been unable to do anything to reduce itsregional imbalances and that on the contrary these

imbalances have become even greater, which is

completely contrary to the obiectives of the Treaties.

Extending this to the accession of these three coun-tries means that this ratio of I : 5 or I : 7 will becomea ratio of I : 12 - and here you see the whole enor-mous scale of the problem.

I think, therefore, that as a result of the accession ofthese three countries Community policy will have to

be substantially changed in at least two fields, i. e.

firstly the whole taxation and regional policy andsecondly agricultural policy. I should like briefly to gointo these two points.

Firstly the regional policy aspect. !7e shall, of course,have a liberalization of trade with these three coun-tries, which will mean, initially, benefits for theconsumer goods industry and, in a second, somewhatlater stage, for the capital goods industry. This raises

the question of who will be the first to benefit fromthis, and the simple answer is that in the first instancethe modern Communiry industries are naturally a stepahead. This then means that the process of concentra-tion in industry will be further accelerated by acces-

sion. This process favours the modern industrializedregions at the expense of the less well-equippedregions - thus, for example, the Federal Republic ofGermany, the Netherlands and parts of the UnitedKingdom and France will benefit economically fromthis enlargement more than weak regions of theCommunity.

This does not apply to all sectors. A distinction obvi-ously has to be made ; for example, what I just said

clearly does not apply to the textile industry, or to thefootwear industry, or to the steel sector. $7e mustmake a distinction here, but on the whole the fact is

that it is the others who will be the first to reap thebiggest advantage. I conclude from this - and thisreflects the thinking of the Socialist Group - that inthe context of enlargement we must give much moreserious consideration than hitherto to how to put thetransfer of resources into effect. How can we bringabout a redistribution of wealth within the Commu-niry ?

Unless we make a serious attempt to solve thisproblem, we shall find we have laid the foundationsfor the continuing existence, in the foreseeable future,of a poorhouse in this Europe of the Twelve,consisting of the weak regions of the applicant coun-tries and those of Italy and France, plus a fewNorthern areas, while in contrast there will be theprosperous, industrially strong areas, which willcontinue to be increasingly successful.

I cannot imagine that the citizens of the applicantcountries see this as their obfective. They will say, ofcourse, that they want above all to join the Commu-nity for general political reasons. !fle should, I think,fully respect this desire, and my Group declares itsrecognition of this political prioriry. At the same time,however, we must take a firm attitude towards theproblems I have mentioned, on which I should likebriefly to add a few remarks.

Let us look for a moment at the question of agricul-ture. Here too, the situation is uneven.

ll0 Debates of the European Parliament

Hoffmann

There will be an advantage for the Northern productsin the Community because these products will now beable to penetrate a larger consumer area. Conversely,however, the Portuguese, Greek and Spanish productswill face very strong competition from the productsfrom Southern Italy and the South of France. Theeffect here is thus not to extend the consumer areabut to intensify competition.

Here too there are substantial problems which weshould keep in mind, for I have the impression thatup to now some of these questions have been rathertoo much in the background. To draw a preliminaryconclusion : the enlargement of the EuropeanCommunity to include the three applicant countrieswill benefit in the first instance the industrial regionsand certain agricultural regions in the North of theCommunity and will pose a large number of problemsfor the South and for the applicants themselves.

In terms of regional and agricultural policy, therefore,I would say that enlargement cannot simply beregarded in every respect as politically desirable.

Instead, full account must be taken of the Commu-nity's responsibility, i.e. there must be serious discus-sion on the question of the transfer of resources. Theless progress we make in solving the agriculture ques-tion, the worse this problem will become, for then,with the high proportion of the population engagedin agriculture in these countries, we can expect thereto be a continuing process of migration from the agri-cultural regions into the industrial and urban areas

although no industrial jobs are available. The overalleconomic situation at present is such that greaterexpansion is simply not possible, and we also knowthat the prospects for creating additional jobs areclearly not very good. This means that in so far as theagricultural problems remains unsolved no improve-ment can be expected on the regional and industrialfront, and it seems to me that there is still insufficientawareness of this correlation.

I should perhaps say something about the extent rowhich these three countries are prepared with regardto regional policy. Here, I think we have varying stand-ards: in Spain there is clearly a greater degree ofregional planning than in the other two countries. InPortugal. I was able to see that great progress wasbeing made in regional planning. In northernPortugal, for example, I saw how considerable workhad been done in the past two years, so that I expectwe shall very shortly be able to give assistance here forproper regional and infrastructure programmes.

I see a problem in this, however: namely that on thepart of Europe and on the part of the national govern-ment this idea may well be recognized as useful andthat declarations are made accordingly, but that inpractice, apart from bilateral contacts, hardly anythinghappens. The example of Portugal has, I think,

demonstrated this. More than any other country,Portugal needs direct help from the Communiry. Butthe flow of aid is very very sparse. It will be nowonder if at some time in the future there is then a

sort of partial economic collapse, which will obviouslyalso have political consequences. \7e may all thendeplore what has happened, but we have a certainresponsibility for it. I wanted to draw particular atten-tion to this point becase I think we ought, with all ourfine words, to give a little more thought to theconsequences.

Ladies and gentlemen, to bring together these twopoints I think Parliament should decide - withregard to regional poliry - to aim at taking concreteaid measures in the following fields.

Firstly, we should help promote more intensive deve-lopment of water supplies irrigation and afforestationthan has hitherto been considered.

Secondly, we should aid the development of powersupplies and the transport infrastructure as a basis forattracting companies in the industrial and servicessectors.

Thirdly, there should be support for the developmentof the social infrastructure.

Fourthly, we should encourage the creation of invest-ment opportunities for the industrial and servicessectors - taking account of the special significance oftourism - with the aim of creating new jobs.

Fifthly and lastly, we should support the efforts of thenational, regional and local administrations to imple-ment an effective regional policy involving the varioussocial groups.

That is a sort of catalogue of the regional policymeasures which should be put into effect withoutdelay.

The other area I mentioned, i.e. agricultural policy,can clearly not be organized for these three countriesalone. They key question here is rather how far we are

prepared seriously to tackle the question of agricul-tural reform here in the European Parliament, whichwill shortly be a directly elected body.

In conclusion, I would venture to predict that if we donot succeed in reforming the agriculural policy insuch a way that we avoid repeating the same errorsand subsidy schemes as we have had in the north, andunless we recognize that this is a question of struc-tural policy, we shall only consolidate an adverseregional trend in this Communiry, for after a few years

the new member countries will then find that theyhave become poorer or at least remained poor, whileother parts of the Community have become richer. Icannot think that this is in our political interests.



Mr Bertrand. - (NL) Mr President, let it not be

said, after my fourth speech here in my last week as a

member of this Parliament, that I have not remainedto the last at my post in the struggle for Europeanuniry. It is thus a great pleasure for me, in my capaciryas chairman of the Political Affairs Committee, to be

able today first of all to thank Mr Pintat mostsincerely for an outstanding achievement. He has

managed after all, under difficult conditions, topresent a report to Parliament before we are super-seded by the directly elected Assembly. This reportvoices our concern, following the enthusiasticapproval given to the accession of the three applicantcountries that this accession should take place in a

balanced fashion.

I should also like to include Mr Natali in my thanks,since he has already achieved results in negotiationson the accession of Greece, which is to take effect ontime, in accordance with the original programme.One of the three is thus already in the process ofpreparing to initial the Accession Treaty. Greecethereby becomes subject to the ratification procedurein the various parliaments before it can join theCommunity as a full member.

If I may say so, Vice-President Natali played a veryimportant part in this and I should like, on behalf ofthe Political Affairs Committee, to express our grati-tude to him.

I do not intend to make a long speech, but I wouldlike to draw attention to certain social aspects

connected with the enlargement of the Community to12 members. In Mr Pintat's first report, we had an

opportunity of expressing our concern at the noncha-lant attitude of the Community institutions, whichhave failed to take the necessary measures in time tostrengthen our institutions in preparation of enlarge-ment. !flhat progress has been made on a return todecisions by a qualified majority in the Council ?

\Uflhat is the position on preparations for this ? Forthat was one of the conditions that Mr Jenkinshimself emphasized, a sine qua non for the Commu-nity's continued existence after enlargement. lVe have

heard nothing about this. \fle have heard nothingabout any new initiatives. We are very seriouslyconcerned at this, for unless this question is settled ingood time before the accession of the three I shallreally be very worried about the future of the Commu-nity. I should therefore like once again to stress thispoint.

A second problem that I find a cause for greatconcern is the socio-economic situation in the threenew member countries. At present there are 5 millionunemployed in the Communiry, 5.5 7o of the workingpopulation. Looking at the figures for unemploymentin the three new member countries, I see that.in 1977830 000 people were out of work in Spain, whichcorresponds to 5.3 % of the working population, thesame level as in the Community.

In Greece there are some 100 000 unemployed, whichcorresponds to 3 % of the working population, and inPortugal 500000, corresponding to 15o/o of theworking population. That means, then, that there areat present a total of 1.4 million unemployed in thethree countries. Adding this figure to the 6 million inthe Community, we shall thus have 7.4 million unem-ployed on our hands. I wonder whether, in economicterms, the three new Member countries are in a posi-tion to guarantee these unemployed workers the neces-sary income. Can their industry bear this burden ? Orwill there not be a need for an initial act of solidariryon the part of the Community in order to find a solu-tion to this problem.

There is also the question of how, on the accession ofthe three countries, we can bridge the differences inincomes, living standards and working conditions andsolve the question of the free movement of these

workers.

In the negotiations with Greece provision has beenmade for a transitional period of 7 years, which ulti-mately comes down to 5 years before free movementof workers from Greece can be put into effect. Consid-ering that a precedent has been created with regard toGreece, the same transitional period will probablyhave to be granted for the free movement of Portu-guese and Spanish workers when Portugal and Spainjoin the Community.

\(uill the Community be able to make the necessary

effort to eliminate the differences in wages andincomes and ad just working conditions to theCommunity level in good time so that thoseconcerned will in fact find, when their country joinsthe Community, that they did well to apply formembership and that this has lead to a generalimprovement for them ?

Social policy has already fallen far behind in ourpresent Community and in the social field far less has

been achieved than in the economic field, because theTreaty of Rome offers far too little scope for pursuingan effective social policy. How are we then to tacklethese new complex problems ?

To start with, we must recognize that on the questionof social policy the Treaty of Rome is unsatisfactory,that the relevant provisions in the Tteary are

inadequate. Pending modifications to the Treaty, we

shall clearly have to make use for enlargement of theopportunities under Article 235 of taking a number ofmeasures not provided for in other sections of the

Treaty of Rome in order to pursue an effective socialpolicy. That is the first point to which I should like todraw attention in this debate.

The Christian-Democrats also support the view thatthe establishment of a Community Economic

Programme can be put off no longer. For this, the

European Social Fund, the European Regional Deve-

tt2 Debates of the European Parliament

Bertrand

lopment Fund and the Guidance Section of theEAGGF will have to be modified and will have to beprovided with the nececessary resources so that theycan make a serious attempt to deal with the problemsarising from the accession of the three new States.

The European Social Fund in particular must be givenan opportuniry of contributing to the creation of newjobs. It must become a genuine instrument of employ-ment policy, whereas at present it merely has a

complementary social role to play vis-i-vis those whoare affected by unemployment. I think we shouldinsist that the Council and the Commission payspecial attention to this in future negotiations. Increating new jobs with the help of the EuropeanSocial Fund, attention will have to be concentratedabove all on the creation of jobs for young people andwomen, the t'wo worst affected categories, both hereand in the applicant countries. I think, therefore, thatat the same time as extending the powers of the Euro-pean Social Fund to cover the field of employment weshall also have to tackle the problem of vocationaltraining, and that ultimately we shall have to givesupport to those areas in the new Member Stateswhich are more seriously affected by unemploymentthan various regions in the Communiry.

Those, Mr President, ate a few aspects to which Iwanted briefly to draw attention. I should also like topoint out that at present there are six million workersemployed in the Community who are not Commu-nity citizens. Of these six million, 4'5 million comefrom third countries and l'5 million from the threecountries which have applied for membership.

The 1'5 million Spaniards, Greeks and Portuguesealready working in the Community should not, in ourview, have to wait until the end of the transitionalperiod before being granted the advantages enjoyed byCommunity workers. They must, as far as social bene-fits are concerned, be treated on an equal footing inanticipation of the final accession of their countries,for which a transitional period of five years is envis-aged.

The Christian-Democrats want these 1.5 millionworkers to be included as of now in the system ofsocial provisions for Community workers.

Finally, in view of the importance of the socialproblems connected with the enlargement of theCommunity, I should like to urge most strongly thatthe Council and the Commission should closelyinvolve the two sides of industry in discussions andpreparations for negotiations with the applicant states,so that we can avoid being faced with insurmountabledifficulties later. They must be given a chance ofputting forward their anxieties, suggestions and propo-sals so that, in consultation with the social partners,solutions can be found to all the social problems, thusopening the way to a balanced development of theenlarged Community.

President. Mr Bertrand, since you said at the begin-ning of your speech that you wished to serve Parlia-ment and remain at your post until your final depar-ture from this House, I may say in reply that in all theyears during which we have worked together you havealways provided us with a shining example of how toserve the common cause, of personal effort andcommitment, and also of the idealism with which youhave always pursued the cause of Europe. This is notyet the proper moment to wish you farewell, but I feltI must reply for all the Members of this Assembly bysaying that we shall miss you in future. I wish tothank you most sincerely for what you said, not leastin your capacity as chairman of the Political AffairsCommittee.

(Applane)

ll. Agenda

President. At the request of Mr Mitchell, I proposethat the two Fliimig reports (Docs. 74179 and 54/79)be interchanged.


The two Ripamonti reports on today's agenda will beconsidered after the second Fldmig report.

The sitting will now be suspended until 3 p.m.

The House will rise.

(7he sittitrg was suspended at Ll0 p.m. and resuntedat 3.10 p.m)


President

President. The sitting is resumed.

12. Question Titne

President. The next item is the second part of Ques-tion Time (Doc. 142179).

!fle begin with the Questions addressed to theCouncil.

I call Question No 18 by Mr Radoux :

With the election of the Members of the European Parlia-ment by direct universal suffrage to be held on l0 June1979, could not the Ministers make an effort to bring to a

successful conclusion the long drawn out negotiations onthe issue of a European passport to the citizens of theMember States of the Communiry ?

Is it true that one of the questions still to be solved iswhether, depending on the geographical location of theplace of residence of the nationals concerned, the word'Communiry' should precede or follow the name of theMember State on the passport cover ?


President

If so, it could be argued that, while the Communiry safe-

guards the future of our countries, it was the MemberStates which created the Communiry.

As a gesture of goodwill, could not the maiorrty accept

the position of the minoriry thus allowing the problem tobe settled in the interests of our people ?

Mr Bernard-Reymond, President'in'Office of tbe

Council. - (F)There is doubtless much to be said formeasures symbolizing European integration in view ofthe election of the Members of the European Parlia-ment by direct universal suffrage and the creation of a

uniform passport might well constitute such a

measure. However, the adoption of such a measure

presupposes resolving certain points concerning thelanguages in which the details on certain pages of thepassport are to appear, the presentation of the passport

cover and the legal form and basis of the act intro-ducing the uniform passport.

Successive Council presidencies have spared no effortin attempting to resolve the deadlock. I am, however,

obliged to record that, despite all such efforts, thatdossier is still no further forward.

Mr Radoux. - (fl !7ould the President-in-Office ofthe Council firstly inform the House why there has

been such a delay in putting a useful idea of this kindinto practice and secondly, whether or not he thinksthat the time when the people of Europe preferredstruggles for a symbol to a practical decision to issue

them with a uniform passport has passed, even if the

cover is not to the taste of all the national and Euro-pean bodies involved ?

Mr Bernard-Reymond. - (F) I can fully under-stand your impatience and even irritation at the factthat a problem which would appear extremely straight-forward or even trivial has been coming up against

these difficulties for months and even years on end.

However, you should not think that this is a simplequestion of presentation or that the discussions in theCouncil are being conducted at a level where a dossier

of this kind can be blocked by mere technicalities.There are certain more basic questions which it has

not as yet proved possible to solve.

This is why I cannot at this stage be more specificregarding the date on which a passport of this kindmight be introduced. Nevertheless, I must add that, as

you know, this passport would not make much differ-ence within the Community since it is already

possible to travel from one Member State to anotherwithout a passport.

Mr Ellis. \flith regard to the practical difficulties, andspeaking from the point of view of the travelling Euro-pean public, could the President-in-Office say

whether the Council of Ministers has a view as to theadvantages or disadvantages in practical terms of thepresent system as compared with the proposed

system ?

Mr Bernard-Reymond. - (F) As I said iust nowthere is no practical difference since one can already

cross the border befween two Member States without a

passport. Consequently, this is not the kind ofobstacle which we have to overcome. The realproblems are legal and technical difficulties which gobeyond those you have just mentioned.

Mrs Dunwoody. Is not the President-in-Office of theCouncil therefore suggesting that this is just a gesturewithout any real practical use ? Could he tell us whatis the attitude of the various immigration authoritiesand police authorities to the suggestion that thereshould be a unified document ? !7ill this not reallymake life more complicated ?

Mr Bernard-Reymond. - (F) This question is notone which has been decided in the Council so far, butI suppose it is another difficulry which could arise.

However, I can also point out that we do not regardthe symbolic significance of a document of this kindas unimportant.

Mr Schyns. - (F) I am surprised to hear the Presi-dent of the Council state that one can travel from onecountry to another within the Community without a

passport. Mr President, I invite you to come to myhome town which is on the Belgian-German borderand you will see that everyone crossing the border is

asked to show their passport. There are passportcontrols on all international trains. I really do notunderstand how you can say that there is no longerany need for a passport in order to travel from onecountry to another. If what you say is true, I wonderwhy we are finding it so difficult to introduce a Euro-

Pean passPort.

President. - I have no wish to depart from the prin-ciple whereby the President does not take part in thedebate, but I should nevertheless like to point out thatthe President of this House himself has to show hispassport when travelling from one country to another.

Mr Bernard-Reymond. - (F)l think this is a termi-nological mix-up. Citizens who have an identity carddo not need to show their passport at the internalborders of the European Economic Community. Thatis what I said. Since we are talking about personalexperiences, I can assure you that I have been able tocross the internal borders of the Community with myFrench identity card without for this reason drawingparticular attention to myself.

(Laugbter)

Mr Blumenfeld. - (D,) I should like to suggest thatthe President of the Council puts himself in the posi-tion of the ordinary man in the street and rids himselfof the idea that the ordinary citizen has the same expe-riences as he and his fellow ministers when travellingfrom one country to another. In our view, the legaland practical problems which, as you have pointedout, have so far been an obstacle to the introductionof a European passport are not the most importantthing.

tt4 Debates of the European Parliament

Blumenfeld

I should therefore like to ask you whether the Councilof Ministers is prepared to recognize the politicalsignificance of a European passport and finally getdown to brass tacks now that we have spent five yearstalking about the colour and suchlike.

Mr Bernard-Reymond. - (F) I am fully aware ofthe great symbolic value of the introduction of a Euro-pean passport. Having said that, however, I must pointout that certain problems remain unsolved and,furthermore, the growth of terrorism in Europe hasnot made matters any easier. For this reason, theCouncil must devote the necessary attention to thesematters. The political will reach a solution and thepresent debate can only encourage the members ofthe Council to move in the direction you desire.

Mr van Aerssen. - (D) \7hat is actually preventingthe Council from understanding that in addition tobeing a valuable symbol, a European passport wouldbe a first step towards a European citizenship which,in an initial phase, could exist alongside national citi-zenship ?

Mr Bernard-Reymond. - (F) The reason why theCouncil is unable to understand what you have justsaid is that what you were referring to is not theproblem and you are confusing rwo questions whichhave nothing to do with each other !

Mrs Dahlerup. - @K) Does the President of theCouncil realize that, as a non-French citizen of theCommunity, you cannot even, for example, drivealong a French road without carrying a passport ?

Does the President of the Council realize that when a

check is carried out on a French road - which issomething independent of one's own volition - youare asked to show your passport and it is examinedvery carefully ? Does the President of the Council alsorealize that this can be a source of greater inconven-ience than having to show your passport every timeyou go from one country to another within theCommunity ?

Mr Bernard-Reymond. - (F)Mrs Dahlerup, if yourpassport is checked when you are in France it isbecause there is no Danish identity card. It is true thateach of the Member States likes to be able to identifypersons driving on its territory but France has neverstipulated that one must actually show one's passportat an identity check. An identity card such as we havein France would certainly be adequate.

Mr Fletcher-Cooke. - Everyone understands thepolice and terrorist difficulties involved in thisproblem, which were pointed out quite rightly by MrsDunwoody, but what alarms us is the answer of thePresident-in-Office, who said that the Council ofMinisters had not yet got down ro discussing thatproblem. Does not the Council of Ministers, does not

the President, have some power of initiative in thismatter, and would the present occupant of the Chairnot give us an undertaking, that he will at the nextmeeting of the Council of Ministers initiate anin-depth discussion of the police and terrorist diffi-culties which, we all admit, are involved in thisproblem ?

(Applause from tbe European Conseruatiue Group)

Mr Bernard-Reymond. - (F) I never said that thisquestion had not been discussed within the Council. Isaid that no solution had been found, which is a verydifferent matter.

As things stand, I must say that it would not be advis-able to discuss this matter again as soon as yousuggest since there have been no further develop-ments as regards the problems which arose last time itwas discussed.

Mr Brugha. - If we are going to have continualdelay in arriving at some sort of a solution to this ques-tion, in view of the symbolic value and of the obviousfact that possession of a common passport would atleast facilitate movement from member country tomember country, would the President-in-Office notconsider raising this question again in the Council, ifnecessary getting a majority view, and permittingthose Member States that are willing to adopt a

Communiry passport to do so ?

Mr Bernard-Reymond. - (F) How could the intro-duction of this European passport facilitate movementwithin the Communiry ?

President. - I call Question No 19 by Mr Howell :

Does the Council intend to igree any measures whichwould sacrifice the Community's turkey producers, in theinterests of whisky and cognac exporters ?

Mr Bernard-Reymond, President-in-Office of tbeCouncil. - (F)The Council considers that the arrange-ment on turkey meat concluded with the UnitedStates fully safeguards the interests of producers in theCommunity. The only concession that has been madeconcerns fresh, chilled and frozen turkey cuts. Theseare subject to Community import levies, which will bead justed in accordance with the levies on wholeturkeys. This concession means a reduction in thelevy varying from 3 o/o to 17 7o according to product.No concession has been made regarding theseturkeys, which are not subject to levies but only tocustoms duties. These products will in fact be coveredby the second part of the arrangement with theUnited States, which is intended to take account ofthe problems of Community producers. The Commu-nity would regard it as an intolerable situation ifUnited States exports of. all types of turkey meat (i.e.fresh and frozen as well as prepared turkeys) were toexceed the average level for 1977/1978. Should this

Sitting of lTednesday, 9 May 1979 ll5

Bernard-Reymond

arise, however, the United States and the Communiryhave agreed to hold talks to find a solution to theensuing problems on the Community's turkey market.

Mr Howell. - Has a quantitative restriction been

placed on the overall imports of turkey meat,

restricting it to the 197711978 level ? Could I have a

definite assurance on that fact, and can he give me a

further assurance that the interests of my constituentswill not be jeopardized in any way by the agreementwhich has been entered into ?

Mr Bernard-Reymond. - (F) One cannot reallydescribe the measures I have just mentioned as quanti-ative restrictions. As you know, and as I have just

reminded you, the United States and the Communityhave agreed to hold talks with a view to finding a solu-tion to any problems arising on the turkey market.However, the measures taken and agreementsconcluded so far cannot be regarded as quantitativerestrictions.

Mrs Dunwoody. - Does this welcome change mean

that in future we shall be able to import other meats

more cheaply from outside the Communiry ? Is this at

long last a tiny chink of light in the eternal darkness

of the common agricultural policy ?

(Laugbter)

Mr Bernard-Reymond. - (F) This is a completelydifferent question from the turkey problem and a

much broader issue to boot. I will merely say that we

are continuing to consider this subiect, but so far

there has been no change in the situation. I caninform you, since this is a very recent development,that we are examining the possibility of extending thequotas for certain ACP countries under the Lom6Convention.

Mr Scott-Hopkins. - Does the acting President-in-Office not realize that if the 1977178 total of importsinto the Community of turkey meat is exceeded whiletalks are being held, damage will be done to theindustry, not only in the UK but elsewhere. Theexisting balance is very delicate, and time does notallow for lengthy talks. Could not the Minister be a

little more explicit on that ? Could he also tell us whatconcessions he has wrung out of the United States

concerning export of whisky and cognac, or is it yetagain all giving on this side and nothing being givenon the other ?

Mr Bernard-Reymond. - (F) As I said just now, ifthe levels lor 1977-1978 were to be exceeded, a consul-tation procedure would be put into operation in orderto prevent the difficulties to which you refer. I shouldalso like to point out that in its negotiations, theCommunity has never agreed to sacrifice certaineconomic sectors in the interests of others, which is

what you were implying when you mentioned whiskyjust now. Indeed, the Community has endeavoured tosafeguard all the interests involved and only agreed tothose concessions which it felt acceptable for each ofthem.

Finally, the negotiations form a unified whole and

must be seen as such, from the point of view both ofthe advantages obtained and of the concessions made.The concessions obtained by the United States as

regards whisky and cognac cannot be regarded as

having been granted in return for the turkey arrange-ment, but simply from part of the negotiations as a

whole.

President. - At the author's request, Question No20 by Mrs Ewing will receive a written replyl

I call Question No 2l by Mr Osborn:

Vhat initiatives have been taken to strengthen the bondsbetween the Falkland Islands and the Community, inview of their relationship with Great Britain, in the fields

of aid and trade, and with particular reference to fishingopportunitres in Falkland's waters ?

Mr Bernard-Reymond, President-in-Office of the

Council - (F) | am pleased to note that the honour-able Member has not failed to take me up again onthe measures taken by the Community in favour ofthe Falkland Island and their dependencies, as he

warned me he would do at the sitting of 17 January.

I can give you some further details today. Firstly, as

regards Communiry aid to associated overseas coun-tries and territories in application of the Council Deci-sion of 29 June 1976, the competent authority, i.e. theUnited Kingdom, had proposed that l8 000 EUAshould be allocated for measures in the hospitalsector. I have just been informed that the Commissionwhich, in close collaboration with the Member States,

is responsible for the management of the European

Development Fund, intends in the very near future topropose the allocation of 26000 EUA, i.e. slightlymore than the figure originally provided for in thedraft aid programme, for the purposes of equippingthe surgical block of the King Edward MemorialHospital. After the necessary procedures have been

completed, it should be possible to take the decisionfor financing before the summer holidays.

Secondly, there are the measures which might be

taken in the field of fishing. I can inform you that theCouncil has not received a proposal from the Commis-sion on this subject.

Mr Osborn. - I thank the President-in-Office of the

Council for being better prepared than he was in

January and I welcome the fact that 25 000 EUA have

been allocated to the Falkland Islands' But as he

I See Annex.

lr6 Debates of the European Parliament

Osborn

knows, the people of Falkland Islands, and of otherislands in the South Atlantic, wish to retain their linkswith the mother country, in this case with GreatBritain rather than with Argentina. This has obviouslybeen the subject of delicate negotiations involving a

Sovernment that has not been re-elected in GreatBritain.

!flhat steps have been taken to discuss with theislands in the South Atlantic and countries on theAtlantic coastlines of South America and South Africathe development of fishing opportunities 7 There havebeen many discussions on fishing opportunities forEuropean fishing fleets as a result of difficulties inIceland and elsewhere. This is a practical step thatcould be taken by the Community and it is to beregretted that very little further advance has beenmade since January.

Mr Bernard-Reymond. - (F) Unfortunately, in theabsence of a common fisheries policy, it is impossibleto solve this problem at this stage. However, I hope a

common fisheries policy will enable us to makeprogress in this matter.

President. - I call Question No 22 by Mr Kava-nagh:

!7hat impact does the Council expect the entry ofGreece into the Communiry to have on current policieson sheepmeat, and will it call on the Commission tostudy the situation immediately ?

Mr Bernard-Reymond, President-in-Office of tbeCouncil. -

(F) The effects of Greek entry on thesheepmeat policy being pursued at present should notbe very marked. Nevertheless, it was thought advisableand necessary to consider whether the common organ-ization of this market might pose a problem whenGreece and possibly Spain and Portugal acceded tothe Community. Accordingly, in the context of thepresent examination of the Commission proposal forthe common organization of the markets in sheep-meat the Council was interested to note the Commis-sion's opinion, supported by figures, that the accessionof Greece, Spain and Portugal would not cause anymaior disturbance in the balance of the Communitymarket, since the Communiry deficit would remain atabout the sanre level and since the market prices inthe candidate countries were higher than the Commu-nity average. !(hen the common organization of thesemarkets is implemented, the Council will not fail totake into account, as the European Parliament'sOpinion stressed, the extent of sheepmeat and goat-meat production in Greece and in the two othercandidate countries and the possible effects of enlarge-ment on the aforementioned common organization ofthe market in sheepmeat and goatmeat at presentbeing considered.

Mr Kavanagh. - Does the President-in-Office notagree that it would be in the best interests of the appli-cant countries, as well as of sheep producers withinthe present Communiry, for a market organization insheepmeat to be set up as soon as possible. A requestwas made as far back as 1973 by myself and others inthis House that this be done. !7ould the President-in-Office not agree that the Commission has dodged theissue, and that it is now time for this decision to bemade ?

Mr Bernard-Reymond. - (F) The question youhave brought up is one which presents considerabledifficulties within the European Economic Commu-niry. As you know, there is at present no conlmonorganization of the market in sheepmeat particularlybecause of the great differences in production costsberween various countries, notably the UnitedKingdom and France. As you also know, the Court ofJustice is currently examining a reference and has notyet pronounced on the matter.

Consequently, we should be extremely reserved in thismatter pending the decision of the Court. It wouldundoubtedly be very difficult to introduce a commonorganization of the markets since the product andmarketing conditions in the various countries aresubstantially different and since certain countries haveextremely advantageous links with third countries inthis type of trade.

Mr Scott-Hopkins. - In view of these ratherlengthy negotiations, can the President-in-Office saywhether the Council is aware of the urgent need tocome to a conclusion ? \7ill he reaffirm that theimport of New Zealand lamb into the Community,and particularly into my country, the UnitedKingdom, will be accepted by the Council, as it hasbeen by this House, at the continuing levels that havebeen agreed ?

Mr Bernard-Reymond. - (F) | can assure you rhatthe Council fully realizes the importance and urgencyof this problem, particularly for the reason I have justmentioned, namely the proceedings before the Courtof Justice. Nevertheless, it has unfortunately not yetbeen possible to reach agreement among the Nine onthis matter, but I can assure you of the Council's good-will as demonstrated by the fact that the Ministers ofAgriculture of the Nine were discussing this questiononly yesterday.

Mr Howell. - M.y I support Mr Kavanagh in hisrequest for an overall Community organization forsheepmeat. The President-in-Office says that this is a

difficult problem. All these problems are difficult; butis it not about time that we faced up to solving someof these difficult problems and started to create a realcommon agricultural policy ?


Mr Bernard-Reymond. - (F)This problem is evenmore thorny, complex and difficult than the others.

(Laugbter)

President. - I call Question No 23 by Lord Bessbo-rough :

lVhy has the first meeting of the EEC-China Committee,planned for 3, 4 and 5 May 1979, been postponed ?

Mr Bernard-Reymond, President-in-Office of theCouncil. - (F) The first meeting of the EEC-China

Joint Committee, set up under the 1978 Trade Agree-ment, which should have been held in Peking at thebeginning of May, has been postponed by commonaccord of the Commission and the Chinese authori-ties.

!(hile it was prepared to hold the meeting on theplanned date, the Community informed its partnerthat it would welcome some additional time to studysome of the questions arising in EEC-China relationsmore closely so that the first meeting of the JointCommittee could be held under favourable condi-tions. These questions relate in particular to the exami-nation of the problems posed by liberalization,China's request to become a beneficiary of the Gener-alized System of Preferences and the negotiationsconcerning textiles.

The reasons why the two parties considered it prefer-able to postpone the Joint Committee's first meetingwere therefore purely technical. The postponement is

clearly only to be short, as the meeting is to be heldin the near future.

Lord Bessborough. - In view of the fact that thefirst meeting of the Japan-China Joint Committee onTrade took place in October 1977 - over a year and a

half ago - and since then has met frequently withworking-parties for the promotion of China's oil, coaland steel in Japan, could not the Council perhapsinstruct, or at least suggest to the Commission thatthey should consult with appropriate leading Commu-nity firms in order to enable China to sell raw mate-rials to the Community ? !(lould that not be a way ofenabling China to earn hard currencies ? I hope thatmight be a consideration that will be borne in mindby the Council, and think that notwithstanding thedelays, which may even have been partly due to thePeople's Republic, this is a matter which should be

given very profound consideration.

Mr Bernard-Reymond. - (F) You mentioned theway in which the Commission could play a part incoordinating or assisting firms in trade with China. Ithink the discussions we have had since 3 o'clockhave shown that there are already numerous problemsbefore the Council and it does not intend to take onfurther problems involving private firms. !fle fullyrespect their freedom and initiative, including theirinitiative in trade matters and particularly the Chinesemarket.

Having said that, we certainly hope that those privatefirms which wish and are able to do so will adopt anattitude to China such as to permit us to restore thebalance of trade between the European EconomicCommunity and that country.

Mr Kaspereit. - (F) Mr President of the Council, I

did not hear your first statement very well and I hopeyou will excuse me. However, I should like to knowwhether there is any truth in the rumours that theCouncil intends to instruct the Commission to makethe People's Republic of China a beneficiary of theGeneralized System of Preferences. I have my ownpersonal views on this question, but I should like toknow whether or not you, Mr President-in-Officethink this could be dangerous and perhaps even disas-trous for our future relations with China.

Mr Bernard-Reymond. -

(F) China has in factmade a request to become a beneficiary of the Gener-alized System of Preferences but no decision has as

yet been reached in the Council.

Mr van Aerssen. - (D) I am sure it will not have

escaped the attention of the President of the Council,that the United States concluded four substantial tech-nological agreements with China yesterday regardingcooperation in science and research, oceanography,meteorology and fishing, which go far beyon$ whatFrance, for example, agreed in its own technologicalagreement with China. For this reason, I should liketo ask whether or not you agree that it is high timethat the Council and Commission together - inaccordance with the wishes of this House

- deve-

loped an overall strategy with a view to establishingoverall cooperation with China so that the individualMember States will finally stop going it alone andenter into relations with China on the basis ofCommunity foreign trade, as China itself wishes.

Mr Bernard-Reymond. -

(F) If the information Ihave received is correct, the agreements to which yourefer were signed yesterday. You will therefore under-stand that we cannot give you a detailed analysis yet,but I can assure you that the points you have justraised will be taken into account when we come toexamine these documents.

Mr Fletcher-Cooke. -

Is the President-in-Officebeing quite frank about this ? Is it really the case thatthere were purely technical difficulties in meeting thisdeadline 7 Is it not more the fact that there could notbe agreement among the various Members of theNine in presenting a common front on this matter,and if so does not the President-in-Office think thatthe postponement, which was of course agreed by theChinese - they could do no less,

- was really at the

instigation of Europe, and will it not in fact be viewedas something of an affront by the Chinese ?

I l8 Debates of the European Parliament

Mr Bernard-Reymond. - (F) | know that you willnot doubt my sincerity, so I am sure you will believeme when I tell you that it will be better if we have

something really substantial to work on, and this is

what we have always had in mind when consideraingthe possibility of these negotiations with China.However, I repeat, it is purely for technical reasons

that we have decided by common accord to postponethe meeting.

Mr Fitch. - !7ould the President-in-Office notagree that when this meeting does take place, notewill be taken of the growing Chinese textile industry ?

I hope that this will not mean a considerable increasein textile imports into the Community.

Mr Bernard-Reymond. - (F) This question is infact currently the subject of very thorough examina-tion within the Community, particularly within theCouncil. It goes without saying that the preoccupa-tions you have iust expressed will also be taken intoaccount in the discussions among the Nine on thisquestion.

President. - \7e proceed with the Questionsaddressed to the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of thenine Member States of the European Communitymeeting in political cooperation.

At its author's request, Question No 24 by Mrs Ewingwill receive a written reply I.

The second part of Question Time is closed.

I call Mr Howell on a point of order.

Mr Howell. - Mr President, can we not move on toquestions to the Commission again, so that we haveour full Question Time ?

President. - The Commission has not been notifiedof the possibility that the questions to the Commis-sion might be put at today's sitting.

I call Mr Scott-Hopkins.

Mr Scott-Hopkins. - Mr President, it has been an

accepted custom in this House, and the Commissionis fully aware of it - I am sure that if you ask thePresident of the Commission he would accept this -that if the Council questions finish early we then goon to those to the Commission. This is the acceptedpractice, and has been so ever since we have startedthis business of three different parts of Question Timeduring the week: Tuesday, !(ednesday and Thursday.So may I suggest now that we formally move to Ques-tion No 7 or No 8 to the Commission ?

President. - Mr Scott-Hopkins, we had not plannedto devote part of Question Time to the Commissionsince we already have a very full agenda.

S7hat we had intended was to continue with thedebate on the Pintat Report up to voting time andresume it again afterwards.

I call Mr Schyns.

Mr Schyns. - (F) Mr President, am I then to under-stand that we will be able to deal with the other ques-tions addressed to the Commission tomorrow ? Itwould be a pity if they could not be pur.

President. - The questions to the Commission willbe put tomorrow at 3.00 p. m.

I call Mr Scott-Hopkins.

Mr Scott-Hopkins. - Judging by our progressyesterday - five questions, and we have got at leastten left - we do not stand much chance of gettingthrough all those on the agenda. !7e have half anhour left. It is now five to four. It is the custom herein this House to go on. You do not have to tell theCommission. They automatically assume that we willgo on. If they are not here, then the President is morethan competent to answer all questions, They are a

collegiate body, so he can answer, or indeed one ofthe other Commissioners can answer. I am sure hewould be more than delighted to do so. If not, heshould be.

(Laugbter - applause from aaious quarters)

President. - I call Mr Howell.

Mr Howell. - Mr President, I am particularlydistressed that I cannot receive an answer to my ques-tion now that we have the President of the Commis-sion here. He has been dealing with the matter over a

considerable number of months, and he knows exactlywhat this question is all about, so I know he iscapable of answering this one. I see no reason why weshould alter the rules at this moment !

President. - Mr Howell, we did not advise theCommission since we had supposed that the ques-tions to the Council would take up the entire secondpart of Question Time. However, I think it would be

in your own interests too to receive a fuller reply fromthe Commission tomorrow rather than an off-the-cuffreply now.

13. Statements to ntark the last part-session of thenon-directly elected European Parliament


Mr Bernard-Reymond, President-in-Office of tbeCouncil. - (F) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen,this Parliament's 'Council day' will shortly be over.On this occasion it takes on a particular significance,since this is the last time the Council Presidency willI See Annex.

Sitting of l7ednesday, 9 May 1979 t19

Bernard-Reymond

participate in the proceedings of Parliament in itspresent form. In a month's time, the first direct elec-tions will take place, marking a new stage in thehistory of your institution.

But the European Assembly has not needed to waitfor the June 1979 ballot to leave its mark on Euro-pean development. During a lifetime of almost thirtyyears, it has displayed impressive skills, invariablyaccompanied by a keen resolve to build a Europe andto defend true democracy. !(ith its opinions, resolu-tions, reports and debates, Parliament has demons-trated its ability and value within the institutions.Steady progress has been made in its dialogue withthe Council, through the questions put to it by theparticipation of the President-in-Office of the Councilin its debates and occasionally even in the work of itsCornmittees. This constant dialogue is now a characte-ristic of Community life. This Assembly could have

been a mere sounding board for romantic idealism ora place of recriminations and bitterness, but it has

never been either. It has stressed the human aspects oftedious problems, insisted on ensuing their relevanceto the daily problems which crop up in the social andworking lives of Europe's citizens. At the same time ithas unflaggingly served as the mouthpiece of all ourhopes.

Twenry-seven years ago, there were 78 Membersassembled in Strasbourg in the ECSC Assembly. Twen-ty-one years ago this number became 142 and repre-sented the parliamentary institutions of three Commu-nities in that ciry.

Thus, the Assembly was, earlier than the other institu-tions, the place where Europe's problems cametogether.

However, the acceptance of this role did not meanthat national identities suffered ; the dual mandatewith which you are entrusted means that it has beenpossible to reconcile the prerogatives of national parli-aments with the implementation of the idealscommon to the peoples of Europe. In the future, itwill still be essential for the Parliament and thenational parliaments to recognize and respect theirrespective areas of iompetence, and their rights andobligations. The ideals which you have committedyourself to defending can be subsumed in the convic-tion that we can share European democracy. Whateverthe importance of the ballot which will take place in a

month's time the fact remains that the European Parli-ament has always been and will continue to be a

profoundly democratic assembly, representing theStates and all their citizens in one active Community.The political and moral signifance of direct electionswill, of course, in no way fundamentally alter thenature of an institution which is one of the elementsof institutional balance in the Communiry.

However, it is not enough to talk about the balance ofpowers ; this balance must be present in our attitudesand our thinking as well. Alongside a Community

which has developed substantial administrative instru-ments, alongside the Member States which have

produced increasing numbers of highly skilled expertsusing an even more complex vocabulary, the Membersof this Parliament have represented the concerns ofthe people who elected them. As we all know, these

concerns make up the reality of our daily lives ; theyreflect genuine problems to which we have to try tosupply the answers. The exact, administrative oreconomic sciences are only truly of use of their find-ings can be directly applied to the people. In order tobe able to do this then, they have to be able to takeaccount of the views and aspirations of ordinary menand women. You have accepted this role, and I amcertain that it is the role which the new Assembly willbe assuming in the future. There are difficult anduncertain times ahead. Self-discipline and effort are

required of Members of Parliament and ministersalike. Clearly, the directly elected Assembly will notonly realize this, but will reflect this realization in itswork. Democracy has always rewarded those whotrusted and respected it. Among those, the presidentsof this Assembly have played an outstanding part increatinS a European parliamentary tradition.

Today, I would like to pay tribute to them and thankthem for all they have done. In the same spirit, Iwould like particularly to congratulate your currentPresident, Emilio Colombo. He is one of those amongus who perhaps know best the value of democraticgovernment, and who have initiated and thenexpanded this great tradition of democratic govern-ment in Europe. Consequently, here in Parliament,Mr Colombo has been able to draw strength and inspi-ration from his faith in democracy. But he has alsoguided the proceedings of this Assembly in a spirit ofopenness, moderation and efficiency. You are anItalian statesman, Mr Colombo, but you are today, if Imay be permitted the expression, also a Europeanstatesman.

My most sincere good wishes go to all the Members ofthis House, and particularly to those who, owing to

the hazards of political life, will no longer be herewhen it reconvenes. Nevertheless, I am sure that thiswill not prevent them from continuing to do their bittowards the achievement of the objectives which we

share. On May 9 1950, Robert Schuman launched thefirst appeal to Europe. Today on the anniversary ofthat declaration, the organization of our continent and

its influence on the world remain our common hopeand our common destiny.

(Altltlaus)

President. - I call Mr Jenkins.

Mr Jenkins, President of tbe Commission.- Mr Pres-

ident, on this appropriate day - as Mr Bernard-Reymond has reminded us, May 9 is Robert SchumanDry - I gladly join with him, as President-in-Officeof the Council, in paying tribute to this outgoing Parli-ament.


Jenkins

It is inevitably and rightly with some regret that wemark this occasion and say farewell to many Memberswho have served this Parliament and the cause ofEurope with distinction - in many cases, over manyyears. But it is, I think, also an occasion for pride and

confidence in the future since we stand on the thre-shold of direct elections. This Parliament shouldpossibly be given the title, enshrined in British seven-

teenth-century history, of the Long Parliament. Thereare many differences : the Long Parliament had itsdeficiencies as well as its qualities, but it was the Parli-ament of $m and Hampden, two of the great namesin parliamentary history, and you, like that Parliamenthave survived over 20 years, replenishing yourmembership, gathering strength, enhancing your repu-tation and through your work and dedication helpingto build to the road to the democratic future ofEurope. That road has not always been easy, but thecollective resolution and determination of this Parlia-ment has succeeded in overcoming many obstaclesand giving sustained support to the democraticprocess of the Community.

The Community is firmly rooted in the principles ofrepresentative democracy. Countries which do nothonour such principles could not be considered formembership, and of the three new candidates it maybe said that they have returned to such principles,which have immediately led to their applying formembership and of being welcome future members.It is manifestly desirable that these principles of repre-sentative democracy should apply directly in the insti-tutions of the Community itself and not merely inthose of the Member States alone. Indeed, the treatiesestablishing the European Communities laid a solidfoundation for a true democratic control by proposingthat the Parliament should be directly elected. It has

taken a substantial time to honour that commitment

- over 20 years - but we may compare that with theperiod, sometimes forgotten, of 160 years, f.rom 1776,which it took the United States to achieve direct elec-tions to the Urtited States Senate. So by that compar-ison we have not done badly. It should, I believe, be a

source of real satisfaction to every Member of thisHouse that they have paved the way for this historicdevelopment. The Members of this House have beenthe pioneers, and direct elections will be the tangibleresult of your achievements and the crowning of yourefforts.

I would also like, if I may, to take this opportunity tosay a special word of thanks to you, PresidentColombo, with whom I have had the great privilege ofworking closely over the past rwo-and-a-quarter years.Though it has not been the first time we have workedclosely together - we worked together as financeministers a decade ago - I am very happy that eventshave brought us back into such close cooperationmore recently. Every President of this House hasmade his own distinctive contribution to parliamen-

tary development in Europe, and I hope the Housewill understand if I do not pay a tribute to each ofyour predecessors individually. I would however, liketo mention the name of President Georges Sp6nalewho presided over my first appearance before thisParliament, in January 1977 the beginning of mypresidency of the Commission, and who will, I know,be much missed from amongst our councils. But you,Mr President, are the President whom I know best,and I would like to record here the debt of gratitudethat I believe we all owe to you for the way in whichyou have presided over our proceedings with calm-ness, with wisdom, with unfailing good humour andgenerosity. In two weeks' time, you, Mr President, willbe going to Aachen to receive the Charlemagne Prizefor the services you have rendered to Europe. That is a

great occasion. I will be there to witness the occasion :

it will give me great pleasure to see that awardconferred upon you and I know that you will takewith you there the congratulations and good wishes ofthis whole House.

(Applause)

Finally, Mr President, I thank this Parliament for thesupport and encouragement as well as the occasionaltail-rwisting which it has given the Commission overmany years. You have occasionally proved ourstrongest critics - you tried to explore my capaciryfor spontaneous answers to questions which I did nothave before me this afternoon, but that is in thenature how a Parliament should behave in its relation-ship with any executive - but you have also in a

more fundamental sense been our strongest supportersand advocates, and it is from the benches of thisChamber that the Commission has, on many occa-sions, drawn courage and encouragement. !flhen thehistory of this Parliament comes to be written, I haveno doubt at all that the developing relationshipbetween Parliament and Commission wll come to beregarded as one of the central features in the progressof the Community in the last twenty years and one ofits most important benefits. In the next five weeks,the eyes of Europe will inevitably be turned towardsthe future directly-elected Parliament, but that Parlia-ment will be founded upon the efforts and achieve-ments of this House, a precursor to whom they canlook back with pride. As President of the Commis-sion, I thank this Parliament most warnily for itsservices to Europe.

(Apltlause)

President. - I have received from Mr Gaston Thorn,Prime Minister of the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg,the following message addressed to the European Parli-ament :

Mr President,

On the occasion of the final part-session of yourAssembly in its present form, I wish to address thismessage to you in my capacity as Prime Minister of thecountry whose guest you are at this trme.

Sitting of \Tednesday, 9 May 1979 t2t

President

I am eager to make known to you, Mr President, andthrough you to the Members o[ your Assembly, the veryhigh regard I have for the quality of the work accom-plished by your institution since the establishment of theEuropean Communities. I had the privrlege of beinginvolved in thrs work, first as a representative of theLuxembourg Parliament and subsequently on three occa-sions as your opposite number in the regular dialoguewrth the Council of the European Communities.

At the moment when a new era in the history of theEuropean Parliament is about to begin, sanctroned by thedirect elections, we must not forger rhat the role whichyour rnstitutron currently enloys ls the result of the excel-lent quality of your work and of your determrned effortsfor the gradual introduction of democratic supervision ofthe activities of the Communiry. I am sure that yoursuccessors will also apply themselves to this task with thesame regard for the common good, for European unionbased on the balanced roles of the institutions and for theequal rights of the Member States.

The European Parliament has never allowed partisaninterests

- which in the frnal analysis are irrelevantwhen compared with rts historic role

- to disturb its

cordial relations with the Luxembourg Government. Icongratulate you on this, and I am convrnced that in thefuture, as in the past, our honest and mutual cooperationwill enablc the European Parliament and its Members towork here, and in Strasbourg, in the best of conditions.

I conclude this short message very simply by thankingyou for all you have done for the cause of Europeanuniry. I look forward to seeing many of you again as

Members of the directly elected Parliament.

(Applause)

!7e have heard with keen interest the statements bythe President-in-Office of the Council and the Presi-dent of the Commission and the message from thePrime Minister of Luxembourg. On behalf of theentire House, I should like to express our gratitude forthis appreciation of the work of Parliament.

There are some of us who have been Members of thisParliament for many years, and a few have even beenhere since 1952 when the Assembly of the Coal andSteel Community met for the first time, although thecalls of government have meant that there have beensome interruptions to this commitment. There arethree sitting Members of this Parliament who haveheld the office of President: Mr Berkhouwer, MrScelba and Mr Sp6nale.

I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute toyou all, ladies and gentlemen, and to your predeces-sors in this House, for the work you have done andespecially for the way in which you have all contri-buted to the work of the European Parliament.

If I were to recount how our Assembly has evolved inthe years since 1952, I should need to extend this part-session by several days. I shall spare you that, however.

I just want to mention the outstanding stages of Parlia-ment's development. It came into being as anAssembly with a predominantly consultative role, butover the years Parliament has gradually extended its

powers while respecting the Treaties or, as in theimportant case of the adoption of the budget, byamending the Treaties with the approval of each ofour national parliaments.

Development of this kind is quite natural, I feel. ThisParliament, which until now has consisted ofMembers from the national parliaments and which isvery soon to consist of directly elected Members,could not merely sit on the sidelines and watch as theCommuniry developed.

A member of parliament who is elected in a multi-party democracy, and who is thus a true representativeof the people, must accept the full responsibiliry ofhis election and his role must be more than merelyadvisory.

Thanks to the budgetary powers that Parliament hasacquired and the conciliation procedure that facilitatesjoint decisions with the Council, and by improvinginternal procedures and intensifying its powers ofsupervision and political initiative, Parliament hastaken on a role which justifies its title of EuropeanParliament.

On 17 July the directly elected Parliament will sit forthe first time. !7e are convinced that the experience,tradition and powers that Parliament has accumulatedin 25 years of fruitful labour will be invaluable after17 July for a smooth resumption of work which willenable us to continue promoting parliamentary democ-racy in the Community with undiminished enthu-siasm.

'W'e are delighted to be able to pay tribute to theCouncil - to you, Mr Bernard-Reymond, to MrFranEois-Poncet, and to all your predecessors - forthe cooperation which has developed between ourinstitutions, and especially for the now customary prac-tice whereby, at every part-session, there is a fruitfuldebate between the Council and Parliament on theimportant problems of the moment. Also, on behalfof everyone here, I wish to thank the Commissionand Mr Jenkins for their constant attendance and forthe unceasing exchange of views with the House. Inthis way our dialogue has been improved and given anincreasingly constructive significance. May I alsothank Mr Bernard-Reymond and Mr Jenkins for theparticularly kind words they addressed to me.

In short, I wish to thank the Council and the Commis-sion for their contribution to the development of theparliamentary institution in the Community.

The elected Parliament will have new problems totackle, and I am sure that it will be able to rely on theunstinting cooperation of the other institutions of theCommunity.

I am sure that Parliament will continue to evolve inthe fashion which is implicit in the Schuman Declara-tion which we are commemorating today.

(Applause)


14. Enlargenrent of tbe Connrtnitl ftesunption)

President. - The next item is the resumption of the

debate on the Pintat report (Doc. 42/79).

I call Mr Sandri to speak on behalf of the Communistand Allies Group.

Mr Sandri. - (I)Mr President, Mr Pintat mentioned

that on l8 January we considered the first part of hisreport on the prospects of enlargement of the Commu-nity when we looked at the political and institutionalaspects. This first part dealt with what I might call themost fascinating and the most politically stirringaspects of the great task before us. Political and institu-tional aspects: these are the stuff of politics with a

capital 'P'. This morning, with the second part of thisreport, Mr Pintat has gone into the totaliry of real

concrete problems which are highly complex and

which will have to be solved if we are to achieve ourgoal. The solution of these problems is vital if enlarge-ment is to help us achieve a genuine strengthening ofthe European Communiry.

I want to pay tribute to Mr Pintat for not glossing overthe difficulties and for producing a r6sum6 of thevarious opinions which were reached, sector by sector,by the parliamentary committees. I feel we need topay as much attention to the problems which theCommunity will have to face as to those that will be

encountered by the three applicant states. There is justone remark I want to make in this connection. Wemust be aware of the barriers to be overcome if enlar-gement is to be successful, but at the same time wemust not forget all that this means and all theproblems which will have to be solved by the weakercountries whose economies lag behind ours, namely,Spain, Greece

'and Portugal.

Frankly, the enormity of the problems which MrPintat outlined would be enough to deter anyone,were it not for the firm political determination whichsustains the desire for accession within the Commu-niry as well as in the three countries involved. I feelthat the nub of the problem was stated by Mr Mtiller-Hermann and Mr Pistillo, who drafted the opinions ofthe Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairsand the Committee on Social Affairs, Employmentand Education. To put it simply, they both consideredthat the real goal of enlargement was not merely toexpand the existing Community. If this were our idea,we should be sure to fail, for our task is not so muchto reorganize as to renew the Community. Theoutcome will be satisfactory only if there is thisrenewal at the same time as we enlarge the Commu-nity and bring the three applicant states closer. 'What

I have to say on this point will be very brief, Mr Presi-

dent, because the rapporteur ably covered a widevariery of problems in his report. Firstly, we have theregional problems

- admirably outlined by Mr Hoff-

mann this morning - with the frightening disparitieswhich already exist between one region and anotherand which, but for Community action, will go onbecoming more and more marked. Then there are thesocial problems, ranging from unemployment, whichis a considerable problem in the present MemberStates as well as in the applicant countries, to theflood of migrant workers we can expect. Although MrBertrand was perfectly right this morning in urgingthe Commission and the negotiators to reduce thetransitional period, especially in the case of workers'rights, we must nevertheless prevent any radical divi-sion of the labour force as a result of enlargement. Aninflow of workers from the rural areas of the Mediterra-nean to the cities and industries of the north would be

a cause of social upheaval even greater, for example,than what we have experienced in Italy. The problemis not really one of freedom of movement so thatworkers from Greece, Spain and Portugal can all getjobs in Germany, but rather a problem of encouragingthe industrial and agricultural development of these

countries so that the social, demographic and

economic balance is not upset by the waves of migra-tion which have characterized recent history inEurope.

And lastly there are the agricultural problems. In his

very thoroughly drafted opinion, Mr Ligios provideddata which without exaggeration may be termeddramatic. I do not think I am being guilty of nation-alism if I point out that southern Italy, to an even

greater extent than the south of France, must not be

illowed to become the victim of the Community'senlargement. The danger signals are there to be seen,

and I am not merely appealing to the generosity ofthe Community. If you ask me, we should have got a

pretty poor bargain if agriculture in the sourh of Italywere to suffer as a result of the.enlargement.

The last problem we cannot ignore concerns thegeneral repercussions on external relations, especially

on relations between the Community and theso-called 'Group of EighC, consisting of the threeMaghreb countries, the four Mashreq countries and

Israel. We cannot behave like Penelope, spinning byday and undoing it all by night. !7e cannot sacrificerelations with countries like Israel, Algeria or Tunisia

- relations which are of immense value to both sides

- just for the sake of enlargement.

These are the four lines which we, and our negotia-tors, should follow. In this respect we share the seriousconcern expressed by all the parliamentary commit-tees which have considered this subject and expressedconcern on a number of specific points, albeit ingeneral terms. I give as examples the request by MrLigios, on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture, forplanning with regard to efforts and obiectives ; theplea for financial instruments suited to the enlarge-

Sining of !/ednesday, 9 May 1979 t23

Sandri

ment of the Communiry; the emphasis on the factthat enlargement is a common venture and must notbe used to establish preferential relations betweenpresent Member States of the Community and thethree applicant countries; and lastly, the call for enlar-gement to take place, if not after, at least at the same

time as progress towards economic and monetaryunion. As Mr Pistillo said in his opinion, to achieveeconomic and monetary union we have to movebeyond mere statements of good intentions, whichsometimes have the ring of idle slogans, to proposalson what is to be done, and how and when, in order toachieve a harmonious process of expansion whichbringp us the results we are all seeking.

I have one last comment to make, Mr President.These three countries will bring to the EuropeanCommunity more than their culture and their peoplesand their economies at varying stages of development.They will also bring with them all their internationalrelations. We must ensure that countries like Spainand Greece, which are known to have good relationswith the Arab countries, have a direct or indirect roleto play in the difficult Euro-Arab dialogue.

The Community could also take advantage of Portu-gal's relations with several African nations. Finally,there are Spain's expanding economic and culturalrelations with Latin America. !fle should think aboutthis very carefully, given that among certain membersof the general public in Spain the hope, confidence orinterest in European integration is apparently waningwhile the appeal of the wide open spaces of LatinAmerica is growing in its place. Remember that Spainhas applied for membership of the Andean Pact andECLA. However, I feel, therefore, that the Communityshould also take advantage of these links with LatinAmerica in its general pattern of external relations.

In the opinion he drafted on behalf of the Committeeon Budgets, Mr Dankert asked that the European Parli-ament be allowed to participate in negotiations withthird countries. I do not know if the proposal ispossible in the form envisaged by Mr Dankert, but Ido feel as regards the new Parliament that we shouldexpress the hope that it can be involved - in thepolitical and not the institutional sense - in encou-raging and keeping an eye on the dynamic processwhich should result in the harmonious enlargementof the Community.

Consequently, we support the report and the motionby Mr Pintat and we are also ready to support MrDankert's amendments calling for increased participa-tion by Parliament in the enlargement negotiations.

15. Votes

President. - The next item is the vote on themotions for resolutions contained in the reports onwhich the debate is closed.

I put to the vote the motion for a resolution containedin the Ansquer report (Doc. 152/79): Conrntunitl'supplies of raw materials.


\fle shall now consider the motion for a resolutioncontained in the Dunwoodl report (Doc. 98/79):Equal pay for men and wonten in the lllember Statesof tbe Contnunitl.

I call Mrs Dunwoody for an explanation of vote.

Mrs Dunwoocly, rapporteur. - Mr President, I mustbegin by saying that I am not the greatest admirer ofthe procedure in this establishment, which occasion-ally seems to me to be astonishingly inflexible whenit suits the establishment and very flexible when itdoes not suit them - though that, perhaps, is anunkind remark to begin with.

In fact, I believe that this report - and it is onewhich I will vote for, needless to say - is a veryimportant one. It is a subject we have discussed in theCommittee on Social Affairs, Employment and Educa-tion now for a very considerable time.

The Commission's report was an extremely interestingdocument, and I would like to place on record myvery great admiration for the job done by the civilservant in charge of this particular subiect. He has

made tremendous efforts, not iust to get the MemberStates to consider the implications of the directive onequal pay for men and women, but to make sure thatinformation was widely available to this Parliament.

I am very deeply distressed that, because of a slighttechnical hitch yesterday, there was absolutely nodiscussion of this report and not one Member of thisParliament thought it worthy of comment. I think itis a very sad state of affairs when a report like thiscomes before us and no single Member feels that he isable to make any comment.

I would say this, that if we are to see any of the gran-diose plans that the Community puts forward in thefield of employment in any way carried into effect,then the one thing they must do something about is

ensuring equal pay to women of the Community.'Women will no longer accept the situation wherethey are always in the lowest-paid jobs, always in needof assistance in order to get their rights and in manyinstances, even when they have access to legal protec-tion, are not able to afford it because of the expense ofthe system to which they would have to appeal.

This can only be an interim report, and whoevercomes into this Parliament, I trust that they willcontinue to insist that inequality between men andwomen is not just a question of pay or of iob opportu-nity; it must be a question of job evaluation, it must

' OJ C 140 of 5. 6. 1979-


Dunwoody

be a question of access to full legal rights and itcertainly must be a question of ensuring that there is

equaliry of educational opportunity. If this Parliamentcan in fact do something along those lines, it will be

doing something which is of use, unlike many of thesubjects which it discusses at inordinate length.

President. - Mrs Dunwoody, it would grieve me ifyou felt that the procedure followed on this occasionhad been too strict. You know that I have alwaysendeavoured to protect the right to speak, but unfortu-nately you were not in the House yesterday. I trustthat you will not look on this as some kind of discrim-ination between the sexes, because the rule is thesame for everyone : if you want to take part in thebusiness of Parliament, you must be present.

I call Mrs Squarcialupi for an explanation of vote.

Mrs Squarcialupi. - (I) | have asked leave for an

explanation of vote, Mr President, because yesterday itwas not possible for procedural reasons to hold thedebate on Mrs Dunwoody's report. Naturally, ourgroup takes a favourable view of this report, to whichwe made an active contribution with the amendmentswe tabled. There is iust one point I want to mention,and that is Mrs Dunwoody's reference to the miser-able working conditions of women in the Third'Sflorld. She reminds the European Community of itsresponsibilities to ensure equal pay and bindingminimum working standards. I want to stress thispoint and remind the House of the tremendousresponsibilities we have towards the Third \7orld andtowards the women of the Third !florld especially.The fight against excessively high infant mortaliryrates and the creation of a new international order canand must involve essentially the advancement ofwomen.

President. - I call Mr Klepsch to speak on a pointof order.

Mr Klepsch. - (D) Mr President, I just want topoint out that it is not the fault of this House if theMembers who put their names down to speak are notpresent. I should like to add that it is in no way a

breach of procedure if we have gone ahead in accor-dance with the Rules of Procedure. I entirely agree

that Mrs Dunwoody has produced an excellent reportand I should like to acknowledge that fact. But wecannot make up for the fact the proposed speceches

were not delivered during the scheduled debate byallowing them to be given during an explanation ofvote. If wc let this happen now, it will always behappening in the future, because the times availablefor the debates vary. Might I suggest that on this occa-sion we graciously acknowledge that our ladies have

made one or two very important points but that we

should avoid this practice in future ?

President. - I call Mrs Dahlerup on a point oforder.

Mrs Dahlerup. - (DK) Mr President, might Isuggest that you ask the male Members of this Parlia-ment not to refer to hardworking Members as 'ourladies', even if these hardworking Members arefemale ?

President. - If there is a distinction, it was made infavour of the ladies, because the Chair allowed you tospeak for an explanation of vote without imposing anytime limit, for which I have been duly reproached.

I put to the vote the motion for a resolution.


President. - I put to the vote the motion for a reso-lution contained in the Albers report (Doc. 31/79):Tripartite Conference of 9 Nouernber 1978.


President. - I put to the vote the motion for a reso-lution contained in the Albers report (Doc. 147/79):Improaetnent of relations witb tbe social partners intbe context of tbe Tripartite Conferences.


President. - I put to the vote the motion for a reso-lution tabled by Mr Van der Gun (Doc. 163/79):Council of -fuIinisters of Social Affairs and Labour on15 May 1979.


President. - !7e now consider the motion for a reso-lution contained in the Bertrand report (Doc. 90/79):European Centre in Berlin.

I call Mr Bertrand.

Mr Bertrand, rapporteur. - (NL) Mr President, Ishould just like to make a very brief statement for thebenefit of those who did not participate in yesterday'sdebate. I proposed yesterday that paragraph 2 bedeleted from the motion for a resolution becauseduring the debate this paragraph gave rise to a falseinterpretation which was not intended. To avoid this, Iask that paragraph 2 be deleted. I ask the House toadopt the rest of the motion.

' OJ C 140 of 5. 6.1979.


President. - I put the motion for a resolution to thevote, subject to the deletion of paragraph 2.


President. - I put to the vote the motion for a reso-lution contained in the Sbaw report (Doc. 161/79):Regulation amending the Financial Regulation of21 Decentber 1977.


16. Enlargentent of tbe Community (resunrption)

President. - The next item is the resumption of thedebate on the. Pintat report (Doc. 42179).

I call Mr Ansquer to speak on behalf of the Group ofEuropean Progressive Democrats.

Mr Ansquer.- (F) Mr President, Mr Pintat's motionfor a resolution has the merit of bringing out all thedifficulties involved in enlargement. There is of courseno question of reconsidering the principle of enlarge-ment to which, in political terms, we have given ourapproval, but there is a need for an objective examina-tion of the specific arrangements. In his motion for a

resolution, the rapporteur rightly refers to theproblems we are going to encounter and the diffi-culties involved in this enlargement both for the Euro-pean Economic Community and for the applicantcountries.

Indeed, it is common knowledge that, while rhere areappreciable differences, agriculture in the three appli-cant countries shares certain characteristics with theMediterranean regions. The existing imbalanceswithin the Nine will thus be magnified by accessionof these three countries. In addition, there is a dangerof increasing our level of domestic production incertain surplus sectors such as wine, olive oil andcertain fruits and vegetables. The high level ofCommuniry prices is liable to encourage the applicantcountries to make unwarranted increases in theirproduction.

As regards industry, enlargement will undoubtedlyadd production capacity in sectors where the situationis already sensitive in the Community and will accen-tuate the divergencies in production conditions inother sectors. The accession of these three countrieswill clearly increase Europe's dependence onimported energy. Their dependence varies, as weknow, between 78 and 88 o/o, while the Nine already

rely on imports for 57 o/o of their needs. The reorgani-zation of industry and agriculture will mean a furtherworsening of unemployment in the Community.Already, the 12 countries have a total of more than 7.5million people out of work. The gap berween regionswill thus become wider, creating new imbalances. Inexternal relations, the Community will have to modifyits policy towards the Mediterranean countries whoseprivileged position will be eroded, and towards theACP and Latin American countries. Lastly, there is a

danger that the Community will be watered downinto a free-trade area and the decision-making process,which is already rather weak at times, will be furtheremasculated.

In view of this situation, a transitional period charac-terized by the need to meet certain objective criteriaand the use of safeguard clauses will be the only wayof effectively overcoming the many obstacles. If enlar-gement is to be a success - and I think this is a

desire we all share - certain conditions must be met.Firstly, there must be a strengthening of Communitypolicies, with real guarantees, supported by legislation,to provide for the legitimate interests of farmers.There must be effective provisions in the field ofregional economic policy, especially for the Mediterra-nean regions, which face particularly strong competi-tion from the applicant countries. If we are to avoidcalling into question the foundations and objectives ofthe European Economic Community, the newMember States will have to respect certain constraints.Uniry in legal terms must be matched by equal obliga-tions, and allowance will therefore have to be madefor the use of safeguard clauses. In order to ensurethat the arrival of new members in the Communitiesdoes not accentuate the existing imbalances, wedeclare our firm support for giving a fresh impetus toEurope in the form of a reinforcement of commonpolicies. \Tithout such a policy Europe would beenlarged geographically, but the achievements of theCommunity would be ,at risk.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the course theCommuniry must take can be outlined as follows:preservation of the achievements of the Community,improvement of production stnrctures, redevelopmentof certain sectors, a policy of market support over theperiod needed to ensure the success of restructuringmeasures, development of a bold employment policy,reduction of regional differences, reduced dependenceon imported energy and a revision of the CommonAgricultural Policy. \7hat we must aim at is to achievea balanced self-sufficiency with high-quality products,to avoid any form of protectionism, to ensure smoothintra-Communiry trade, and lastly to organize ourproduction with an eye to the needs of third coun-tries. We shall also have to abandon the piecemealpolicy we have pursued towards the Mediterraneancountries in favour of an overall coherent policy.' OJ C 140 of 5. 6.1979


Ansquer

While the motion clearly brings out the difficulties, itdoes not put forward enough solutions. It confinesitself to asking the Commission to submit new fore-casts and calls on the Communiry to make a consider-able effort to help the applicant countries. This meansthat tone of the motion seems to be more appropriateto developing countries than to applicants for member-ship in the Community. In our view, if we want topursue an aid policy there is ultimately no need tohave these three countries join the Communiry. Agree-ments such as we have concluded with the ACP coun-tries or the Mediterranean countries would benefitthem more and would probably be less disastrous forthe Community. That is why, Mr President, we appealto the Commission to be vigilant and take everyprecaution both to avoid stagnation and to prevent thedestruction of the Community.

IN THE CHAIR: MR LUCKER

Vice President

President. - I call Mr Dankert to speak on behalf ofthe Socialist Group.

Mr Dankert. - (NL) Mr President, I am in therather difficult position of being the spokesman bothIor the opinion of the Committee on Budgets and forthe Socialist Group, although I have been called tospeak in this debate in only the latter capaciry. Inview of the fact that a number of amendments have

been tabled by the Committee on Budgets, I may wellget a little confused but that will not greatly harmeither the cause of Socialism or that of the budget.

I can very broadly subscribe to what was said thismorning by Mr Hoffmann on behalf of the SocialistGroup and Mr Bertrand on behalf of the Christian-Democratic Group. I shall thus confine myself tocertain financial aspects of enlargement which are

covered by the two reports I have drawn up on behalfof the Committee on Budgets, the first of which hasnow also been annexed to the Pintat Report. Since itis difficult to read the second without the first, I amvery glad this has been done .

It was exceptionally difficult to obtain the necessarydata in order to make a fair assessment of theconsequences of enlargement. There is an enormousshortage of information, which is in itself a not incon-siderable problem in view of the consequences of thepolitical approval given to enlargement. I would go so

Iar as to say that this political yes could well turn intoa political no when the consequences suddenlybecome clear. And that is why I take the view thatone of the essential conditions for the success of enlar-gement consists in having a continuous flow of infor-mation so that the public and the politicians in theMember States, as well as the members of this Parlia-ment, can follow this process as it unfolds and cometo appreciate the consequences it involves.

For that is the only way this process can be brought toa successful conclusion, that is the only way ofpreventing the enlargement process, which has myGroup's political backing, from being suddenlybrought to a halt by unforeseen difficulties. I shallthus confine myself primarily to the question of thecosts of enlargement. And there is one point I shouldlike to make at the outset : in deciding to open negoti-ations with these countries on enlargement, theCommuniry thereby also assumes full responsibilityfor the complete integration of the countriesconcerned.'W'e cannot and must not allow the resultof our political yes regarding the integration of Spain,Portugal and Greece to mean the emergence of a

multi-tier Europe as adumbrated in the Tindemansreport. I think that if we take this course we will run a

great risk of achieving the opposite of our politicalobjectives. I think that in assessing the problems onthose lines the Commission has chosen an approachwhich involves serious dangers. In the Fresco, theCommission made estimates - albeit with due reser-vations - and quoted definite figures which comedown to a net transfer from the present Communitycountries to the new member countries of a total ofI 000 million units of account.

In my view that is an extremely dangerous operation.I7e all know our own Finance Ministers, who natur-ally worked out long ago within their own depart-ments how much it would cost but will still make use

of this official figure. It will be terribly difficult, if itturfls out that the cost is higher, to persuade theFinance Ministers to make more generous allowancesin their medium-term planning than is the case atpresent. And I think that here the Commission has as

it were walked into a trap. \(hat have we been doingin the Committee on Budgets ? As I already said, wehave drawn up two reports.

In the first report we looled at the problem on thebasis of the Commission's premises in the Fresco. Ishall not repeat here everything in the report - nor is

that my task as spokesman for the Socialist Group -but I think it is clear from this report that there are

serious doubts as to how realistic these premises are interms of the practical accession process since, forexample, absolutely no account is taken of a pheno-menon that has become apparent time and again inevery enlargement process, including the first enlarge-ment of the Community, i. e. the dynamic aspect. Ithink that in the agricultural sector that could wellplay an important part.

These premises also - and Turkey is at present a

reminder of this - take no account at all of theconsequences enlargement will have for the Mediterra-nean countries associated with the Community, a

number of which - I am thinking primarily ofMorocco, Tunisia and Israel are extremelydependent, with regard to their balance of payments,on their current trade in agricultural products with theCommunity.

Sitting of !flednesday, 9 May 1979 127

Dankert

Besides this, the Committee on Budgets expressedsome criticism of the fact that the Commission hadunderestimated the effects of this new policy.According to my calculations, the Commission'sI 000 million is in every respect just not a plausiblefigure. But the cat is really let out of the bag in thesecond report, which works out - and these calcula-tions were done with the assistance of the Commis-sion's departments - the effects of transposing intothe Fresco the Commission's three-year estimates. Ifyou look at these figures - they are given in theAnnex - then it is clear that the accession of Greece,Portugal and Spain will involve appreciably highercosts than the Commission estimates.

That is an important point. I know the Committee onBudgets is also fallible and has to work with hypo-theses, but our estimate of the real costs is three tofive times higher than the figure given by theCommission.

In concrete terms that represents the expectations ofthe countries which are to join the Community, andthat is the policy they expect the Community tofollow in the 80's. In our view, therefore, that figure ofsome I 000 million can cover only a third to a fifth ofthese expectations. And from the political point ofview that is a not inconsiderable financial difference.Once again, we can argue about the figures, but at thesame time this underlines my contention that weneed to be kept informed and should make a standingrequest to the Commission, as soon as they have

figures available, actually to provide us with thesefigures.

As I said, the political significance of this probleminvolves above all the Finance Ministers, who willstick to this figure of 1 000 million. But that is notthe only thing. There is also the point that a numberof Member States - including my own country,which is at present a net recipient in the Community

- will have to face the fact that accession . . . MrNatali is shaking his head, but I thought the Commis-sion had recently established that the Netherlands stillhad a net benefit of 150 million from the Communitywith Belgium netting somewhat more. That at least iswhat I gathered from the latest Commission reports ;

perhaps that explains the pro-Community mood inthe Netherlands...

President. - Mr Dankert, may I ask you to bringyour speech to an end in two minutes at the latest.

. . . Mr President, I shall do my best, but it is clearlyquite absurd for the European Parliament to have tokeep to the same time limit in dealing with such animportant subiect as for discussions on all the oldrubbish we regularly have on our agenda. I shall, there-fore, do my best to make it short, but I can make nopromises.

The financial question is thus one point. I hope theCommission will be giving more details about the

total costs. Another, no less important point is thesuitability of the existing instruments with regard tothe transfer of resources. I am thinking of the SocialFund, the structural policy for agriculture and theRegional Fund. Are these Funds in a position to playthe part with regard to the new member countries thatwe ascribe to them in theory but which they seldomhave in practice ?

I know all this will take time. There are provisions fortransitional periods, which means that these financialproblems will affect us rather more slowly than wemay think at the moment. But this does need to be

discussed, since this directly involves the Commu-nity's whole budgetary policy, which is already thesubject of an ongoing debate for which the prospectsare far from bright. It needs to be discussed because itdirectly involves the whole question of agriculturalpolicy, particularly that agricultural policy which bene-fits the North of the Communiry.

Ve appeal to the Commission above all to ensure thatParliament is involved in the coming stages of thisprocess and is also better informed than has been thecase up to now, so that it can contribute to the processof enlargement. I am afraid, in fact, that serious polit-ical difficulties could still arise along the way. It is notimpossible that in negotiations with Spain it willemerge that unless France receives sufficient compen-sation for Languedoc-Rousillon, or ltaly for its Medi-terranean agriculture, the process of enlargement willgrind to a halt. Once again, therefore, we call on theCommission, with a view to the great politicalurgency of this, openly to cooperate with the publicand with Parliament and to try and ensure the smoothcompletion of this process on the way towards the ulti-mate political objective which we all share, the integra-tion of the three applicants into the Communiry.

President. - I call Mr Mitchell.

Mr Mitchell. - Mr President, I do not wish to gointo the details of Mr Pintat's excellent report, but as

this is almost certainly my last speech in the Euro-pean Parliament, perhaps I might make a declarationof faith. Thirty-five years ago, at the end of a terribleand bloody war, some of us had a dream, a dream ofthe united states of Europe, with no more wars, wherethe people of Europe could live together in peace andprosperiry.

Unfortunately it was not to be, because we had theperiod of the cold war and the division of Europe intotwo camps, east and west. But perhaps today thewhole question of enlargement may be the beginningof the realization of that dream. I7e have nowwelcomed into our ranks Spain, Greece and Portugal,two of which at least are poorer countries. It makes a

lie out of the story that the Community is a rich


Mitchell

man's club. !7e have welcomed in poorer countries:we will do our best to sort out the economic problemsthat it involves.

I hope this will be the first of several enlargements. Iwould like to see the addition of Austria, Switzerland,Turkey and Yugoslavia, just to mention a few, andperhaps eventually, perhaps in the lifetime of my chil-dren or my grandchildren, we shall achieve a genuinepolitically united Europe.

Mr President, if that is achieved, then the work of thisgeneration will have been worthwhile.

President. - I call Mr Normanton.

Mr Normanton. - Mr President, may I prefacewhat I have to say on this occasion with an apology toMr Pintat and others for my absence from the debateuntil this stage; I have been involved in a commit-ment elsewhere. May I make iust one point in thisdebate ? It is one that is relevant to the enlargementof the Community, on which rapid progress is beingmade, with dates even being fixed for its implementa-tion.

\7hat I fear arising from the implementation of enlar-gement is the failure in a number of cases to honourexisting commitments which have been entered into,and which have been strongly and consistentlyendorsed, with countries already in relationship withthe Communiry. There is one particular aspect of thiswhich I am bound to bring to the attention of theHouse. I am referring to the relationships betweenSpain and Israel and between Greece and Israel. Iwould only make the earnest plea to the Commission,and those who are responsible for negotiating theentry of these two countries into the Community, thatthey make absolutely certain that the accession ofSpain and of Greece does not take place unless bothcountries give to Israel exactly the same full recogni-tion that they enjoy from the present nine MemberStates of the Community.

This is, of course, only one of a number of points, butI think it is right and proper that it should bereflected visibly and formally in the actual agreementswhen they come to be signed. If it is, I am sure it willbe a major contribution to the improvement of ourrelationships with Spain, with Greece and indeed withall those states with whom the Community has treatyrelations.

President. - I call Mr Natali.

Mr Natali, Vice-President of tbe Commission. - (I)Mr President, let me first express my sincere thanks tothose who have spoken during this debate : to therapporteur, Mr Pintat, for such a comprehensive,complex and at the same time stimulating report, andto Mr Bertrand for his kind words - words of friend-ship which I reciprocate - and wishes for futuresuccess which are also reciprocated with the samesincerity.

This evening is a somewhat special occasion in thatwe are debating an exhaustive and extremely multi-fa-ceted report which brings together a whole series ofproblems which we have often discussed. This is, afterall, not the first time the enlargement issue has beentackled in this House. I personally remember that oneof the first debates in which I took part in this Parlia-ment a few months after being appointed Commis-sioner concerned the problems of enlargement. TheCommission was, I remember, accused on that occa-sion of lacking determination on the decisionsconcerning the entry into the Community of thesethree new countries. I realize that as the situation deve-lops problems arise and much thought must be givento the issues involved. Nevertheless, I would not wanttoday's debate or - even less so - the documentsnow before us to raise doubts as to the fundamentalpolitical decision which Mr Mitchell spoke of so

eloquently a few moments ago.

The Community must not give the impression ofbeing an inward-looking rich man's club the doors ofwhich are closed to the three countries now seekingmembership. Admittedly, the economic situation ineach of the three countries is different, and also differsfrom the average economic situation in the Commu-niry, but they all cherish the same ideals of freedom,democrary, justice and peace as the Community coun-tries. The problems have to be tackled and the diffi-culties faced, but this should always be done in a

frame of mind favourable to the entry of these threecountries. !7e must not, for example, give a 'yes.. .but'answer, but rather endeavour to seek out ways andmeans of ensuring that the accession of these threecountries does not weaken the Community, but streng-thens it both internally and vis-i-vis third countries.On this basis, it is perhaps incorrect to speak of threeapplicant countries, since the act of Greece's accessionto the Community will be signed on 28 May and thenegotiations with Greece have been concluded tomutual satisfaction. Throughout these negotiations, wehave endeavoured never to lose sight of our under-lying obfective : concerted solutions for the good of allparties concerned.

I should like to say at once to Mr Dankert, whom Ithank for his thorough study of the budgetaryproblems involved, that if I shook my head earlier itwas not to contradict him, for I know quite well, MrDankert, that thanks to the inventiveness of herproducers your country has succeeded in becomingcompetitive even in the fruit and vegetable sector. Theproblem is therefore very wide-ranging and veryimportant. I shook my head when you stated that ithad been a mistake on the Commission's part to indi-cate how much enlargement would cost and that ithad quoted a comparatively low figure in order toavoid protests from the ministers of finance. !7hat Iwanted to tell you - and I think you will agree -


Natali

was that it is ex-tremely difficult to forecast expendi-ture arising from developments which we are not vetin a position to aassess. $7'e cannot, for instance, assess

at the present time the consequences of the fixing ofprices for agricultural products. You, Mr Dankert,know better than I do that there is no telling whichway the economic wind is going to blow. The studycarried out by the Commission was based on theexisting situation. It is very difficult to use hypothesesbased on a series of variables which are impossible toappraise for the time being. However, the point as faras Greece is concerned is that although our forecasts

have been overtaken by events, the Member States -and therefore the ministers of finance - have giventhe go ahead to a higher level of financing than thatinitially budgeted for.

I say this because we ought, in my view, to stick to anapproach based on exchange of information, exchangeof views and assessments of what expenditure andtransfers of resources the accession of the three newcountries will entail.

I should like to stress, ladies and gentlemen, that inany case the problem of transfer of resources is notone which arises merely from the accession of thethree new countries. It is, as Mr Hoffmann hasreminded us, one that we already face from the stand-point of intra-Community equilibrium. In otherwords, we believe that no Community can surviveunless there is an equitable balance between itsregions. This is true as regards the three countriesabout to join, but it is also true of the Community'spresent situation, which is why we support the sugges-tions made in the motion for a resolution and feelthat this must all be part of a new budgetary policy.

Personally, I do not agree with the idea of having a

special reserve to cope with the requirements ofCommunity enlargement. This special reserve mighteven be interpreted as a sort of neo-colonialist instru-ment. Instead, we ought to improve the existing instru-ments and make them work.

I should like to stress, Mr Bertrand, that the SocialFund, the Regional Fund, the EAGGF and all theother instruments which may be created in thecontext of and economic and monetary union, musthave a common end in view : the creation of internalharmony in the Community.

A series of problems have been broached here today,Mr President, on which I cannot go into detail.However, I should like to say that the documentsubmitted by Parliament is extremely important andwill, I believe, serve as a guideline for our futurecourse of action as regards the problems concerningthe agricultural and social policies and also as regardsthe more essentially political problems mentioned byMr Normanton.

One last point, Mr President Parliament has asked tobe kept abreast of developments on the negotiations

side. I think Mr Bertrand will acknowledge that theCommission has always kept the Political AffairsCommittee posted on the progress of the negotiationsand on the general problems involved in enlargement.'We have every intention of continuing to do this.Nevertheless, I would not like - and I am perfectlyfrank here - this need for information to lead to a

lowering of Parliament's prestige. As I see it, Parlia-ment's role is to supervise and to stimulate ; I do notfeel that it can take part in the negotiations, for ratherthan reflect recognition of Parliament's prestige thiswould probably harm the Parliament's reputation.This is my own impression, and I thought I wouldjust mention this to the honourable Members.

The road to Community enlargement is long and diffi-cult, but let us not forget the underlying reason forthe application by these three countries to join theCommunity and the answer which they received. It isa political decision taken in the interests of safe-guarding democracy, freedom and peace, and this willbe uppermost in our minds in the months ahead as

we work to solve the problems involved and, above all,to advance towards this common goal.

President. - Thank you for your speech, Mr Natali.It was very much to the point and contained informa-tion of essential interest for this debate. Before I closethe debate, there are one or two points I want to makefor the benefit of the House so that no one is leftwondering about Parliament's basic position.

Firstly, today's debate does not mean that Parliamentis having any doubts about the political decision towelcome the accession of the three new countries,Greece, Spain and Portugal. It was to be expected thatthe Members of this Parliament would to a certainextent go into the existing economic problems duringtheir speeches. This shows that we have, as it were,come down to earth again. But this does not meanthat Parliament is revising its earlier statements on thepolitical significance of the accession of these threecountries.

Secondly, for the sake of clariry, I should like to makeclear that this House has never harboured any desireto take over the Commission's role. Here we discussthe problems. !fle know that we are not a party to thenegotiations but that we simply have a contribution tomake in political terms.

Lastly, I should like to congratulate Mr Natali himselfand all the Members of the Commission, as well as

the Council of Ministers, on the official signing of thetreaty on Greece's accession which will take place inAthens on 28 May.'We are delighted that the arduousnegotiations have been concluded and that the way isnow open for the ratification of the treaty by the tenparliaments involved. It is the hope of this Assemblythat there will be no delay in this, so that Greece willbe able to assume its rights and obligations in theCommunity on the basis of the treary.


President

Since no one else wishes to speak, the motion for a

resolution and the amendments which have beentabled will be put to the vote tomorrow during votingtime.


17. Httntan rigbts in Etbioltia

President. - The next item is the debate on thereport (Doc. 132/V9), drawn up by Mr Zagari onbehalf of the Political Affairs Committee, on humanrights in Ethiopia.

I call Mr Bertrand, chairman of the Political AffairsCommittee.

Mr Bertrand, deputl' rapporteilr. - (NL) Mr Presi-dent, the motion for a resolution is perfectly clear. Allwe are doing is urging the Ministers for ForeignAffairs meeting in political cooperation to do twothings. Firstly, we want them to try to ensure that an

end is put to the atrocities being committed in Ethi-opia. !7e call upon them to take the necessary steps toachieve this.

Secondly, we want an end to be put to the foreignintervention in events in Ethiopia.

These are the two major calls contained in thismotion for a resolution. The Political AffairsCommittee adopted the motion unanimously and Ihope that Parliament will do the same.

President. - I call Mr Bersani to speak on behalf of

the Christian-Democratic Group (EPP).

Mr Bersani. -

(l) Mr President, an issue which liesat the heart of our Parliament's concern not only herein this House but also

- though the Parliamentary

and joint committees -

in a broader framework sucl.r

as the Lom6 Convention, is before us once again : thedefence of human rights in all places and at all times.'We krrow how important this issue is to us, not as

Europeans, but as human beings and how we havealways endeavoured to uphold this principle in thisParliament, where we have shouldered our responsibili-ties as Europeans. As an example, I should like toremind members of how inadequately the funda-mental rights of workers and students from the ACPcountries -

or third countries in general - living in

our Community are safeguarded. The issue should nottherefore be approached from a subjective standpointbut from a level above that of partisan thinking and as

an indivisible principle which should not be

compromised or sacrificed to interests of any kind.

Against this background and remembering how, forinstance, in the case of another country -

where,although the situation is different, it is being changedby events - the pressure of international publicopinion in Africa, Europe and the world has had a

positive influence, we should like to say that we funda-

mentally approve the motion for a resolutionsubmitted by the Political Affairs Committee and theopinion drawn up the Committee on Developmentand Cooperation.

As for the present situation, the report of the PoliticalAffairs Committee paints a disturbing picture. Itdescribes a state of affairs for which there is nopossible justification, no matter how serious the situa-tion was before. The international pressure called formust therefore be brought to bear, and an attemptmade to demonstrate how it is possible and necessary

to tackle these touchy and complex problems in a

political climate in which fundamental rights are

upheld. The Community knows how far it can go ; inother words, it must not interfere in internal politics.Our policy has always been long-term and based onthe utmost political neutrality.

These underlying guidelines - which, I repeat, caninvolve no trade-offs of any kind - must thereforeremain for us the platform from which to launch a

real effort to achieve solidarity and to press forimprovement.

The motion for a resolution therefore has the fullsupport of the Christian-Democratic Group.

President. - I call Mr Sandri to speak on behalf ofthe Communist and Allies Group.

Mr Sandri. - (I) Mr President, the principles whichthe motion for a resolution embodies are in them-selves perfectly acceptable. However, the same does

not apply to the opinion annexed to the motion for a

resolution, because it seems to tell only part of thestory and its political consequences could be serious.

Mr Bersani a few moments ago made an allusion toanother country where violation of human rights was

widespread and where luckily, said Mr Bersani, itseems that international pressure and other factors

have improved or are improving the situation. Ladiesand gentlemen, this country, which, unless I ammistaken, is Uganda, has undergone a change ofregime not so much through international pressure -and we on the benches of the Communist and AlliesGroup have our doubts as to what extent there has

been any - but because in coniunction with theuprising of part of the Ugandan people there was

direct and - I hasten to add, so as not to be misun-derstood - legitimate intervention from outsideagainst Idi Amin's evil regime.

Be that as it may, the situation in Ethiopia is mostcomplex and intricate and can be approached prop-erly only if we stick to the principle of non-interven-tion and the protection of human rights, and alsoaccept what could be called the march of historywhich, in the case of these backward countriesthrowing off the shackles of bondage and domination,has a very special significance.

Sitting of lTednesday, 9 May 1979 l3l

Sandri

As regards the Ethiopian issue, we agree that all thehorror that followed the fall of the r6gime of HaileSelassie cannot be iustified ; however, in the opinionreference is made, for example, to the fact that Ethi-opia had waged war on a neighbouring country withthe help of foreign troops. The fact is that Ethiopia,availing itself of outside help, defended herself againstthe aggression of a neighbouring country which hadconsidered the time ripe to make its dream of a

mighty Somalia come true by annexing the Ogaden.

So let us try and view the situation in overall termsand let us not be misled by half-truths. The EritreanLiberation Movement has its office in Rome, and wefeel that they have a well-founded claim. Nevertheless,this is no reason for us to refuse to acknowledge theclaims of the other side.

In a situation of this kind, I feel that the Communityshould pursue a steadfast policy based on respect forhuman rights, without forgetting that an agriculturalrevolution has taken place and is still under way inEthiopia which will take the country out of underdeve-lopment and domination, as Mr Cheysson told ussome time ago. If we want to avoid forcing Ethiopiaout of the Lom6 Convention and if we do not want tofustify the continued presence on its soil of troopsfrom other continents or states, we must adopt a standwhich combines political realism with the defence ofthe principles involved. The greater the extent towhich this defence of principles is exempt from suspi-cion, the more we will be able to uphold these princi-ples in all countries and not only in certain circum-stances and certain countries.

Consequently, Mr President, while we support the callfor respect for human rights in Ethiopia andthroughout the rest of the world - specifically as

regards neighbouring Uganda - we consider it wouldbe more fitting for the European Community topursue a line of action which would enable Ethiopiato take its place in the Lom6 Convention. Thisapproach is missing in the motion for a resolutionand our Group will therefore abstain.

President. - I call Mr Jakobsen to speak on behalfof the European Conservative Group.

Mr Jakobsen. (DK) Mr President, I havefrequently, both in this House and in my own Parlia-ment, had the dubious pleasure of voicing my scepti-cism regarding our frequent habit of adopting posi-tions concerning events all around the world. I do notdisagree with what we are doing in itself - I think wemust protest, since we have done it so often - butperhaps you remember, Mr President, that the lasttime we were discussing such matters we were talkingabout Iran, and I warned you when you wereintending to appeal to Iran to respect human rightsthat it was certainly the Shah who was involved onthat occasion, you ought to address your appeal to the

Ayatollah in France. This subsequently proved ro bewell-founded since hundreds of people have beenexecuted in Iran since we last discussed the problems.

lVhat are we doing 7 In effect, nothing - but we shallgo on doing the same thing time and time again. !fletalk about Chile and we talk very loudly, we talk aboutCambodia, but very quietly in this case. I do not thinkwe are achieving anything. I hope we will be morerealistic in our approach to these matters in the newParliament, which, I hope will include both the Presi-dent and myself, and take a more realistic view of thismyth of revolution which is virtually being romanti-cized in various quarters.

In fact, to be perfectly frank, it is nonsense to claimthat these countries in Africa have been liberated. Thetruth is that many of these people are more enslavedthan ever before. They are poorer than they have everbeen before, they are more afraid than ever before andthey are more oppressed than ever before. There ismore political repression and there are more politicalprisoners than under the colonial powers in the past.How long are we going to go on talking this romanticdrivel ?

In my view, we should be realistic and I hope that thiswill be the case in the new Parliament. I realize I amspeaking in a personal capacity and not on behalf ofmy Group, but I am certain that my Group willsupport this proposal. \fle shall do so because we havesupported other proposals of this kind, but, if I amelected to the new Parliament, I will certainly adviseagainst getting over-involved in these matters toooften, since the fact is that we do not really knowwhat exactly is going on, and by the time we havesent off our resolution, the situation has changed, as

in the case of lran, so that the resolution is in factsent to the wrong address. However, having expressedmy scepticism, Mr President, I will neverthelesssupport the motion for a resolution.


Mr Natali, Vicc-Prcsidcnt o.f tbc Conmitsion. - (I)Mr President, as has been pointed out during thedebate, Parliament has already discussed the violationof human rights in Ethiopia orr several occasions. Inthis connection, I should like to refer you to the replywhich Mr Cheysson gave in May 1977 to a questionfrom Mr Granelli and Mr Scelba. 'We are keepingclose track of dcvelopments in Ethiopia, and the infor-mation now reaching us - via our Addis Ababa officeand from other sources - testify to the Ethiopiangovernment's determination to bring gradually thesituation in the country back to normal.

I feel it should be pointed out that a 120 million u. a.

aid programme has been decided within the frame-work of the Lom6 Convention and that thisprogramme was drawn up in order to improve the lotof the Ethiopian people as regards agriculture and


Natali

medical aid. Our view is that there should be no haltto aid, as this would only exacerbate the plight of theEthiopian people, which is already precarious enough.

On this basis, I too hope that the situation will returnto normal as soon as possible.

President. -

Thank you very much, Mr Natali, forthat statement. It may be - and I should welcome it

- that the appeal by Mr Jakobsen to our successors

in the future Parliament witl indeed be heeded.

18. St.tI(,r,cnt b.1' tfu Contni.t.tion on tl)taccidtnt at Hdrrisbttrg

President. -

The next item is the statement by theCommission on the accident at Harrisburg.

I call Mr Natali.

Mr Natali, Vicc-Praridtnt o.f tfu Comnis.tion. - (I)

As you, Mr President, and the other Members willrecall, the Commission, replying in Strasbourg on 24April last to Parliament's invitation contained in themotion for a resolution submitted by Mrs Walz onbehalf of the Committee on Energy and Research,undertook to submit a report on the accident at Harris-burg nuclear power station. It is now honouring thispledge. It should be stressed that the report is based

on preliminary information, both oral and written,provided by the NRC or drawn from official publica-tions. In view of the preliminary nature of the informa-tion, the content of the report must be regarded as

tentative.

The report provides, firstly, a general description ofthe power station and a more detailed description ofthe accident, and goes on to examine theconsequences of the radioactive releases and of theexposure of the environment to radiation. It thenanalyses the emergency measures available and theiroperation at the time of the accident, and draws someconclusions which will need to be reviewed in thelight of further examination of the information on theaccident, and in the light of the report to be

submitted by the committee set up by PresidentCarter.

In my speech on 24 April I outlined the course of theaccident I do not think I need repeat this. Havingread the conclusions of the report, I believe we cannow begin to reflect carefully on what occurred andon how to deal with any unfortunate recurrence.

First ancl foremost, it should be poirrted out that,although it started as an ordinary breakdown, rt deve-loped into a full-scale accidcnt, resulting, according tothe American authorities at this stage of the investiga-tion, from a fateful combination of human andmechanical errors and a design fault. The accidcntcould have had extremely serious consequences at anystage, but fortunately they were limited, although of

course the damage to the plant was considerable. Thequantities of radioactiviry released in fact led to slightexposure of the population and limited contaminationof the environment.

However, I should like to stress that the accident has

shown that some aspects of safery at nuclear installa-tions must be examined carefully to ensure that safetychecks can spot potentially dangerous operating faultsas early as possible. In particular, inspection of nuclearinstallations is of prime importance. The inspectingauthority should have the power to close down powerstations which do not comply with the technicalrequirements.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I think that thisreporr, limited though it inevitably is, is of someimportance. It focuses the attention of the Commu-nity institutions on what is sometimes regarded as an

absolute necessity to opt for nuclear enerS:y, and onensuring that it is developed with an eye to safery. Italso enables us to show that we have no wish tobelittle the powerful reaction throughout the world tothis accident and the continuing hostility to nuclearpower stations to be found in a section of the public.The attitude adopted by the Commission is one ofimpartial but active vigilance. It wishes to reconsidercarefully its own role and responsibilities in thematter, taking account of the means and powers at itsdisposal.

I can, therefore, with my colleague Mr Brunner's agree-

ment, tell Parliament that the Commission, with thisin mind, last week decided in principle to set up a

high-level group of independent experts whose taskwill be to review the overall current position regardingnuclear safety within the Community. This group willalso assess the current activities of the CommunityInstitutions in order to make suitable suggestions forspecific measures which the Commission could intro-duce as soon as possible. It will submit a report to theCommission by the end of the year.

Mr President, I hope that the report submitted by theCommission will be a really useful aid to knowledge,understanding and reflection for all the bodiesconcerned, whether responsible for energy policy,nuclear safety or environmental protection.

President. - I call Mr Fldnrig to speak on behalf of

thc Socialist Group.

Mr Fl6mig. -

(D) Mr President, I should like tostart by thanking Mr Natali for his concise report. Wehave no intention of bringing up the whole Harris-burg inciderrt yet again, nor to make more commentsfronr thc politician's point of view. !(/e were allowedto cnlargc on this at the last plenary session in Stras-

bourg. Howevcr, the Conrmission's announcementtoday ib completely in linc with our own view, and wewould like to congratulate the Commission, Mr Natali

Sitting of Wednesday, 9 May 1979 133

Fl[mig

for appointing these independent experts so that itcan now, for the first time, give as extensive and objec-tive a report as possible. If there is one subject whichis a natural for Community action, if there is onesubject which cannot be dealt with on a national basis,

but instead is a real matter for international coopera-tion, then it is this question of safety. An individualcountry would always be tempted to take domesticconsiderations into account, and in the interest of thematter, this should not be allowed. For our part there-fore, we are prepared to wait and see what thisCommission Report will produce. What is more, MrPresident, this leads up excellently to the next item,the Joint Research Centre, where we shall be concen-trating on reactor safety.

President. -

I call Mr Normanton to speak onbehalf of the European Conservative Group.

Mr Normanton. - Mr President, it is not my inten-tion to launch out into a ma,ior discussion of the state-ment which we have just heard, but just very briefly torecapitulate some of the points which I made onbehalf of my group during the part-session in Stras-bourg.

First of all, I welcome the fact that the Commissionhas deemed it politically prudent to come forwardwith what is described as an interim report. Secondly,I would say that the report so far, in its interim stage,is clearly totally inadequate to deal with the seriousreactions which have followed upon the Harrisburgincident. Thirdly, I deeply deplore

- and I believe

this House will in due course come to the sameconclusion

- the way in which the media around the

world have treated the incident at Harrisburg. To saythis is in no way to minimize the potential seriousnessof the incident ; but it was inflated, it was distorted, itwas magnified on a scale which was guaranteed toinstil fear

- yes, and panic

- not just in the immed-

iate surroundings of Harrisburg, but the world around,and it offered a hostage to those who, from politicaland a host of dubious motives, are committed tomaking the industrialized western world increasinglydependent upon oil and upon the sourcing of energy.It is this which, I hope, when the Commission cometo make the deep analysis and investigation whichthey have promised to undertake, will be highlightedand, I hope, condemned by all who sit in this House.The importance of measures to maintain safety cannotbe understated, but to distort the actual dangers isirresponsible, to say the least.

My point is one which has been made on a number ofoccasions by, I think, the chairman and othermembers of the Energy Committee. rVe as politicianshave a very, very sober responsibility not to allowourselves to be panicked and above all to stand firmso as to help our electorate to avoid being panicked,and the best way we can do that is by giving a lead insuch sensitive areas as nuclear energy. This is one area

in which that leadership, certainly at political level,has been muted, and we now have to work anddevelop it to a point where it is heard and felt aroundEurope because a failure to do so will condemn theindustrialized areas of the world to an inevitabledecline in their industrial and technical capability. So,

orr the basis of the pledge made by Mr Natali, I lookforward, and I am sure that the House looks forward,to the outcome of these investigations in depth.

I would only make two provisos here. Firstly, we areinformed that it is to be undertaken in depth byexperts: I think those experts' efforts should be paral-leled by politicians as well. Secondly, there was refer-ence to a more comprehensive report being madeavailable by the end of the year: this, in my judgment,is not fast enough. I earnestly hope that the Commis-sion will be able to come forward with a further andmore comprehensive interim report by, say, October :

that would be appropriate to help defuse the desperatepanic and fear which is being exploited by those whowish to destroy our industrial and commercial capa-biliry.

President. - I call Mrs \tr7alz to speak on behalf ofthe Christian-Democratic Group (EPP).

Mrs Walz. -

(D) Mr President, I listened withinterest to Mr Natali's speech, although it was notreally very satisfactory, as it contained little that wasnew. I think therefore, that there should be anotherreport as soon as new facts become available.Although settinS up a council of three yyi5g rn6n -

25

has already been done in another field - seems tome to be quite a good idea, where will you get thethree experts who will truly be recognized byeveryone as qualified experts. The same will happento these gentlemen as happened to the energyexperts : they also

- since this is now something of a

war of religion -

will not be believed. Thus, I there-fore think we should adopt a different approach, and a

step in the right direction has already been taken bythe Economic and Social Committee with its safetycode for all nuclear power stations in the EEC. \7eshould really make this safety code binding. Howeversuch a safety code is only of value if it is applied inthe same way in the East and lWest, and this of course,is where the problem lies ; the East is installingnuclear power stations on our borders which do nothave the same safety regulations as our own - andour regulations may well be pushing costs up. Therewill have to be negotiations on an international agree-

ment -

perhaps through the lnternational AtomicEnerl;y Agency in Vienna

- in which the Commis-

sion would be represented. No doubt this would takeyears, but for our own protection such a safety codewith general training and operating regulations andstandards is absolutely essential if we are to achievemaximum security all over the world in the use ofnuclear enerS'y.

r34 Debates of the European Parli#ent


Mr Neteli, Vice-President of tbe Commission. - (I)Mr President, in thanking the Members who havespoken, I want to make clear that the purpose of myspeech was to explain the report which we had prom-ised Parliament. I pointed out that we have we havekept our promise and I outlined our future plans.Having taken note of the proposals and commentsmade here, we shall bear them in mind.

19. JRC multiannual progranme 1980-1983

President. - The next item is the debate on thereport (Doc. 54179), drawn up by Mr Fliimig on behalfof the Committee on Energy and Research, on theproposal from the Commission to the Council on the

Joint Research Centre multiannual programme 1980-1983.

I call Mr Fliimig.

Mr Fl6mig, rapporteur. - (D) Mr President, theCommittee on Energy and Research has devotedseveral meetings to this proposal from the Commis-sion of the European Communities to the Council fora multinational programme of the Joint ResearchCentre for 1980 to 1983. In my capacity as rapporteurfor this Committee, I should like to begin byreminding you that for many years the Joint ResearchCentre was the problem child of this Committee andthis House, particularly after the ORGEL organicallycooled reactor project collapsed in the late 1950s forlack of interest on the part of influential electricitysupply companies. For years afterwards, the JointResearch Centre had to fight for sunrival, duringwhich time this House consistently and repeatedlyexpressed its belief in the value of direct research. !7ethink such research is justified and essential forreasons of safety, environmental protection and theharmonization of technical standards, to mention onlya few aspects. It is also essential in that it enablesresearch to be done on the kind of proiects which arenot or cannot be tackled at national level foreconomic or other reasons.

Mr President, in the past we have strongly criticizedthe stawation tactics the Council has repeatedlyindulged in. !7e have also been highly critical of theneverending series of strikes at the Joint ResearchCentre itself - although we regarded these strikes as

an expression of the frustration felt by the staff of theCentre - and of the apparent inability to create aneffective management structure at the Centre. Overrecent years, however, the Commission has madegenuine attempts to bring about an improvementhere. Admittedly, we are still far from what could beregarded as an ideal situation. There are still shortcom-ings at the Centre, and a lot will have to be done to

make the Joint Research Centre more efficient. Butthere is no doubting the Commission's genuine endea-vours to breathe new life into the Joint ResearchCentre by giving it new jobs to do within the narrowframework sketched out by the Council.

At this point, I should like to thank you, Mr Brunnerand also Mr Villani and Mr Dinkespiler and all theirgenuine efforts to build up an effective managementstructure, to give the Centre a new lease of life andthus - as I said before - to improve the morale ofthe frustrated staff of the Centre.

There are a number of positive aspects in the newmulti-annual programme. !7'e can identify a numberof central elements which are likely to dominate thefuture work of the Centre, one of which concerns thenuclear safety research programme. As I said in theprevious debate, the Harrisburg incident has madethis a highly topical subject. There is a general outcryfor improved safety in the nuclear industry, and Ishould like to warn you against thinking that thiswhole issue has simply been blown up by the press.!7hat we have here is a very serious situation which itwould be impossible to overestimate. S7e thereforewelcome the fact that the Commission has proposedthat 48 % of the resources available for the overallmultinational programme should be devoted tonuclear safety research. This underlines the impor-tance and topicality of this work, and also its centralcharacter as far as the Joint Research Centre isconcerned. Research into nuclear safety, and particu-larly research into optimum methods for the fuelcycle, is vital both politically and from the point ofview of improving the energy situation Europe.

One final word on this safety aspect : we hope that weshall now achieve the kind of efficiency in this sectorwhich has in the past occasionally been conspicuousby its absence. For this reason, we have incorporated aspecial reference to Harrisburg in our motion for a

resolution, and after hearing from Mr Natali, MrBrunner and his colleagues we now know that we arein agreement with the Commission on the impor-tance of this matter.

Another central element of the proposed multina-tional programme is the study and protection of theenvironment. This aspect is, of course, closelyconnected to the reactor safety factor and here againwe are tackling a matter of the utmost importance.The Joint Research Centre is also conducting researchremote sensing techniques, and their application, forinstance, to the early detection of marine pollutionand to the location of agricultural resources. TheECDIN data bank for toxic chemicals is anotherexample of the way in which the work of the JointResearch Centre is orientated to future needs andapplications.


Fliimig

All this environmental research is undoubtedly ofgreat current interest, and this kind of work is a

typical Communiry activity, particularly in view of theneed to coordinate this research work with nationalproiects and carry on the work that would otherwiseremain undone.

A third central element in the multinationalprogramme is research into solar energy. This again is

a linch-pin of our research into new forms of energy,whereby the emphasis will be on practical applica-tions, and will, we hope, yield positive results both forEuropean industry and for the developing countries.Here again, Mr Brunner, we believe coordination to be

crucial, particularly in view of the fact that - as youknow - industry has of its own accord pressed aheadwith research and development work into solar energyand other alternative sources of energy, even - incertain cases - with the help of public subsidies fromthe national [<itty.

One thing I would like to see the Commission do -and perhaps I might pass this on in the form of a

suggestion - is improve their public relations workon research into alternative or new energy resources.There is no need for you to hide your light under a

bushel. Just go ahead and tell people exactly what isgoing on. As an example of what I mean, let meremind you of the major symposium which was held a

few weeks ago in Varese, and which unfortunately didnot receive exactly overwhelming press coverage,although the event was attended by hundreds of scien-tists from all over the world.

Ladies and gentlemen, the multiannual programmeproposed by the Commission is admirable in itsclarity and technical detail. It reflects the determina-tion of the Joint Research Centre to play a significantpart in the Community's overall research efforts.

The Joint Research Centre is a directly-controlledresearch agency, in contrast to the kind of researchcommissioned indirectly by the Commission, and as

such it has an important role to play in coordinatingits work with the results of national and indirectresearch, with special reference to the public servicessector. The areas of research to be tackled by the JointResearch Centre reflect the supra-national nature ofCommunity policy. The Commission's proposed newmultiannual proSramme is based on a virtual 50-50ratio of staff costs to investment outlay, which ourcommittee welcomed as being an extremely goodratio for a research institute.

The budget situation in this sector has undergone a

major change compared with the situation a few years

ago, in that the lion's share of the funds for the newmultiannual programme - a grand total of some 543million units of account - no longer goes onpersonnel costs. The Commission has paid heed to

the wishes and suggestions expressed by the EuropeanParliament, and we should like to thank them fordoing so. Lord Bessborough, the spokesman for theCommittee on Budgets, will be saying a few wordsshortly on the financial aspects of this report.

As far as personnel policy is concerned, the Commis-sion has proposed a short-term measure designed tobring the staffing of the Centre into line with theneeds of the research programme. The JRC wants 70additional temporary posts, over and above thenumber already approved. The Commission has under-taken to eliminate any superfluous posts by the end ofthe period covered by the programme. The reasons

given for this temporary measure are the need toincrease the mobiliry of the research staff and to tailorthe JRC's staff to suit the actual work of the Centre.

Finally, Mr President, the new multiannualprogramme may be regarded as yet another stab atimproving the management of the Centre. It gives thestaff of the Centre a chance which it would be in theirown interest to grasp. The Commission and the Direc-torates-General in Brussels are clearly trying to give a

helping hand to the JRC, and we hope that thisappeal will be heeded by those who will have to putthis new attitude into practice.

On behalf of the Committee, I would ask you to giveyour support to the multiannual programme. Mr Presi-dent, may I very briefly set out the position of theSocialist Group ?

Unfortunately I have to admit that the sceptical voicesin the Socialist Group were too loud to be ignored.Not all my colleagues were entirely convinced thatthis project will succeed in the way envisaged by theCommission. Reports of serious shortcomings whichare alleged to have been uncovered by the Court ofAuditors have made a number of Members of mygroup sit up and take notice. We Socialists wouldtherefore ask the Commission most urgently to takethe Court of Auditors' report seriously and to take thenecessary remedial steps, however difficult they maybe. Let me add, however, Mr President, that no one inin my group went so far as to write off the JointResearch Centre entirely.

Summing up then, I may say that we want the multi-annual programme to be carried out, and we think thecontinued existence of the Joint Research Centre isjustified. !7e would, however, like to appeal to thenew directly elected Parliament to keep a sharp eye

on the Joint Research Centre. The honest effortsundertaken by the Commission deserve our support,particularly in view of the Council's reluctance to givedirect research the attention it deserves.

The Socialist Group will be voting in favour of thereport.


President. - I call Lord Bessborough to present theopinion of the Committee of Budgets.

Lord Bessborough, draftsntan of an opinion - MrPresident, in a way I speak on this proposal in a dualcapacity : as a member of the Committee on Budgetsand the draftsman of its opinion, and as a member ofthe Committtee on Energy and Research.

I can say immediately as a member of the Committeeon Energy and Research that I am quite happy withthe proposal. It is the best document of its kind thatthe Commission has transmitted to us so far, and Ihope it augurs well for a general overall improvementin the quality of Commission texts.

But as a member of the Committee on Budgets -our opinion starts at page 20 - I had certain initialreservations about the proposal. Although the newprogramme represents a real improvement over thatfor the years 1977 to 1980, there are still some diffi-culties from the budgetary and financial viewpoints.These concern, as I think Mr Fliimig has already indi-cated, the overall management of the programmes, theviability of these programmes and of the Centre itselfin its entirety, the management of personnel andcertain gaps in the budgetary and financial data.

However, there are some positive points worthmentioning. The draft decision stipulates that thefigures for appropriations and staff numbers are of anindicative nature only. The financial resources to bemade available are not too widely dispersed but areconcentrated on a restricted number of projects, ofwhich the scientific and technical value can be esta-blished fairly readily. The ratio between personnelcost and investment outlay has improved and nowstands at 5l to 49: that is a reasonable ratio, a reason-able level. An effort is also being made, as we know,to rejuvenate the research staff. Finally, efforts havebeen made to improve the system for analysing theeffectiveness of the programmes.

On the negative side, however, the Commission wouldnot appear to have fully followed up certain requestsmade by the European Parliament, particularly inregard to the analysis of costs and the viabiliry ofproiects. Certain of the difficulties experienced by theCommission also, of course, exist, as I know well, innational laboratories. These are well known. But so farthis Parliament has not received the results of analysesthat the Commission was to have carried out. Suchstudies of a cost benefit analysis kind should be madeavailable to the Parliament when it is about to voteappropriations for the programmes during the courseof the budgetary procedure.

Another point on which the Budget Committee hasbeen disappointed concerns, as I said, the manage-ment of programmes. The observations of the Courtof Auditors - Mr Fliimig has referred to this - showthat the Commission and the JRC have not yet

succeeded in putting this matter in order. I admit, as

Mr Fliimig has said, that there has been some progressin comparison with the past ; but the past was so unfa-vourable that it cannot be accepted as a general pointof reference. Because the Control Sub-Committee ofthe Budget Committee is looking into this issue, I donot propose, at the moment in advance of thedischarge report, to go into the situation in greatdetail, but I must say this : in 1977, the Council deci-sion envisaged that staff members would drop from2l18 to 2038. Now the Commission proposes, so farfrom a drop, an increase in staff from 2038 to 2260,an additional 222 posts, and these will be connected,of course, with the ESSOR reactor, which will not nowbe taken in charge by Italy after I January 1981. lUell,as in every proposal for a research programme, theCommission draws attention to the problems arisingfrom the ageing of personnel, and to remedy this ithas asked to be enabled to anticipate the effect of thedeparture of certain personnel and to take on an addi-tional 70 head of staff, over and above normal require-ments. It nonetheless commits itself - I am glad tosee this - to restoring the total number to the initallevel by the end of the programme. As a member ofthe Budgets Committee, I am not at all sure that thisis the right way to go about remedying the situation.It would cost 5 l/2 million units of account over 4years, and I would tend to the view that a normalrecruitment procedure should be followed. !flhen anyperson retires, then a replacement can be recruited ifthe vacancy cannot be suppressed. This has consist-ently been the line of the Committee on Budgets overthe years. \7e have tried to ensure that new postscreated were fully justified. To do otherwise withoutgood reason would undermine our credibility. Duringthe meeting of the Committee on Budgets of 4 April,this aspect was gone into very thoroughly indeed. TheCommission officials present explained exhaustivelythe background to their proposal. Several members ofthe committee intervened in the discussion. Finally,after much discussion, we agreed to accept the prop-osal for the 70 additional temporary posts, but we didso on receiving two assurances from the Commission :

first, that these new posts represent a transitionalmeasure and will have the effect of replacing perma-nent posts by temporary personnel on contracts -that is an important point ; and secondly, that officialsover 50 years of age who retire will not be taken backon temPorary contracts.

Members will see, on looking at paragraph I I onpages 28 and 29 of my opinion, the conclusionsreached by the committee. As these are set out clearly,I will not reiterate them here.

One other point, however, was made by theCommittee on Budgets. It was felt that the Court ofAuditors, when looking at the JRC, should considerthe iob responsibilities of staff, with a view tochecking whether their gradings are appropriate and


Lord Bessborough

whether they cannot be spread over JRC activities in a

more effective manner. The time may well be at handwhen the staff chart of the JRC should be examinedvery carefully. This is a technical problem whichwould take some time, but it is a task which shouldform a central element of a cost benefit analysis of the

JRC, and I know that the Court of Auditors tookspecial note of the remarks which were made on thispoint during our committee meetings.

For the four years 1980-83, the total expenditure, as

Mr Fliimig has said, comes to nearly 543 million unitsof account. A direct comparison with the oldprogramme is difficult, because the present proposalcontains proiects which have previously been financedfrom outside the programme. Nevertheless, theCommittee on Budgets would have liked to see

comparative figures in the financial statement. Thecommittee would also like to have seen a clear expos6

of receipts that will arise from the programrne as wellas the exact implications of taking over the ESSOR

reactor. Moreover the financial statement tells us

nothing about the balance of the appropriationsremaining in the old programme. The operation ofthe high-flux reactor is taken over as an ordinaryprogramme financed by Germany and the Nether-lands.

In all the circumstances, however, Mr President, theCommittee on Budgets gave a favourable opinion. Thetwo main reasons for this decision were that, first, theCommission has followed Parliament on several

important points and, secondly, the present

programme is a very good one, I believe, from thetechnical and scientific points of view. The remainingproblems from Parliament's point of view should nothold up the adoption of the programme. I say thisbecause Parliament and the Committee on Budgets

will have the opportunity of going into certain aspects

again during the course of the budgetary procedurefor the 1980 financial year.

!7ith these words I recommend the opinion of the

Committee on Budgets to the House for its approvaland propose only one amendment, which I have

discussed with Mr Fldmig and which I think he

accepts ; I know my group accepts it, and also it has

been, I think, accepted by the Commission. It shouldbe circulated and it reads as follows :

Insert the following new paragraph:

9a. Approves the recruitment of these temporary addi-tional staff on the assurance that

(a) these new posts represent a transitional measure

which have the effect of replacing Permanentposts by temPorary personnel on contracts oflimited duration, and

(b) the officials aged over 60 years who retire will notbe taken back on temporary contracts.

I hope nonetheless that the new multiannualprogramme enioys success.

IN THE CHAIR: MR HOLST

Vice'President

President. - I call Mrs \Valz to speak on behalf ofthe Christian-Democratic Group (EPP).

Mrs \Ufalz. (D) Mr President, ladies and

gentlemen, I should like to start by thanking MrFliimig for his excellent report, which - apart fromthe amendment mentioned iust now, which we shallbe voting for - we can go along with in every

respect. lfe would also go along with the praise and

criticism expressed by the rapporteur, who is ourcommittee's great expert in this field. He has always

turned out admirable reports, and we shall greatlymiss his helpful presence.

On behalf of my Group, I should like to say thatrecent developments in the oil and nuclear industrieshave brought home to us all how right the Commis-sion was in drawing up this multi-annual Programmefor the Joint Research Centre. The JRC is responsibleboth for research into alternative energy sources andfor investigating the safety aspects of nuclear powerstations. The importance of alternative energy sources

will be discussed in the debate on the Brown Report,which is the next item on the agenda. !fle have consis-

tently supported more research in this field and, inthis field and, in the light of the Harrisburg incident,we shall probably now do so even more emphatically'

I should like to move on now to deal with the poten-tial safety problems in connection with the light-waterreactors, which will be simulated in the Super-SaraProject. This was a controversial project for quite some

time, but it has now become established as a firmfeature of the programme and will make use of theESSOR reactor. This programme shows us - and thatis the outstanding aspect of it - that a large numberof accident causes, like those which happened inHarrisburg, can be simulated and investigated alongwith a large number of additional points, so that once

this work has been brought to a successful conclusion,it will have made an outstanding contribution to ourknowledge in this field.

Although we still know very little about whathappened in Harrisburg - and what we have heard

here today has added very little, although this was notthe fault of the Member of the Commission - we are

nevertheless in a position to say that we were allappalled at the uncertainty in assessing what had gonewrong. Indeed in some respect we were not even in a

position to ask the right questions. The result of allthis was that we then sometimes assumed the pres-

ence of hazards which simply did not exist. This is

what happened with the dreaded gas bubble in thereactor core, which we thought might lead to an explo-sion.


Walz

This is something which must be avoided in thefuture, and this programme will make a contributionto achieving this. The project as a whole seems to be a

good one, although there are still a number of ques-tions regarding the Joint Research Centre whichurgently need to be cleared up. On this point I wouldgo along with the rapporteur and the draftsman of theopinion of the Committee on Budgets, because thecomplaints voiced in latest report of the Court ofAuditors must be investigated extremely carefully, andin voting for this report, we shall by no means bevoting for a veil to be drawn over the Court of Audi-tors' complaints. These must be investigated andclarified.

President. - I call Mr Baas to speak on behalf of theLiberal and Democratic Group.

Mr Baas. - (NL) Mr President, I too should like tobegin by expressing our appreciation of Mr Fldmig'sreport, which will probably be the last to appear underhis name. However, and despite the high quality ofhis report, there are a number of remarks I should liketo make, which will probably run counter to the gener-ally positive tenor of the remarks we have heard so far.

I am a bit surprised at the choice of new projects. As Ihave said on a number of occasions, Mr Brunner, inthe course of your period of office you have movedfrom nuclear energy to coal, and now to a researchprogramme for nuclear fusion. If my information iscorrect" we shall have to gather a lot more experiencein nuclear fission before we can get any further withthe problem of nuclear fusion. This, of course, is thecriticism we hear of so many research programmes.Ever since the Euratom Treaty was signed, there havebeen heated discussions as to whether any practicaluse could be made of the research findings.

I shou.ld like to add my voice to the views alreadyexpressed by the previous speakers on the result ofour efforts. This is, of course, an extremely controver-sial subiect. I am reminded of the visit I once made toUnilever, in the course of which I asked - innocentas I was - whether the people in one particular officeon the 20th floor kenw what the people in the neigh-bouring office were doing. The answer I received wasthat this was not necessarily the case. The Court ofAuditors referred to 'serious shortcomings', which is ofcourse a very serious allegation, seeing as the Court ofAuditors is known for its very cautious choice ofwords. The question we have to ask ourselves then iswhere these 'serious shortcomings' have occurred. Is itthe organization or the whole approach which iswrong ? Or was the Court of Auditors referring to theresearch staff themselves ? Is it reasonable to comeand ask for Parliament's approval for 70 additionalposts while the situation is still so unclear ? With alldue respect for the Committee on Budgets, I findtheir new paragraph 9 (a) interesting enough in itself,but of course they can hardly expect us to take itseriously.

I realize that the Committee on Budgets is made upof extremely serious and well-meaning people, buttheir reference to new posts, rcpresenting a transi-tional measure, and to retired officials not being takenback on temprorary contracts, smacks of an attempt tocloak their own uncertainty in a wording which maywell hint at where the weak spots are to be found, butwhich could have been made a lot clearer on the ques-tion of the proposed 70 new posts. I should like to askMr Flamig whether he does not think we could offerour provisonal cooperation on the creation of these 70posts. Ve ought to be given more detailed informa-tion first, because I can hardly imagine that theseposts have to be filled by I January 1980. All suchprogrammes need time to work up momentum, andthis programme covers a period of four years. If weagree provisionally to the creation of 70 posts, itmeans that the decision on these ,iobs will not betaken until the Court of Auditors' report has clarifiedthe situation, and we have received more detailedinformation about the present staff structure in theJRC. If officials aged 60 and above are not counted asavailable manpower, it might be possible to make dowith less than 70 new posts. My group is alarmed atthe speed at which the Fliimig Report had to bedrawn up. The 4-year programme is scheduled to runfrom 1980 up to and including 1983. I should havepreferred to see our successors in the directly electedParliament tackle this subject, because we still have a

lot of reservations about it all. Perhaps, in the courseof this debate, the Member of the Commission willtell us that final decisions are needed now for theinitial phase of a research programme like this one. Idoubt it though.

My own experience in the business world has taughtme that it is only after a programme has been runningfor two or three years that it becomes necessary tofind qualified staff.

For a public authority, research and development is a

superhuman task, or at least that is what I have found.There is a lack of motivation, drive and creative poten-tial in bureaucracies. I have every respect for our offi-cials, but creativity was probably not foremost in theselection committee's minds when they were engaged.Officials must of course possess other qualities, butthey do not include the capacity for creative thought,which is so inordinately important in the researchfield. That is why I feel that we would do better toswitch 70 officials in' Ispra

- and it is a pity thatpeople aged 60 and over are to be excluded

- tosome other job.

In view of developments in the field of technologyand research, does Mr Flnmig really expect any majoradvances to be made in nuclear fusion between 1980and 1983 ? Judging from what I have heard, we shall

Sitting of Wednesday, 9 May 1979 139

Baas

need another 25 years to gain sufficient experience innuclear fission before we can move on to tackle theproblem of nuclear fusion. And even then we shallneed a large slice of luck. Unfortunately, creative

researchers are rather thin on the ground. For thetime being, I would favour an agreement with a

restricted number to begin with, certainly falling shortof the proposed 70 new posts. If I have read theCommittee on Budgets' amendment correctly, it allays

my fears, and I am prepared to support it. But Ishould first of all like to know exactly what theCommittee on Budgets is trying to do with its para-

graph 9 (a).

President. - I call Mr Normanton to speak onbehalf of the European Conservative Group.

Mr Normanton. - Mr President, first of all I rise toendorse the points presented to the House by LordBessborough .when he considered the budgetaryaspects of the multiannual research Programme.Although he singled out a large number of pointswhich, I think, could be usefully and profitably under-lined I do not think that either the time or the pati-ence of this House permits me to do so ; but I wouldparticularly commend to the House the adoption ofthe amendment standing in his name.

But the question of the policy being pursued by theCommunity is, I think, another matter altogether. Iwant to stress, if I may, some of the points which Ihave put to this House, and have certainly Put to the

Energy and Research Committee over recent years,

and I would summarize them as follows.

Firstly, I think that to maintain and even expand a

joint research centre on a Communiry basis is no

substitute for the policy on research which I believe,

and my group believes strongly, we should be

pursuing. I am referring to the adoption of a policyfor identifying, developing and strengthening centres

of excellence. Indeed, I think that the measure and

the manner of our continuous support for the JRCmay well operate to make it increasingly difficult, ifnot impossible, to develop the idea of centres of excel-lence. In this sense we are, as a Community, I believe,

failing to optimize our enormous potential for raisingever higher our technological capabilities.

Secondly, the trend towards enlarging the scope of the

JRC's research activities - a point which, of course,has becn referred to in the debate already - is, I am

bound to say, to be regretted. I say this with a certainamount of pain and anguish, rather than anger,because this departure from the original conception ofa Community research establishment - namely,Euratom and nuclear - inevitably entails more andmore duplication of effort in the fields of highresearch and technolog/, where money and minds ofappropriate calibre are themselves rare commoditiesnot iust within the Community but the world around;

and to waste by avoidable duplication these rare

resources of money and gninds is, I think, deeply to be

deplored.

Thirdly, one of the ways in which we could avoidsuch duplication is to cast our glance over areas farwider than the frontiers of the Communiry, even ifindeed for certain extremely important proiects wehave to finance research, yes, in isolated cases even inthe United States, so long as we get the flow-backwhich comes from such selective and carefullydesigned proiects. I have said on several occasions thatthe fact that we continue to fail to avail ourselves ofthe excellence of intellectual power which resides inthe Veizmann Institute in Israel is another glaringexample of the way in which a centre of excellencerecognized the world over could and, I think, should

- be utilized and incorporated into our programmefor research at the highest levels. Research into solarenergy - and I make no apology for repeating this

- even after visiting and discussing the matter withthe dedicated staff of the JRC is, in my view, a

wasteful duplication of our resources when there is an

outstanding availability of it both in the United States

and at the rVeizmann Institute.

Fourthly - this has been touched upon by honou-rable Members who have spoken already - cost-effec-tiveness. Cost-effectiveness has always been ques-tioned when we come to considering the actualcommittal of more financial resources, whether it be

for the JRC or for indirect research, and that chal-lenging must continue, because that is our major roleas parliamentarians. \flhat I do not challenge, however

- and I think it is very appropriate that I should say

so - are the integrity, the dedication and devotion ofthose who manage or administer our researchprogrammes in the JRC and in the Commission. Butwe as a Parliament must adopt a much more criticalapproach to the whole question of cost-effectiveness. Iam delighted, therefore, to support Lord Bessboroughin this repeated and insistent demand concerning thebudgetary aspects. I have much sympathy - and mygroup would sympathize very strongly - with manyof the points put to this House in this debate by MrBaas.

My next point is the greater emphasis that should be

laid on the allocation of Community funds to researchproiects conducted by and in industry itself. I7eshould take a much closer look at the way in whichthe United States deploys its whole policy as far as

research and high technology are concerned: theactual way in which funds are allocated, the way inwhich research is structured, and indeed the way inwhich the spill-over from those research investmentsby the State benefits not iust a narrow sector, but thewhole area of industry and commerce.

My last point is to stress as strongly as I possibly canwhat I describe as the impotence of Communiry


Normanton

research funding. S7e are failing to recognize the indi-visibility of industry and technology so long as wecontinue to attempt an artificial demarcation betweenthe areas, civil and non-military, in which we investCommunity funds and those, which can only bedescribed as military and defence, where we delibe-rately eschew investment. That is an artificial barrierwhose continued existence will guarantee with abso-lute certainty that we in Europe lag and fall everfurther behind the United States, with its unitaryapproach to the whole field of research. Until weadopt the same approach in Europe we shall continueto see an ever-widening gap and fall behind theonward march of American technology.

President. -

I call Mr Veronesi to speak on behalfof the Communist and Allies Group.

Mr Veronesi. - (I) Mr President, ladies and

gentlemen, those who, like me, nearly always speaklast have the dufy

- or should at least have the tact

- not to repeat what has been said by other speakers.

I shall therefore confine myself to a few comments.First and foremost, I wish to express a very favourablejudgment on the Commission proposals and the excel-lent report by Mr Flnmig which summarizes theCommission programme and highlights its salientfeatures. We therefore have all we need to make aninformed approach to the problem before us.

I should like to make some specific comments on theopinion of the Court of Auditors. I am not familiarwith it, and my assessment may therefore beerroneous; I do not even know whether it has beencirculated, or whether I could have got hold of it.However, I wish to deal with this subject despite mylack of information, since it has been to some extentthe bane of my working life. I do not deny the valueof administrative and operational control of a researchinstitute ; far be it from me to wish to express suchideas. I should mention, however, that beforebecoming a Member of Parliament I was for a numberof years in charge of a research centre with about 100researchers and 100 technical assistants. One of themain difficulties was the administration of this centre,because administrative rules often act as a straitjacketrestricting initiative and work, and are counter-produc-tive. My institute was supervised by Mr Ripamonti, thethen Minister for Scientific Research, who in thatcapacity always showed great intelligence and open-mindedness. It must be borne in mind that resear-chers are exploring unknown terrain, and cannotforesee the procedure to be followed, as one can in a

bank or on an assembly line. Unforeseen factors and a

need to change one's approach can crop up at anystage, particularly when one is dealing with compli-cated problems for which even careful planning andthe equipment made available can turn out at somestage to be inadequate; indeed, if we knew everythingwe would obviously not need to carry out research.

Moreover, when one has to run groups workingabroad - in my case, four groups, one working at theGeneva SER, another in Germany, another in Britainand another in the Soviet Union - one must some-times loosen the administrative restrictions to someextent in order to get results from the research. I donot know what objections the Court of Auditorsraised, but I think that this problem will frequentlyarise in future. It is impossible to fetter research sinceit cannot be rigorously confined within purely abstractadministrative criteria. !(hen I, as a young man,began to do research, one of my teachers used to sayto me: 'To carry out research one must imitate eitherherrings or cherry trees: herrings because, to ensurethe survival of the species, they produce far more eggsthan will develop into fry and then grow intoherrings; cherry trees because they produce manymore flowers than actual cherries.' By this I mean thatif we become fossilized in our approach and obsessedwith administrative questions we run the risk of extin-guishing research work or imprisoning it in a cage.

Another comment I would like to make, in recogni-tion of the Commission's goodwill, concerns themethods for a critical examination of the work ; inparticular, Part C of the document contains the'opera-tional methods', a series of procedures for supervising,checking and examining the results of the research.This is a basic point. The Commission report revealsgenuine concern and - one might almost say -genuine worry, which concerns not only Communityresearch but all research work, particularly when it hascertain practical applications. The CopenhagenConference - I think in July 1978 - was symbolicin this sense in that it tried to establish how scientificknow-how can be adapted for industrial productionand can act as a stimulus for the discovery of new tech-nologies.

If I am not mistaken, this document constitutes thefirst explicit attempt to supervise and check the workof the research centres from a scientific rather than a

financial viewpoint. I wetcome this, although, as LordBessborough has already pointed out, an assessment ofthe past is still lacking ; it is true that we now receiveevery six months the results and periodic reports ofthe various research groups - at any rate I receivethem and I thank the Commission for sending them.This is very important information which Isubsequently deposit in the library of my institute,where it is available to researchers and others. Butthere is still something lacking, in that we do notknow what went on in the past, and are therefore notin a position to assess the present results of ourresearch.

Moreover, I would remind the Commission of theindirect projects. Perhaps we know even less about thesituation in this sector, and it is perhaps more difficultto draw up assessments and inform Parliament of the

Sitting of !flednesday, 9 May 1979 14r

Veronesi

results of the financial resources devoted to it. I thinkthere is room for improvement in this field, possiblywith greater involvement of the Joint ResearchCentre, which could to some extent check progressmore directly.

Before concluding I should like to make a lastcomment. I regard it as unwise to abandon theMETRE programme, because, for one thing, it was

highly regarded in scientific circles - indeed it was

regarded as one of the best Commission projects.Even if it did not concern the nuclear sector, it couldhave been useful for the Member countries and theCommunity to develop a programme of this type, themore so since it was inexpensive, and was therefore a

chance to seize.

I think a change of heart on this would be desirable

- although I have not submitted an amendment tothat effect - so as not to abandon this project, whichon the scientific and technical plane has beenaccorded not only the approval but the convincedsupport of many scientists.

IN THE CHAIR: MR SCOTT-HOPKINS

Vice-President

President. - I call Mr Brunner.

Mr Brunner, tllcntbtr o.f tbt Connr.r.rion. - (D)MrPresident, ladies and gentlemen, right at the start ofthis debate, I think we should pay tribute to therapporteur, Mr Flhmig. For years, the Joint ResearchCentre has been greatly indebted to him, because

without him and without the support of thecommittee, the JRC would not exist today. I think thevery least we should do, at this final part-session, is toacknowledge publicly this debt. Ve are very gratefulto him for his efforts.

(Applause)

Mr President, the Joint Research Centre has for years

been neglected and all but abandoned by its begetters.The unwanted and ailing infant was left to fend foritself, and it is only thanks to its adoptive parents -which in the end turned out to be this Parliament -that it has now recovered some of its strength andeven gets the occasional good report from school. Iam delighted to see this offspring of the Communitygrowing and developing so well ; if this were not thecase, you would not be so critical of its as some of youhave been today. You have given the child a goodscolding the Court of Auditors says that it is prbfligatewith its pocket money, and Mr Baas thinks that weshould not give it any extra lessons in fusion researchbecause it is too small and too stupid. Lord Bessbo-

rough and, even more so, Mr Normanton - and I amsorry Mr Normanton is no longer here, because Ishould have liked to congratulate him on his re-elec-tion - even go so far as to say that the child's growthshould be stunted - it should remain a dwarf : thePeter Pan of scientific research.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this is no way tocarry on. We should be glad to have this JointResearch Centre at a time when we are trying tocreate a basis for a common energy policy in theCommunity, and at a time when we are having tocontend with incidents like the recent one in Harris-burg. How are we to simulate incidents like these at

European level, and how should we tackle theproblem of harmonizing safety standards in Europe ifwe do not have the Joint Research Centre to fall back

on?

I could make it very easy for myself and side-step allyour detailed criticism by simply pointing to the needfor this Joint Research Centre. but I shall refrain fromdoing so. However, before replying to your variousobservations, I should just like to say that if you hadnot helped to see the JRC through its lean years, youwould now find it very difficult to set up anythingalong the same lines. I think you should be glad thatit does still exist.

Moving on to your detailed points of criticism, let mefirst of all comment on the Court of Auditors' criti-cism of management shortcomings in connectionwith certain expenditure. The criticism voiced by theCourt of Auditors is not of a general nature, butconcentrates on the specific issue of expenditure inconnection with the ESSOR Reactor. In reply, I mustadmit that in many respects we were not able tochoose the kind of management methods which arerightly expected from the Communiry. But ESSOR isa very special case. The ESSOR Reactor is designedspecifically for Italy and used by us under a contrac-tual arrangement. This special situation has given riseto the need for a special expenditure system, whichwill thankfully not apply in the future programme.From now on, ESSOR will be incorporated fully intothe four-year programme, so that this problem willdisappear. \7e shall then no longer be obliged to use a

special expenditure system simply because the contrac-tual agreement with Italy obliges us to do so. Thistreaty with Italy was the only way we could preventESSOR from being shut down. There is no reasonwhy we should be subjected to general criticismbecause of this one specific situation. There is no justi-fication for that.

Turning to the question of staffing for the nuclearfusion project, let me point out that what we aretrying to do is an entirely new departure, and wecannot do that by simply transferring staff from otherprojects. It is important that right from the word gowe should have the right equipment and the rightstaff. !(hen you take a decision to go in for somethinglike this, you must be prepared to put it into practice.After all, this is a highly significant project designedto back up our other research work, like the JointEuropean Torus, the most ambitious fusion project inEurope.


Brunner

This fusion proiect has got under way thanks to yourassistance. On 18 May, I shall be officially inaugu-rating this first large-scale proiect in Culham, and wemust give it the support it needs in the form of a widerange of fusion research, such as we have started inrecent years and shall continue to do, again thanks toyour assistance. Let us not loose our nerve all of a

sudden. Of course, we have no way of knowingwhether we shall have a fusion reactor by the year2020, but we are on a road which will lead to highlyinteresting developments. Recent experiments haveshown that the method we have selected is the rightone. Let us not waste this great chance we have ofperhaps providing mankind with an inexhaustiblesource of energy. That is what it boils down to now.

You criticized the mix of the research programme,saying specifically that too much emphasis was givento nuclear research. Let me ask you this : in view ofthe fact that everyone in Europe is now calling forincreased reactor safety, is it not right that we shouldbe devoting 48 o/o of. our research funds to this field ?

I think everyone in Europe will agree that spendingmoney on this is both necessary and right. Indeed, Ihave set my sights even higher in the wake of theHarrisburg incident. I think the work of our JointResearch Centre should lead to our having a databank with a store of data on all kinds of accidents, so

that we can interrogate the computer to find out whatkind of similar incidents have occurred previously andthus take remedial action in the shortest possibletime. In the light of the Harrisburg incident, we shallperhaps have to review the programme and -surprise, surprise ! - perhaps have to ask for evenmore money. !flith Harrisburg in mind, I feel that weshould devote far more attention to supervising andharmonizing the training of reactor personnel. Wecannot leave that kind of thing up to the firmsoperating the reactors. Here I see a potential futurerole for Ispra, and here again, we may need additionalresources.

You said that 540 million EUA was a lot of money.Let me tell you that it was only with a great deal ofdifficulty that we managed to strike a reasonablebalance between capital outlay and personnel costs -as Mr Fliimig said, somewhere in the region of 50 :

50, not quite. !7e must stick to that ratio, and notrevert to being a kind of welfare institute for ourresearch officials, simply because the money requiredfor the programmes is refused. This would meandoing the worst possible service to the officials them-selves, their work and the Community as a whole.

At last we have got out of that kind of situation, so letus not now start bickering about piffling amounts. Todo so would be pointless and inopportune. By ourpolicy of increasing the mobility of our research staff

- we now employ more people on the basis of

temporary contracts and fewer as permanent officials

- we have improved the morale the JRC, and wemust now make a fresh start on this basis. I thinkyour praise was due to the qualiry of the report drawnup by our officials, and perhaps this goes to show thateven officials can show signs of creative thinking fromtime to time.

President. - I call Mr Fliimig.

Mr Fldmig, ralrporteur.- (D) Mr President, in mycapacity as rapporteur, I should fust like to reply to a

number of remarks which were addressed to mepersonally. Mr Brunner has just referred to the matterof the 70 additional posts. $7e in the committee natur-ally went into this question quite carefully, and wewere told that the 70 additional posts had beenapplied for because natural wastage in the JointResearch Centre as a result of retirement, death,permanent illness and so on amounted to somethinglike 40 people per year, so that after the programmehad been going for two years, the JRC would be shortof between 70 and 80 people as a result of naturalwastage alone. The point here is that the Commissiondoes not always want to have to wait until the postsactually become vacant, because it is important thatthe staff changeover within the research teams shouldbe as smooth as possible. You cannot simply stopwork and tell the members of a team to wait until oneof their deceased colleagues has been replaced. Youngpeople must be brought into the teams in good time.But, Mr Baas - and perhaps we shall be able to agreeon this point - once the programme has beenbrought to a conclusion, there yill be no more super-fluous posts ; in other words, the number of establish-ment posts will not have increased.

I should now like to move on to deal with your ques-tion on nuclear fusion which, again, Mr Brunnerreferred to in his speech. I7e in the committee weretold that this was by no means intended as competi-tion for JET, and that Ispra had no such ambitions.There are, however, complementary programmes inthis field, for instance, we had a hearing in ourcommittee. I am sorry that the Liberals do not alwaysmanage to attend the committee meetings as often as

we would like them to, otherwise they would know allthis. We were told that a tritium test programmewould have to be set up, because the fusion reactorwill of course give rise to problems of its own, inconnection for instance with the dangerous radioac-tive nature of tritium. !7e were also told that weshould have to look ahead to the post-JET era. It isnot enough simply to think that we can get on withthe JET proiect and then decide what to do after-wards. Now is the time to be working out new plans.This is what the experts call sofrware. Not everythingwe do is hardware ; it also includes a good deal of soft-ware, i.e. like reflexion and coordination.


Fliimig

Mr President, as rapporteur I can go along with theCommittee on Budgets' proposed amendment,because it underlines exactly what we want to see

happen and, Mrs Chairman, makes it quite clear thatthe point is not simply to increase the JRC staff bydevious means but to ensure that there is a smoothtransition within the research teams from old toyoung.

President. - I note that no one else wishes to speak.

The motion for a resolution, together with the amend-ment that has been tabled, will be put to the vote

tomorrow, during voting time.


20. Draft estinates of Parliantent for 1980

President. - The next item is the report by Mr Ripa-monti, on behalf of the Committee on Budgets, onthe draft estimates of the revenue and expenditure ofthe European Parliament for the financial year 1980

(Doc. t76l7e).

I call Mr Ripamonti.

Mr Ripamonti, rapporteur. - (D Mr President,ladies and gentlemen, with regard to the report on thedraft supplementary budget no 2 of the European

Community for the 1979 financial year, I would ask

the Bureau for a postponement till tomorrowmorning, since the Committee on Budgets which willtake a decision on the matter will be meeting at 8 a.m.This evening, however, I am presenting the draft esti-mates of revenue and expenditure of the EuropeanParliament for the financial year 1980.

As you know, Parliament has to approve its draft esti-mates of revenue and expenditure for 1980, which inaccordance with Article 203 must be drawn up by IJuly and communicated to the Commission for inclu-sion in the general budget of the Community Institu-tions. The latter document must be submitted to Parli-ament by 5 October next. In the course of theOctober part-session the Parliament elected by directuniversal suffrage will be able to make amendments tothe draft budget and take the decisions which, as can

be seen from the proposals in the explanatory state-ments for the draft supplementary budget approved

earlier by Parliament, must be taken by the new Parlia-ment in order to improve its structures, takingaccount of the increased number of members.

In drawing up the draft, the Bureau and theCommittee on Budgets followed the debate of 15

March, and therefore based the draft on the establish-ment plan and appropriations in the budget for thefinancial year 1979, together with the decisions takenat the time of approval of the draft supplementarybudget.

However, ladies and gentlemen, the Council of Minis-ters was not in a position to communicate to Parlia-

ment the supplementary budget for 1979 before thedraft budget for 1980 was considered. Consequently,as envisaged in the motion for a resolution distributedtoday, we must refer to the decisions taken by Parlia-ment on l5 March on the establishment plan in orderto adjust expenditure appropriations for staff. Ofcourse, definitive approval of the supplementarybudget for the current financial year will make super-fluous some of the decisions in paragraph I of themotion for a resolution, together with the footnote toit.

It is therefore proposed in paragraph 1 of the motionfor a resolution to confirm the decision to create 107

permanent posts, two temporary posts, and 188 frozenposts, and to add eight posts to the reserve list for thegroups. In addition to this confirmation, it is proposedto transform into permanent posts 25 local staff posts,in fulfilment of an earlier commitment by Parliamentto bring this transformation about gradually. It was

thought desirable by the Bureau and the Committeeon Budgets to complete this transformation in 1980.

The establishment plan for 1980, drawn up in thisway, will enable the Parliament elected by directuniversal suffrage to take the decisions which it deemsnecessary by unfreezing posts without having recourseto the supplementary budget procedure. But as I wassaying earlier the new Parliament could make furthermodifications to these provisions at the October part-session. This also applies to the expenditure appropria-tions. The amendments made concern the credits toensure the payment of allowances to the electedmembers of Parliament to the extent envisaged bypresent regulations, and of salaries for the postsproposed. Chapter 100, Article I 000, and Chapterl0l, Article I 010 create a reserve which, as explainedin the motion for a resolution, is needed to defray theanticipated increased expenditure relating to the newpremises which the directly elected Parliament will be

occupying as its habitual places of work, possible adap-tations of allowances and costs for members, financialconsequences of decisions taken by the directlyelected Parliament, initiatives undertaken by Parlia-ment to acquire the home of Jean Monnet, andpossible new needs to cover operating expenditure.The Committee on Budgets has reduced the operatingexpenditure proposed by the Bureau, but has decidedto increase the reserve fund to enable the new Parlia-ment to supplement these expenditure items throughtransfers.

The total of revenue and expenditure is 157 880232EUA, which is an increase of 15'35 Yo over the 1979budget as modified by the supplementary budget. Themost important changes in expenditure - I amcoming to the end - concern expenditure on rentsand property management, which once more bringsout the fact that the location of Parliament's opera-tional headquarters in three different cities involves


Ripamonti

excessive financial burdens, both with regard to rentsand management of buildings, and with regard tostaff, who would obviously be fewer in number if Parli-ament had its seat in a single place. I think that, apartfrom the consideration of the dispersal of work inthree places, one should also remember that a signifi-cantly greater physical and intellectual effort is

required of staff. All this affects the operating costs ofParliament. The Committee on Budgets asks Parlia-ment to approve the motion for a resolution on thedraft budget, bearing in mind that it is drafted in sucha way as to leave ample opportunity for the directlyelected Parliament to complete its own organizationand take the final decisions both on the establishmentplan and on expenditure.


Mr Dankert.- (NL) I should like to start by raisinga point of order and making a proposal. !7e have iustdecided to postpone discussion of the supplementarybudget for 1979 until tomorrow. There is an obviousand close link between the proposals in the draft esti-mates for 1980 and the points dealt with in the supple-mentary budget lor 1979. To be specific: rumour has

it that the Bureau is to meet tomorrow to discusswhether or not to withdraw the passage in Mr Ripa-monti's motion which deals with the 188 frozen posts.

If we are going to delete the 188 frozen posts fromthe draft supplementary budget lor 1979 tomorrow -and, as I said, that is what I have heard - then I feelthat we can no longer include these 188 posts in thedraft estimates for 1980, since this decision would putpaid to the argument that these posts were essentialfor the proper functioning of the new Parliament. Inview of this, I propose that discussion of the motionon the draft estimates of revenue and expenditure ofthe European Parliament for the financial year 1980be postponed until after we have dealt with the supple-mentary budget for 1979, on which the Bureau will bedeciding tomorrow.

President. - A motion has been tabled to adjournthe debate on this particular item until tomorrow so

that the two reports can be taken together. The Rules

of Procedure lay down that there should be onespeaker in favour of the motion, and one against.


Mr Ripamonti, rapporteur. - @ Mr President, it is

true that the Bureau has met to examine the supple-mentary budget, and tomorrow morning theCommittee on Budgets, as I said earlier, will meet totake a decision both on procedures and on content,but this does not affect the discussion and approval ofthe draft budget for 1980. Indeed, the intention is toretain in 1980 frozen posts. There is no close linkbetween the two matters, since any decision on the

supplementary budget will come into effect only afterParliament has been informed of it by the Counciland has voted at a future sitting either to accept itscontents or to amend it. However, I am not opposedto the postpnement of the discussion until tomorrowmorning if the President thinks it advisable.

President. - It is not a question of whether the Pres-ident thinks it would be better or not ; it is a questionof whether the House so decides.

I consult Parliament on Mr Dankert's request to post-pone this debate until tomorrow.


2l . Connunicatiott on cooperation uitb deulopingcountries in tbe field of energy

President. - The next item is the report (Doc.74179) drautn up by Mr Fl2imig on behalf of theCommittee on Development and Cooperation on thecommunication from the Commission of the Euro-pean Communities to the Council concerning cooper-ation with developing countries in the field of energy.

I call Mr Fliimig.

Mr Flimig, rapporteur. - (D) Mr President, thereport now before us discusses a new, but by nomeans unimportant problem. The current increases inoil prices throughout the world are already causing us

concern as to the situation in the 1980s. If we do nottake preventive measures in time, the outcome will beserious enough for Europe but catastrophic for theThird !7orld. Calculations made today already showthat after 1980 benween 15 and 25o/o of the foreigncurrency earned by developing countries will go onpurchasing crude oil.

On the other hand, we know - and this applies notonly to Europe but especially to developing countries

- that there can be no progress without energy. Forus Europeans this is a market factor: 35 % of EECexports go to the Third !7orld. Against this back-ground, let us look at the matter in hand. Lom6 Iconcerned raw materials, food and agriculture, in viewof the need to achieve political stability in the coun-tries of the Third World. \7e have since recognizedthat this is not enough. The developing countries alsorequire technical aid, in particular in the energ'ysector. They have to be put in the position of beingable, step by step, to build up their own industrialcapacity to develop their own agriculture and thus toincrease their ability to feed their populations.

Until now, whenever we talked about technical aid forthe Third !7orld, particularly in energy policy, wealways had large-scale technology proiects such as theCabora Bassa or Aswan dams in mind, and an indus-trial expert with whom we talked told us quite firmly:business with a poor man is no business. But this atti-tude will not get us very far. !7e have to rethink our


Fl6mig

ideas, we have to - as I have already explained -help the Third !7orld to help itself. However, thatdoes not mean that we can simply transfer our techno-logical know-how from Europe to the Third !7orld.That would not help matters at all. Energy which iscarried in cables or pipelines, such as circuit lines, gas

mains and pipelines, etc., which we take for grantedin Europe, is no good at all in countries with manyislands, nor in developing countries where hundredsand often thousands of kilometres consist of uninha-bited desert.

\7hat is needed is small, self-sufficient forms ofenergy production, which are suitable for theconsumer, require little maintenance, and are econom-ical.

!7hat these people need are not gigantic plants butinstead - if I may put it this way - something morecompact, i. e. domestic bio-gas plants, water pumpsoperated by wind power, perhaps one day solar cellgenerators, small-scale river power stations producingnot in megawatts but in kilowatts. Thus the EECshould step in wherever and whenever things cannotfunction on their own.

The present report is a first approach to this subject.Its aim is also to encourage European industry todevelop equipment, to develop technology whichcannot be developed by the developing countriesthemselves, and which, on the other hand, has so farnot been developed by our industry and our economybecause there was no good business in it. At the same

time, it calls on the Community to take the necessary

measures to promote development of the equipmentwhich I referred to iust now. This is essential, if theThird World is going to be put in a position toproduce its own small-scale technology. A typicalexample would be the bio-gas installations which are

already in use today in Indian households and whichoperate on cow-dung. The potential demand for some-

thing like this can be seen from a single example. Iwould remind you of the triumph of the transistorradio. At the time when it was invented, no onethought about the significance which it would oneday acquire for the Third !7orld. The Japanese were

the first to show us what could be done with it. Some

of us, members of the Committee on Developmentand Cooperation - you were also there, Mrs lValz -- visited dark huts in the heart of the iungle wherethe people were not even wearing decent clothing, butthey did have transistor radios ! \7e regard this as

being a way, of giving illiterate people the chance ofat least being able to listen to the news in their ownlanguage. As I have already said, this is just an

example of small-scale technology, but this is wherewe must start.

Since there is not much time left, I do not want toread out every single paragraph of our motion for a

resolution. I cannot emphasize enough, Mr President,that this is only the first step towards solving theproblem ; further work is till required. I would like tothank the Commission for submitting this proposal. Itproves that the Commission has recognized theproblem. lfhat is now necessary is to continue thework and especially, gentlemen of the Commission, toget the Council to accept these ideas. At this point, Iwould like to say to the new Parliament : keep alert,accept this inherited task, and make sure the Commis-sion and the Council do their dury, for whatever is

done to preserve energy in the Third !florld is simul-taneously preserving peace.

Mr President, I would like to use my final words inthis Parliament to thank all those who have helpedme so greatly during the last ten years or so, andwhom I hope I was also able to help, and my wish isthat the new Parliament will form a Committee forEnergy and Research, where our work could continueto bear fruit.

President. - I call Mr Veronesi to speak on behalfof the Communist and Allies Group.

Mr Veronesi,- (I) Mr President, it is a pity that thisdebate has been separated from that on raw materialsheld yesterday, and from that on the European energysituation which will take place later. In fact thesubjects are closely linked and a single debate wouldhave made our comments more cohesive and thussaved time. The problem before us transcends theparticular subject to involve the general one of ourrelations with the Third S7orld. !7e should thereforebe considering a very much wider picture. For thesake of brevity, I shall try to mention only the funda-mental questions which I think should be examinedin this debate on the specific basis of the documentsbefore us.

!7e shall vote in favour of the motion for a resolutiontabled by Mr Flimig, whom I thank for his work. Inmy view these are realistic and balanced proposals,compatible with social and environmental realiry, thatis with the historical and economic background of theindividual countries.

I should like to make some comments on a fewpoints. The first concerns mutual relations. Replyingyesterday to comments by Mr Porcu, with which weItalian Communists do not agree, Mr Davignon reaf-firmed statements repeatedly made by Mr Cheysson tothe effect that the Commission is making an effort tointerpret relations with the developing countries incorrect and fair terms. !fle must acknowledge that as

far as we know this is true. One must, however, realizethat not all l7estern Europeans operating in the deve-loping countries follow such a code of behaviour. \flehave even had debates here on scandalous cases

involving the behaviour of some large undertakings.


Veronesi

'!7e must therefore recognize the need for a new spiritin our dealings with the countries of the Third !7orld.Last week in Milan, a Conference of Christians forSocialism examined relations between Europe and thecountries of the Third !7orld in view of the forth-coming European elections. There were strong recom-mendations to do away with the paternalist spiritwhich is always subconsciously present in our actionsand assessments, and not merely to donate surpluses,but rather to encourage the emancipation and inde-pendent judgment of developing countries. I shouldlike to give an instance of the intellectual honesty andcapacity for self-criticism of the Italian Communists.

President Senghor of Senegal replied courteously to an

article which had appeared in a paper published bymy party's paper in which one of our correspondentsexpressed iudgment on the situation in Senegal, whichwere perhaps superficial owing to the short time hehad spent in'Africa. President Senghor began bysaying that he knew he was dealing with a responsibleparry and a responsible newspaper, but pointed outthat the real situation of these developing countriesrequires a greater effort of understanding and thatinstead of judging by appearances, commentatorsmust study their history.

Thus we were rebuked for not bearing in mind that inmany cases these countries have to make up a develop-ment time-lag of centuries, and that they must there-fore sometimes act according to their capabilities andnot as rapidly as some would expect. Moreover, themost acute political observers took the view that oneof the causes of the revolution in Iran was preciselythe imposition of a modernization process whichmany lranians have been unable to assimilate. There,then, are the recommendations and the politicalcommitment which we make.

Let me move on to my second comment. In thereport submitted to us it is stated that the UnitedStates consumes 8 tonnes of oil equivalent per inhabi-tant per year, whereas the developing countriesconsume 0'3 tonnes per head per year. I7e shouldthink about that. Indeed, by trying to bring the deve-loping countries to the level, if not of the UnitedStates, then of Europe, we would exhaust in a fewyears the traditional energy sources at our disposal.Moreover, the study made by Leontiev - a very well-known economist who needs no introduction - forthe United Nations points out that, assuming anincrease in the gross national product of 4 0/o in thedeveloped countries and 5 o/o in the developing coun-tries, the ratio of per capita income between them,which is now l2 to l, will be unchanged at the end ofthe century. So all the theories of the 'locomotive'function of the developed countries, which mustincrease consumption to activate the market, arecontradicted by this fact.

!fle must consider why and for whom it is necessaryto produce. It is unthinkable to carry coals toNewcastle by stimulating consumption in the coun-tries where it has already reached a level incompatiblewith the availability of natural resources. That is why Iask the Commission - we have also asked it of MrCheysson who has committed himself to it - to inves-tigate wider perspectives beyond the narrow frame-work of short-term situations. For Europe and the'Western world, what is required above all is a policyof energy saving and austerity. !(/e Italian Commun-ists have not been afraid to tell our workers that this isthe only way to achieve a true economic recoverywhich would change the development and consump-tion model. In Iine with this, we shall vote in favourof the motion for a resolution, which - I repeat -seems to us to be balanced and realistic.

President. - I call Mr Osborn to speak on behalf ofthe European Conservative Group.

Mr Osborn. - The European Conservative Groupsupports the motion for a resolution in Mr Fliimig'sreport, and we are particularly aware that the Commu-nity is dependent on some Lom6 Convention statesfor uranium oxide. These states include Niger, theCentral African Empire and Namibia, and, forinstance, President Kaunda of Zambia has called foruranium enrichment facilities. Hence there is a needfor the Communiry to consider with the partners inthe Lom6 Convention, within the framework ofEuratom safeguards, the timing of eventual investmentin nuclear power by developing countries which donot have either hydraulic or <ither potential sources ofenergy.

It should be mentioned that other research is beingcarried out, and the possibility of creating alcoholfrom sugar is being looked at in South America andcould be applied in other developing countries. MrVeronesi has pointed out the fact that the Communityconsumes 3.2 tonnes of oil-equivalent annually perhead, and has mentioned the smaller figures in thedeveloping countries, and he has made an impas-sioned speech outlining how the peoples in the deve-loping countries are moving to a more industriallyorientated society where there is the need for forms ofenergy.'S7e must bear in mind as regards perhaps, theprocessing of sugar, which to a certain extent is ener-gized from gas and other sources, that tractors andbuses in the rural areas still consume oil or petrol, andtherefore there will be a need in developing countriesfor much greater levels of consumption.

However modest the economic growth of developingcountries, it must not be stymied by lack of energy,and it must not be oil-driven - not only because of


Osborn

the impact on oil prices, but because developing coun-tries are already burdened in their payments imbal-lance by energy imports. There will be a need toinvest in other sources of energy, of which of coursesolar energy has great possibilities. There is a need forenergy conservation, but the Community'sprogramme is modest. It is to list what facilities andenergy resources are available, to list the requirements,and this is an initiative which should be endorsed,and the European Conservative Group does endorse it.


Mr Brunner, Mentber of the Cotnnissiott. - (D)MrPresident, you will recall that last October youendorsed a similar initiative. As for us, we shall not bedeterred from submitting these programmes to theCouncil. I am sure that sooner or later - and in factrather sooner than later - the Council will decide tosupport our plans in this field too. This is a begin-ning. \fle want an initial phase of practical coopera-tion with a very small group of countries which have

expressed an interest. !fle want to draw up with themoverall figures for energy supply and use, to see whatthey need and what they have, and to help them. \U7hy

do we want to help them ? Not iust for their sake. Allthat has been said here is correct. These countries arethe first to suffer from rising oil prices, but we want tohelp them in our own interest as well, since the morethey rely on their own resources, the more they willrelieve the pressure on the world market as a result oftheir reduced oil requirements. I think we must gearourselves increasingly to the fact that the world oilmarket will no longer be a normal one. It will be a

long time before balance is restored between supplyand demand. In such a situation, to worry about thosewho are worst off is not only a political but also a

moral obligation.

President. - I note that no one else wishes to speak.The motion for a resolution, together with the amend-ments that have been tabled, will be put to the votetomorrow during voting-time.


22. Limitation of speaking time

President. - Pursuant to the decision of this Houseof 15 February, speaking time will be limited to fiveminutes from now onwards to all speakers.

23. Electricity production

President. - The next item is the report (Doc.19179) drasln up by Mr Brown on behalf of theCommittee on Energy and Research, on the need for

Community action to promote the exploitation ofwind, wave and tidal energy for electricity production.

I call Mr Brown.

Mr Brown, rapporteur. - Anybody would realize, Isuppose, that to discuss wave, wind and tidal power infive minutes is in fact doing the subiect great iustice.

(Laughter)

I will certainly do my best to indicate the views of thecommittee on the report that I had the honour todraw up. The report really has arisen from the argu-ment that has crossed not only the various nations ofEurope but also the world regarding wind, wave andtidal power as alternative sources of energy. I havebeen, and the House is well aware of this, one of thosewho has challenged this concept, and I have neveraccepted that these sources of energy were in fact alter-native. I have always asked the question: alternative towhat ? Is it really contended that they could be alterna-tives for the large-scale production of electricity gener-ation ? If so, there is no evidence whatsoeversubmitted in favour of that view. But neverthelessthere has been a continuing argument that wind, waveand tidal power ought to be funded by the Commis-sion, or by the EEC, in order to try to realize theseso-called alternative sources. !7ell, I reject the word'alternative', and I therefore use the word 'additional'in my report because I think that is a much morerealistic term: they cannot be called 'alternative'.

Secondly, what I have attempted to do is to identifyeach of these separate areas. I hope in the report it hasbeen helpful to the House at any rate to see some ofthe background to these various types of additionalsources. In the case of wind power, I have genuinelyattempted to address myself to the problem. I did takea great deal of care to obtain as much information as

was possible in order to ascertain not only the presentstate of the art, but what one could expect it to be at a

reasonable time in the future. Therefore in paragraphs17 and l8 I indicate what is happening in theMember States of the EEC.

I indicate, too, some of the parameters, financial andtechnical, which perhaps I hope will draw to the atten-tion of the House the factors relating to this particularsource of enerSy. I particularly went into detailbecause there was a sense of frustration betweenmyself and the Commission over the Commission'sdecision that it will fund certain work on wind energy.At our various meetings, to put no finer a point on it,there was no meeting of minds between myself andthe Commission on this matter. So I did do theCommission the honour of going to the IEA todiscuss this issue, because it is my contention that theIEA is carrying out all the work that is necessary atthis iuncture to examine, and develop techniques for


Brown

hamessing wind energy : not only with the nations ofthe EEC, but also with the United States and othercountries beyond. I therefore, in order to make itquite clear to the House what is taking place, have

drawn up in paragraphs 24 to 26 exactly what the situ-ation is regarding the IEA, and I set it out in somedetail. I have also set out in paragraph 28 what theproposals are from the Commission for wind energy,and they were kind enough - and I pay tribute -following our arguments, to update me, on what theywere doing.

Therefore I have produced the two things, and I ambound to say to the House, and I have drafted thisinto my conclusions, that there clearly is no evidencewhatsoever that the money proposed to be spent bythe Commission - 3 million units of account: that is

0'5 in 1980, 0'5 in l98l and about 2 million in 1982

- will in any way challenge any frontiers of know-ledge, will in any way take us one jot or step furtheralong the road than the IEA is already going. There-fore I am asking the House to support the views ofmy committee that in fact we make sure that themonies proposed to be spent shall not be spent.

If there is any argument at all about spending that 2

million, may I suggest to the Commission once againthat two years ago I asked them to look at somespecial material that is called polyurethane foam. Iurged them to examine this very dangerous material.Only yesterday in my own country ten people diedbecause, in my view, polyurethane foam was availablein that shop and has been responsible for thosepeople dying because of the enormous burning rate ofthe foam and of the toxic fumes. Ten people, in mysubmission, have died in my country yesterday, whenthey had no need to die. I think the results of theinvestigations that are now taking place will finallycome out that the large amounts of foam in the furni-ture store were responsible. And I say to the Commis-sion : 2 million units of account could have taken us a

long way to developing a safe foam which in factcould then be used in our countries. Therefore if this2 million is available, do not waste it trying to retracethe steps of the IEA. Spend it on something worthwhile. Challenge this foam: try to find a new foam,and save real lives of people who are dying everyminute - and yesterday l0 of them died.

Then I go on to talk about the argument for waveenergy, and here again I took a great deal of trouble toascertain the various types of wave energy which are atthe moment being developed. I have considered, as

will be seen, the different forms, the five forms ofproject taking place, and I have taken the UnitedKingdom as a classic example, because it has an enor-mous seaboard, and it can be used. You need such a

seaboard, as it were, to optimize the use of waveenerlly, and as the House will see very clearly, fromthe report, in paragraph 47 I once again say that with

the limited budget available to the EEC it appearsdoubtful that money spent on a wave energyprogramme would yield sufficient results to justify theexpenditure. It is my submission that in this fieldresearch would be better carried out by the nationalresearch programmes rather than the Communityattempting to coordinate a project.

On tidal power, I visited La Rance, which is one ofthe rwo tidal power stations in the world, and thereone saw a remarkable development : it had everythinggoing for it. It is probably one of the most ideal situa-tions for a tidal power station. It has the area, it hasthe depth; it has the fall of tide; it has everythingthat it could possibly have, and one of the interestingthings we found there, of course, was that at the verymoment I was looking at the generators, generatingthis enormous power, nobody wanted to use it,because it was the wrong time of the day. It was beingproperly covered by the base loads. Therefore you hadthis enormous amount of power for nothing, fornobody, because you cannot control the tides to ebband to flow when you want. In the report I have takenthe opportuniry of giving photographs of La Rance,and the House will see that in figure I I show thelayout to show the way it is built, while figure 2 isinteresting because every hour the bridge goes up toallow ships to pass. \flhen I looked for the ships Icould not see any ships, and, as the House will see,when I took the photograph the only boat in sightwas a very small cockleshell boat with 2-inch masts.In order to let that boat go through we had to use anenormous amount of energy to raise the bridge ; wehad miles of cars on either side burning gasolinewaiting to get across. It cost a lot more, to raise thebridge and keep those people burning their energy

iust to let this small cockleshell go through with a

2-inch mast that could not pass underneath. One ques-tions where the energy source or energy savings were.Incidentally, I did get the third picture, which is veryuseful because the French had decided to challengethis argument that if you put turbines in seawater ofthis nature that you would get growth on them andthey would be eroded by corrosion, and it is inter-esting in that photograph to note that they were ableso to devise a small electric current to go through theturbine blades that it stopped the growth of any sortof marine encrustation.

I shall now go on to the general conclusions. In themotion for a resolution our committee says that webelieve that further research and investigation shouldtake place on these additional sources. We believe it istaking place in the separate nations, and I have identi-fied those nations who are doing it. It is being doneand coordinated together with a great deal of projectwork, by the IEA. Therefore what we are really sayingis that we do not believe at this stage, apart fromkeeping abreast of the developments, knowing what isgoing on, transmitting information to the variousstates, that the Community itself ought to put its


Brown

money in this at present. There is a vast amount ofother work to be done, and I hope therefore that,despite the very short presentation, which my Britishcolleague is forcing me to make in l0 minutes, theHouse will be able to adopt the report.

President. - I call Mrs lValz to speak on behalf ofthe Christian Democratic Group (EPP).

Mrs Valz. - (D) Mr President, I very much regretthat the consideration of the report by -y colleagueMr Brown has had to be cut so short. He has alwaysbeen a colleague with a wealth of ideas, which is parti-cularly well illustrated in this report. I hope that hisreport will in any case find the recognition it deservesin the press. I shall simply make a few briefcomments on it. I share his view that the expression'alternative sources of energy' is completely wrong inthis context. It could indeed lead to the assumptionthat there is at present an alternative to traditionalenergy sources such as coal, gas, oil and nuclearenergy and that these could be replaced. This impres-sion is simply wrong, since no such alternative existsat the moment. It is quite correct, on the other handto talk only of additional sources of energy.

However fond we are of additional sources of energy,we must realize that by the year 2 000 they will mostprobably be able to provide at most 5 o/o of require-ments. That is an enormous quantity in itself, but stillonly 5 0/o of total world consumption, so that a greatdeal of research still has to be done on this. I am sure

that we can even do much more, although perhapsnot so much in the field to which Mr Brown has justreferred. \7e must definitely devote far more whetherhere or in the developing countries, to research onreal alternative sources of energy such as solar energyand soft technologies as a whole. On this point Icannot help reminding you with some satisfaction ofmy report on alternative sources of energy, in which Icalled for such a research effort. Unfortunately youvoted against it, ladies and gentlemen, but you will see

it again, since it basically corresponds to both yourintentions and mine, and I suppose that it was onlypre-election bloody-mindedness which was respon-sible for its rejection.

'We must therefore not let ourselves be blinded by toomuch enthusiasm for what is new. W'e still have a

long way to go, and it thus makes sense for us to takea rational approach to the question of additionalsources of energy. Accordingly, we shall in futurecontinue our efforts to put a stop to unnecessary dupli-cation of work and the resulting waste of money. Thisis also the aim of the seemingly rather negativewording of paragraphs 9 and l0 of our motion for a

resolution. Our approach has been and will remain :

yes to additional sources of energy wherever possible;no to unnecessary duplication of work.

President. - I call Mr Osborn to speak on behalf of

the European Conservative Group.

Mr Osborn. -

Mr President, I feel that in view ofthe treatment meted out to the rapporteur, I will haveto be short. May I say that the Conservative Groupendorses Mr Brown's very excellent and very extensivereport, even if it is somewhat original in places. lrindand wave power have the obvious attraction that theyare strongest in the winter when the demand forenerSy is greatest and tidal power has the advantage ofregulariry. The political decision

- commented on in

Resolutions 7,8 and 9 -by

a number of countries toinvestigate the possibilities for harnessing thesesources of energy is wise. But Mr Brown points outthat these activities are coordinated within the IEA,and it may thus be pointless at this stage to involvethe Communiry in another coordinating exercise.

The real issue is what should be done internationallyin cooperation with OECD or IEA, what should bedone under the umbrella of Community coordinationand what should be done nationally. The problem isto commercialize and operate these techniques. Thefact that France has decided not to proceed with twofurther projects to harness tidal power is her affair.Britain could still look at the Severn and other estu-aries. The Commission and the IEA could take up anobserver role, help from the European InvestmentBank or the use of the Ortoli facility could possiblyenable commercial prototypes to be built.

I have seen some of the Salter work, the Salter's'ducks' and other wave processes which have been putforward. There is no doubt about it, whether we call italternative or additional sources of energy, whether itcould count for 5 o/o or more of the total, there will bealternative energy sources, particularly to petrol andliquid hydro-carbons. Electricity generated by thesemethods would probably be two to three times as

costly as normal generation, including nuclear powerwith the difficulties it involves. On the other hand,there will be increasing shortages of energy, and Ihope that this work can go ahead and go ahead vigor-ously even with the Commission as an observer. And Ihope that money will be quickly invested in proto-types large enough to make the cost estimates a gooddeal more definite than is the case at the present time.Itr/ith those reservations

- and there are reservations

on who should back it, who should coordinate it -the Conservative Group supports Mr Brown's very orig-

inal report.

IN THE CHAIR: MR YEATS

Virc-Prcsidcnt

President. - I call Mr Broeksz.


Mr Broeksz. - (NL) Mr President, I should like topoint out that not everybody in our group agrees withMr Brown's report. Although we agree that it is essen-

tial to look for alternative sources of energy and thatwe have perhaps not been very sucessful in thisrespect in the past, this does not mean that we shouldnot continue looking into the potential of tidal, waveand wind energy. Although this might well result inan energy saving of only 5 % in future, we think thateven this 5 % is worth the effort. !flhen you thinkthat we are currently trying to reduce oil consumptionby 5 o/o, then a saving of that much is not to be

sneezed at. !7e all know that both oil and, to a lesser

extent, coal reserves will run out some time, and thatwe have to look for other sources. I cannot imaginethat anybody thinks the Commission should not be

involved in this field. Another point is that we thinkthe Commission should try as far as possible to makeuse of the data from studies carried out elsewhere. Onbehalf of a number of Members in my own group,therefore, I should like to state that we feel thisresearch should after all be continued, in collaborationwith other bodies, and that the money spent on thismay well in future prove to have been money wellspent.


Mr Brunner, Member of tbe Commission. - (D)!7hen I was discussing Mr Brown's report with mycolleague a moment ago, he told me that he thoughtthe report was very good. I share this view, and thereport would almost have convinced me had it notbeen for two weak points. The first of these is that youspeak about the project run by the InternationalEnergy Agency.

It is a large-scale programme which has unfortunatelyonly been put into practice in very few small proiects,in which by no means all the Member States haveparticipated. Thus, for example, the United Kingdom,France, Italy and Belgium are not involved. Thesecond weak point is when you state that we shouldcoordinate. In order to coordinate we need to acquirea little bit of experience of our own. Give us this bit ofexperience by granting us 3 million units of accountover three years. That is not too much to ask ; it willenable us to coordinate effectively and has the advan-tage that the countries which are not involved in theIEA projects can join ours.

President. - I call Mr Brown.

Mr Brown, rapporteur, - Mr President, I am rathersurprised by what my colleague has said. Two of mycolleagues from Holland did in fact raise the matterwith me, but the rest of the colleagues in my groupwere in favour o[ my report. I am bound to say to himthat I did try to explain to him that if he looks at themotion for a resolution he will see that we say exactly

what he says. rVe are saying, let us go ahead. I amsorry but if you look at points 6,7 and 8 they specifi-cally say, go ahead.

I say to Mr Brunner that I challenge what he is saying.The IEA is going ahead with its work. Therefore I set

out in the report what the Commission proposes to dowith the 3 million EUA. I am not saying that it is toomuch. It is too jolly little. It will not even pay for themen's lunches when they come to talk about it. Therewill not be enough money left after they have paid fortheir lunches If you had said 30 million, I couldunderstand it. But 3 million is nonsense. Paragraph 28lays out exactly what they are proposing to do as doparagraphs 24 to 27, in which I outline what they aredoing. If you look at those two things then you willsee that there can be no argument in favour of theCommission going ahead. I am saying to them, let usdo a lot of work. There is a gre t deal of work to bedone. Plastic foam ! Do it quickly ! Save lives ! Thatwill be 3 million EUA well spent. But do not waste itin this way. I say to my colleague, we are going ahead,we are in favour of going ahead and the IEA are doingit. I urge my colleagues to go and visit IEA where theNetherlands are involved in many of the projectsbeing carried out. There have been minor criticisms,but I really believe that I have answered them in thereport. I am saying that we must continue theresearch. But instead of spending three million unitsof account in the way suggested here, let us do it inthe national way, and let us make sure that it is doneproperly.

President. - I note that no one else wishes to speak.The motion for a resolution; as it stands, will be put tothe vote tomorrow during voting-time.


24. Energy situation in tbe Communitlt

President. - The next item is the report drawn upby Mr Fliimig (Doc. 96179) on behalf of theCommittee on Energy and Research on the energysituation in the Community.

I call Mr Flimig.

Mr Fliimig, rapporteur. - (D) Mr President, I shallbe very brief, because this item only figures on today'sagenda as a result of a technical hitch. The report wasdiscussed in January, and two proposed amendments,which had previously been withdrawn by Mr Noi,were adopted here in this House. As a result of this,the outcome of the debate was falsified. All we needto do today is to rectify this error. This does not meanto say, however, Mr President, that the Community'senergy situation has undergone no change between

January and May. The situation is of course constantlyin flux, and we should like to point out that thisreport represents nothing more than the reinstatemefit

Sitting of S7ednesday, 9 May 1979 l5l

Fliimig

of the situation which the Committee on Energy andResearch wanted. !fle would ask you thereforeformally to adopt the original morion for a resolution.

President. - I call Lord Bessborough to speak onbehalf of the European Conservative Group.

Lord Bessborough. -Usually

short speeches areperhaps the best, so all I will say is that I certainlysupport Mr Flimig's motion.

As the motion points out, the energy situation in theCommuniry is seen, poignantly, as the result of eventsin Iran which resulted in the suspension of aroundl0 % of the world's oil supplies for a period of threemonths. Average contract oil prices in 1978 werearound $ |Z.ZO per barrel. In the early months of thisyear, spot market prices were in the region of $ 24 to$ 2S. Tne first lesson to be learnt is that the Commu-nity cannot allow itself to be subject to an energy situa-tion in which a loss of a single maior source of oil -in the case of lran a loss of 17 %, which was partiallycompensated by other oil producers - leads inexor-ably to a 100 o/o increase in the price of oil. TheCouncil has agreed to a 10 0/o reduction in theCommunity's oil consumption. This could beachieved if oil-fired electricity-generating plants werephased out. But to cut out oil-fired electricity genera-tion in the Community would result in a l0 o/o

decrease in the Communiry's oil requirements, and a

saving in the Community of payments of $ 5 billion,based on last year's prices. Now the Community isfaced with an increase in its oil bill of approximatelyI 15 billion. The current account surplus of the oilproducers in 1979 is estimated at $ 145 billion. TheCommunity's oil suppliers may not be prepared toaccept payment in inflating currencies. The creationof the European Currency Unit is a step in the rightdirection, but we do not yet know whether it willenioy the confidence of suppliers who currently placetheir trust in the dollar.

Finally, the Community, like the Unired States, runsthe risk of political and economic conflict with coun-tries, some of whom are friendly to us, others whosefriendliness is uncertain, our thirst for oil is notreduced by stepped-up investment in coal and nuclearpower now. The influence of the Soviet Union in theGulf ought not to be forgotten. Europe's Achilles' heelis well exposed.

My farewell word is this : the destiny of the Commu-nity will be decided by its determination to forge aneffective European energy policy.


Mr Brunner, Member of the Comtnission. - (D)MrPresident, I am glad to have the chance of followingon Lord Bessborough's last speech in this House.Over the years he has been of great assistance to us in

developing a common energy policy, and we shouldlike to thank him most warmly for his efforts.

Mr President, I am criticized in the media for sayingthat we are in a situation of constantly rising prices. Ithink it is better for us to realize this and to face factsand do something to remedy the situation, rather thantry to dodge the issue. I7e are not going to changethings for the better by refusing to talk about themThe supply and demand mechanism has for the timebeing broken down on the world oil market. Theprice of oil is increasingly being determined by thelevel of production, and the production trend isfalling. This situation will persist over the next fewyears, and we must take steps to cope with it.

rtr7hat is the present situation in the EuropeanCommunity ? !7e must expect to have a 5 7o shortfallin our imports of crude oil in the first half of thisyear. On I April 1979,we had enough in stock to last100 days, compared with 117 days on I January. Inmany products, our stocks have fallen even below thislevel ; for instance, we only have sufficient stocks ofmiddle distillates to last for a little over 90 days, and a

number of countries have even less.

And what is the situation ais-d-ois prices ? Already in1979 we have had to swallow price rises of an averageof over 20 70, which as Lord Bessboroughsaid - an additional l0 to 15 thousand milliondollars on our oil import bill. This will add more thanone percentage point to our rate of inflation, and thesituation may yet get even worse. It is high time wecame to terms with this situation, and we must nowpull out all the stops to make at least a start, so that ina few years time we shall have restored balance to themarket. All this is happening in a time of great uncer-tainty, when the market is affected by unpredictablepolitical developments. To round off the point I ammaking, let me remind you that the spot market inRotterdam is experiencing extremely erratic pricemovements. Since the beginning of the year, theRotterdam market has seen price increases of over50 % for gasoline over 80 Yo for the middle distillersand over 90 o/o for heavy heating oil. These prices areby no means representative. The-Rotterdam marketaccounts for only 5 o/o of total trade, and we must notfix our attention solely on these erratic movements.That would be a great mistake. For that reason, it isright that the Commission should now be investi-gating this market once again, because these pricemovements are abnormal and we must not allow themto be adopted as indicators for the oil-producing coun-tries to base their calculations on.

Having said that, however, we must also realize that itis high time we entered into open-ended discussionswith the oil-producing countries. I hope we shallmake a start at the l7 May meeting of the Council ofMinisters.


President. - I note that no one else wishes to speak.The motion for a resolution, as it stands, will be put tothe vote tomorrow during voting time.


25. Directiue on the protectiort of the interest ofMembers and others in soci1tds anonymes

President. - The next item is the report (Doc.136179) by Mr Schmidt, on behalf of the Legal Affairs

Committee, on the

proposal from the Commission to the Council for a FifthDirective to coordinate the safeguards which, for theprotection of the interests of members and others, are

required by Member States of companies within themeaning of the second paragraph of Article 58 of theTreaty, as regards the structure of soei4tds .ttto,t)'rrres andthe powers and obligations of their organs.

Mr Davignon, the Commissioner who is to deal withthis item, is unfortunately not yet here. Are youwilling, Mr Schmidt, to proceed in the Commis-sioner's absence ? Otherwise we shall have to adjournthe sitting.

Mr Schmidt, rapporteur. - (D) Mr President, thatdepends to a great extent of course on when thisreport could then be discussed. In my opinion, after ithas been under discussion for seven years, it mustnow be adopted. If you can give an assurance that itwill be the first item on the agenda tomorrow, I wouldbe in favour of adjourning the sitting, since it is impor-tant that we discuss this matter in the presence of MrDavignon.

President. - I am afraid, Mr Schmidt, I cannot giveyou any assurances about tomorrow's business but Ithink we can guarantee it will be taken in the

morning. It is highly unsatisfactory that a report such

as yours, which, I believe, has 23 amendments to it,should be left over in this way. You would not be

willing to start off tonight, would you ? The Commis-sioner, I believe, will be here fairly soon.

Mr Schmidt, rdpporteur. - (D) Mr President, I shallmake a start today.

As I mentioned just now, the European Parliamenthas been considering this directive since 14

November 1972. Three rapporteurs have made

sterling efforts to speed things up, and the secretariatof the Legal Affairs Committee, too, has put in a greatdeal of work. Before I go any further, I should like toexpress my very sincere thanks to this secretariat forits work in this connection.

As the last of the three rapporteurs I therefore have

the honour of representing of the Legal AffairsCommittee in this House today. However, I must addthat, in view of the many and varied efforts to keepthis matter under constant discussion without,however, adopting a definite position, and of the like-

wise many and varied efforts to keep on wateringdown the substance of the Commission's proposal, Idoubt very much whether this day on which it is myprivilege to present the report will be a very happyone.

Vhat is the purpose of this Fifth Directive ? It is toharmonize company law in the Member States. Vhatis this intended to achieve ? It is intended to facilitatethe free movement of capital, to boost investmentpotential in the various countries and to make itpossible to eliminate, or at any rate reduce to a

minimum, structural differences which may contri-bute to a distortion of competition. Naturally, harmon-ization of this kind cannot ga ahead without disrup-tion of existing, in some cases traditional, nationaldevelopments and regulations. I fully agree with theCommission's view that, provided the substance of thedirective is not affected, a flexible approach is calledfor, and the directive takes this into account. It lays

down transitional provisions for a wide range ofmatters, but also specifies matters which will continueto be regulated at national level in future. However

-and I should like to make this quite clear - not only

flexibility but also a certain sense of purpose is

required here. \?e must know what we want.

The first problem which I should like to mention is

that of the structure of companies. The dualist system

- that is, the system which makes a distinction

between the management organ and the supervisoryorgan -

is in my opinion the one which at thepresent time not only meets the needs of large firmsand groups of companies and satisfies the generalpublic's demand for more 'transparency' on the partof such undertakings, but also best takes the interestsof shareholders and employees into account.

I believe therefore that we in this House ought tocome out in favour of the dualist system albeit

- it

must be granted -

with a transitional period toenable companies to adapt to this new structure.

The second problem - perhaps the crucial one

-which in fact has also helped to prevent this directiveand the report of the Legal Affairs Committee frombeing adopted for so long, is that of employee partici-pation. I should like to state at the outset that mywork on this report was directed towards establishingbasically what this House adopted with a largemajority in the Statute for the European Company. Iam thinking of names like Burgbacher or Springorum,whose background did not exactly makc it possible toassume at the outset that they were particularly open-minded on questions of employee participation. It was

they who -

like Mr Brugger, who played a consider-able part

- contributed to our success in embodying

genuine joint representation in the Statute for theEuropean Company. Now the objection is occasion-ally raised that that is all well and good, but that theone thing is optional and the other mandatory. A

Sitting of \flednesday, 9 May 1979 153

Schmidt

great deal can be made optional, but great care mustbe taken with mandatory provisions.

I should like at this point to state one thing quiteclearly and plainly : anyone who agreed to one-thirdrepresentation with the intention of making thestatute for the European Company just so much worth-less paper from the very start was basically guilty ofusing deception tactics, since without harmonizationof national company law at the same level no person,no firm, will ever make use of this possibility affordedby the European Company. I think it may even besaid, that if we do not achieve a breakthrough here onthe same level, then the statutes for the EuropeanCompany is not worth the paper on which it isprinted. It sometimes touches on a strange chord tohear that an appeal to the Council to adopt the statutefor the Company is to be written into motions forresolutions while the same provisions are rejected forthe present discussion. As I see it, both the Commis-sion - which I can address for the first time now thatMr Davignon has arrived - and quite a few suppor-ters of the European Company must be at least mildlyreproached for the fact that the courage which theyshowed at that time - perhaps in the secret hopethat the Company would never be feasible - hasdeserted them today.

The proposal under discussion today goes further thanthe Statute on only two points. Firstly, it proposes toreduce the number of workers to be used as a yard-stick for the introduction of employee participation.In my opinion, however, one thing must be borne inmind : the Statute for the European Company wasadopted as long as five years ago. In the meantimethere has been a strong trend towards a reduction inthe number of workers, and rationalization measureshave been taken which have resulted in a streamliningof the workforce, so that it is only logical to no longertake as the criterion the size of workforce which atthat time was possibly fully justified.

The second point where this report goes further thanthe former proposals concerns the introduction of anadditional criterion, namely turnover. In my opinion,we would otherwise be penalizing a great number offirms. There are, as you know, firms which are highlylabour-intensive and would thus be subject to the regu-lations on employee participation, although they mayhave a considerably smaller turnover than many firmswhich, with a small labour force and intensive use ofmachinery, have a completely different level of outputand productivity.

It is my view that some sort of balance must bestruck, since we can no longer make any headwaywith the sole criterion of the number of employees.

I should now like to draw attention to the following,which is clearly stated in this report. Anyone whowants employee participation must also define what it

is that he wants. There are two important points cnpage l5 of the proposed amendments.

As regards the matters on which employees shouldhave the right to be consulted, the text mentions theposition, development and future prospects of thecompany, its competitive position, and its borrowingand investment plans. So much for the right to beconsulted.

Secondly, the text lays down that the agreement ofemployees must be obtained in the case of measuresinvolving a change in working conditions or the struc-ture of the company's organization, of the establish-ment of general criteria for the appointment anddismissal of employees, in the event of mass redundan-cies and in the establishment of a welfare plan - as isfrequently the case on such occasions - and in theevent of a merger.

As I see it, anyone who has seen the workers' dismayat such measures ought logically to be able to bringhimself to acknowledge that employees must havejoint decision-making powers in such matters. On thispoint I quote a sentence from the report and from theCommission's proposal, which reads :

It is the fulfilment of a democratic principle that peoplewho are affected by the decisions of social and politicalbodies should have a say in the lormulation of such deci-sions.

They can have a say, however, only if they have jointdecision-making powers on matters which particularlyaffect them.

I should like here to single our a further point whichhas been amended somewhat, although I do notregard this as so serious. In my opinion, when theCommission's proposal lays down that there is to bean employee director or a member of the board todeal with personnel matters, then this, only this andprecisely this member of the board should not, as inour system of employee participation in the coal andsteel industry in the Federal Republic of Germany, beable to be appointed or dismissed against the wishesof the employees.

In my view, this is a very important point which willdefinitely contribute to the maintenance or establish-ment of peaceful industrial relations. As it is very lateand you have set a time limit, Mr President, I havesingled out iust a few points in which the LegalAffairs Committee wants the Commission's proposalsto be amended. I would ask this Assembly to approvethe motion for a resolution. In my opinion, the funda-mental ideas of this motion for a resolution can betaken just as well from the encyclical rcrur?t ttot'ctruntas from fundamental socialist ideology. I bclieve thatthe European Parliament - the one that has not beendirectly elected - has here the opportunity at theeleventh hour, so to speak, to show that it is willing toface up to the fundamental social challenges of thisday and age.


Schmidt

Anyone who calls on the Council to adopt the Euro-pean Company must be prepared at the same time toaccept the principles thus adopted when it comes toharmonizing national law. Shrinking back from princi-ples adopted in connection with the European

Company also robs the European Company of its

significance. This House should therefore be so

progressive as to approve also the proposal of theLegal Affairs Committee and the present motion for a

resolution bearing in mind the vote on the EuropeanCompany.

President. - Before I call any speakers for the

groups, there is a matter on which I wish to consultthe House. Strictly speaking, we should be adiourningthis sitting at 9.00 p. m., but I would suggest that, ifMembers agree, we continue until 9. 30. Is there any

obiection to this procedure ?

That is agreed.

I call Mr Siegldisthmidt to speak on behalf of theSocialist Group.

Mr Sieglerschmidt. - (D) Mr President, ladies andgentlemen, I should like to express my utmost regretthat for reasons of which all present are aware, thislimit has had to be imposed on speaking time; it is

not - and on this you will surely agree withcommensurate with the importance of the subiect. Ican therefore only pick out in a few phrases thepoints which I think particularly important in what Iwas actually ibihg' to say on behalf of the SocialistGroup. If this Directive is adopted in the formproposed by the Legal Affairs Committee, it will repre-sent a considerable step forward for the protection ofemployees' interests.

I should like to stress the points which have alreadybeen briefly mentioned here, but this time expresslyon behalf of the Socialist Group. Firstly, there is theproposed form of employee participation on the basis

of parity, which provides, while maintaining parity ofrepresentation, for the setting up of a workable supervi-sory body in which a third of the members are electedby the representatives of the shareholders, a third bythe employees and a third by both groups together.

Secondly, there is the appointment of an employeedirector who cannot be appointed or dismissed againstthe wishes of the majoriry of the employees' represent-tatives. Thirdly, there is the introduction of realisticcriteria for determining in which companies theseforms of employee participation are to be brought in.

Finally, it should be noted that this proposal for a

directive lays down in in very precise terms the rightsof employees' representatives as regards informationand consultation.

Mr President, I am well aware that this last measure is

proposed only for the duration of a transitional periodand only for the unitary system. I should like to sayquite clearly, however, that in the opinion of theSocialist Group it would be most welcome if all thoseMember States which do not yet have this form of therights of employees' representatives in their nationallegislation would introduce it immedialely, regardlessof whether they have a dualist or unitary system.

The proposal as it stands is balanced in two respects.

Firstly, because it reconciles the necessities and reali-ties of the Member States' regulations with theCommunity aims to be pursued in these areas ; andsecondly, because the interests of employees and share-holders have also been brought together irl a sensiblecompromise.

It is to be welcomed that the motion for a resolutionurges the Council finally to adopt this Statute for theEuropean Company - which has been before theCouncil for five years now, I believe, Mr Schmidt.

'We note with great satisfaction that the Christian-Democratic Group makes the same demand in itsamendment. However, this is where the first contradic-tion arises. It is not possible - as the rapporteurstated - to call for this statute for the EuropeanCompany, while at the same time rejecting it bytabling an amendment advocating,a solution whichoffers far less than what has -b'een agreed in mycountry, for example, on the basis of a compromisebetween the Social Democrats and the Free Democ-rats. If the employees are to get only one third of theplaces on the supervisory body, while the other twothirds are to go to the general meeting, it is some-thing of a ioke to continue to speak of parity of repres-entation - and that is the second contradiction inyour amendment. No, that is not a viable compromiseand I have the impression that you are getting out ofit neatly here and do not want to say either yes or noto genuine employee participation on a basis of parity.As regards the Conservatives' proposals, Mr President

- and this is my final point - I should just like tosay briefly that they rypifu the reactionary and anti-worker attitude of the new Thatcher Government, andtherefore speak for themselves.

rUfle, at any rate, will support the version proposed bythe Legal Affairs Committee, and the millions ofemployees in the European Community can restassured that we will not leave them in the lurch.

Sitting of ltr/ednesday, 9 May 1979 155

President. - I call Mr Caro to speak on behalf ofthe Christian-Democratic Group (EPP).

Mr Caro. - (F) Mr President, like Parliament'sCommittee on Social Affairs, the Christian-Democratic Group considers the proposal for a FifthDirective to be in keeping with the Community's aimof harmonizing the national systems. It sets out itsoptions in the framework of outline legislation ; it esta-blishes a system containing flexible provisions facili-tating this development and, in addition, grants thenecessary time for thought and examination by meansof a transitional period. These are just the kind offeatures we wanted.

Although there are certain things to be said on thesubstance - and I shall deal with them at the end ofmy speech - I should like to say first that the reportpresented on behalf cif the Legal Affairs Committeeby Mr Schmidt completely transforms this Fifth Direc-tive as we understood it. Although expressing verynoble ideas designed to promote the representation ofworkers - a development which is bound to comeabout and which we welcome - it distorts this direc-tive by taking away, by virtually eliminating, its evolu-tionary nature and making it binding, virtually disre-garding - involuntarily I hope - the situation in thecountries where the conditions obtaining are nowherenear the minimum conditions for implementing parti-cipation of the type proposed in this report.

As it thus robs this directive of the continuity of effortand study required to bring differing viewpoints closertogether, this proposal by the Legal Affairs Committeeis liable - and this we regard as even more serious -to bring about a hardening of positions which for thetime being are not reconcilable. Is that really thepolicy we wish to pursue ? Is that not in all proba-bility a tactic which, on the eve of direct elections,looks like a purely vote-catching manoeuvre in theend is liable to rebound on the employees' causewhich we all wish to serve ?

The Christian Democratic Group wants to preservethe Fifth Directive's outline legislation sratus, itspotential for further development, its flexible methodsand, above all, the means of reducing divergences inthe Member States. Ve feel, however, that this FifthDirective perhaps lacks the inspiration of those majoracts of legislation which can leave their mark on a

period, an era, a society. The Christian-DemocraticGroup infinitely regrets that parity of representation isnot part of this obiective to which all aspire, in order 'to ensure progress in this modern world and, in parti-cular, to foster the role and responsibilities ofemployees in the firm to which they contribute notonly their labour but also their loyalty and their skill.!7e think that the Fifth Directive does not embracethis objective. It is obvious that when we ask the

Commission, in our amendmen't, to make fresh propo-sals regarding this ultimate aim, we are not at variancewith the Fifth Directive as it now stands. Althoughparagraph 5 of Article 4 lays down minimum levels, itmakes allowances for future developments and istherefore entirely in keeping with the spirit in whichwe are working. This is why, while avoiding anycontradiction with the spirit of the Fifth Directive andstressing the need for parify of representation, we askthe Commission to take our request into considera-tion. Provided it does so, we are willing to support a

directive which includes this fundamental point.

(Applause)

President. - I call Mr Feit to speak on behalf of theLiberal and Democratic Group.

Mr Feit. - (F)Mr President, as you have requested, Ishall confine myself to essentials ; we are, however,extremely unhappy at the short time allowed us forsuch an important subject.

The question we are dealing with today has both a

legal and a political aspect. It is essential to create newEuropean legislation to govern problems of a similarkind, but bearing in mind how difficult this is even inour national parliaments, can you imagine the effortsit requires at Community level ?

'U7e must endeavour to find a solution which is accep-table to each of our countries because - let us makeno mistake about it - this Fifth Directive does notapply only to the Member States which do not haveany relevant legislation.

'We must therefor display a great deal of flexibility inthis matter - not caution but flexibility - in orderto work out possible alternative options, takingaccount of the legal situation in each of the MemberStates ; if we seek to frame Communiry legislationwithout regard to these considerations, we shall endup with nothing at all.

Are we or are we not, therefore, moving towards a

system which can be applied because it will meet a

deep-felt need ? Or on the other hand, are we going tocreate something which will be far from complete andtherefore remain in the archives ?

There is no intention whatsoever of calling into ques-tion the need for effective employee participation incompanies ; in a free society, every employee musthave the opportuniry to have a say in the decisionsregarding the future of the firm for which he isworking.

The question is therefore whether the proposal for a

directive - with the amendments contained in theConrmission's working document dated 15 May 1978

- takes account of all the considerations I have justmentioned.


Feit

Although certain improvements have been made tothe original proposal, the fundamental principles onwhich the 1972 document is based have not been

called into question, namely : the introduction withincompanies, after an optional transitional period, of a

mandatory dualist structure and the participation ofemployees on the supervisory board.

It should be noted that the Commission has limitedthe options to a transitional period of five years.

I therefore ask the Commission : is it certain thatthere will definitely be, at the end of a transitionalperiod, a minimum consensus berween both sides ofindustry on the ultimate aim of this type of participa-tion, which does not yet exist in some MemberStates ? That would seem to be jumping to prematureconclusions about the future. !(e feel that the intro-duction of a mandatory system after a certain periodhas elapsed is not a good way for Community legisla-tion to proceed.

\fle approve the Commission's working document tothe extent that, during a trial period, it permits :

- first of all, a choice regarding the participation ofemployees in the af fairs of companres in those

Member States which are not in a position to intro-duce employee participation in a company organ ;

- secondly, an option between a unitary or dualist struc-ture to be granted to companies in Member States

which do not wish to tntroduce a dualist structure as

the sole system.

However, we think we should review the situationafter a given period, at which time we shall be able tojudge whether further harmonization of national legis-lation seems possible in this field.

On the other hand, we cannot here and now prescribefor the future a system of worker Participation which,at the risk of seriously .jeopardizing its implementa-tion, cannot be imposed on the social fabric fromwithout. I repeat, we shall have to learn from volun-tary experiments at the end of an adequate transitionalperiod.

It goes without saying that, insofar as Mr Schmidt'sreport on behalf of the Legal Affairs Committeeunderscores very heavily the participation system forthe future, we can only come out against it. And Ishall emphasize in this connection that this reporttakes up again the proposal for a European Companywhich has so far not aroused much enthusiasm.

Those are very briefly, Mr President, the remarks Iwanted to make. We support the Commission in themeasures it has taken with regard to employee partici-pation, which remains a fundamental obiective. IU(e

also support it when it proposes, for a transitionalperiod, possible alternatives which take account of thediffering national situations. However, we cannot

support it when it seeks to lay down a mandatorysystem for the future.

President. - I call Mr Stetter to speak on behalf ofthe European Conservative Group.

Mr Stetter. - (DK) Mr President, I should like tosound a warning, on behalf of the European Conserva-tive Group, against dealing too hastily with this report.The way it was discussed in the Legal AffairsCommittee already smacked of political sharp prac-tice. It would have serious consequences for the reputa-tion of the European Parliament if this matter wererushed through in a few minutes. I cannot go into MrSchmidt's report in the time I have at my disposal,but I must categorically oppose the idea of employeesand shareholders being represented in equal propor-tions on boards of directors in certain companies.

Adherents of this proposal will perhaps point out thatthis is the system used in the iron and steel industryin \West Germany. I would reply, however, that onlyvery few of the Member States have a tradition of an

industrial structure which would make this systemworkable. It is the shareholders who bear and willcontinue to bear the financial liabiliry for thecompany and it is essential that they should make thedecisions if existing investments are to be guaranteedand maintained, and in order to ensure that newinvestments are made. \7hat we should do is to see toit that boards of directors continue to have a clearmajoriry of members elected by the shareholders. Thisis essential if Europe is to stand a chance of beingconsidered by third countries as a suitable area forinvestment in the future.

Politicians are not half as clever as employees.Employees know that cooperation and hence success

in business must develop naturally and spontaneously.Cooperation and success cannot be imposed by politi-cians. The originators of this proposal think that theyare meeting the wishes of the employees. This is

completely wrong, however, and I could give manyexamples to prove it.

The proposals of the Legal Affairs Committee have a

characteristic academic flavour about them. If theywere put into practice they would inevitably be thecause of new conflicts and probably cripple the deci-sion process.

The European Conservative Group has tabled 23amendments. I do not have time to go through thembut I should like to point out that one of their funda-mental aspects is that they advocate a return to theCommission's original proposal for a directive. TheEuropean Conservative Group intends to make use ofall possible means provided for in the Rules of Proce-dure to prevent a vote being taken too hastily and on

Siming of l7ednesday, 9 May 1979 r57

Stetter

an unrepresentative basis, with the unforeseeableconsequences this could have. I must therefore warnyou that we intend, if necessary, to invoke Rule 33 ofthe Rules of Procedure.

The report is a striking example of what the SocialistGroup will do if there is a Socialist majority in thisParliament following the European election on 7

June.

Should a vote in fact be held on this report contraryto our expectations, our group intends to vote against.This is a time not to embark on costly experiments,but rather to turn to account our experience and know-ledge in this important field.


Mr Ansquer. - (F) Mr President, this proposal bythe Commission of the European Communities hasbeen under consideration for seven years. I shall notgo back over the history of this directive, of course,but I should like to draw the attention of this Houseto the fact that Mr Schmidt's report was adopted bythe Legal Affairs Committee when practically onlyour Socialist colleagues were present.'\tr7e are unhappyat this, since we have not been able to express ourpoint of view.

In each of our countries, participation of employees inrunning industry is a fundamental issue. It enables a

company to be managed with regard for the legitimateinterests of the shareholders, without forgetting orneglecting the interests and advancement of itsworkers. On this point the Commission has a realisticattitude, since it recognizes the need to bring workersinto the affairs of the company. Our group welcomesthis. Indeed, as a matter of policy and ideologically wehave always advocated participation. It was one of thefundamental tenets of General de Gaulle and Presi-dent de Valera, who affirmed on many occasions thatthe assistance and participation of individuals is essen-tial for any collective enterprise.

'S?'e were among the first to maintain that participa-tion should become an irrevocable part of institutions,regional planning, working life and traditions. Theseare therefore our principles and we intend to upholdthem.

However, clearly, it must be recognized that a lot oftime and a lot of patience are required to translateideas into deeds. In France, as in other countries,there was no question for a long time of the dualistsystem. Consequently, although this system was intro-duced in France in 1966, barely ten out of every

hundred public companies have opted for the manage-ment and supervisory board system. Although it iscertainly a matter for regret, it must be stated that thissystem has not yet become widely accepted.

Mr Schmidt's report proposes to impose the dualistsystem, with a scheme for employee participationsimilar to that of the European Company. \(e sayquite clearly that, in our eyes, the rapporteur ismaking a mistake and showing a lack of realism. Howdoes he think it will be possible to actually imposesuch a system, which revives the European Companysystem which has been slumbering in the Council'sdrawers for five years ?

!7e therefore endorse the opinion of the Committeeon Social Affairs, Employment and Education which,in its wisdom, recommends that Community law onthe structure of companies be made sufficiently flex-ible to enable account to be taken of both thediffering national situations and the ultimate Commu-nity objective. 'We are not against the dualist system ;we approve of it. However, companies in countrieswhich have the unitary system ought to be able to optfor this system and not be compelled to adopt it.Once the ultimate objective has been laid down, theMember States should be allowed sufficient room formanoeuvre.

Our group has always come out in favour of participa-tion, but it feels that the proposals in the Schmidtreport are not commensurate with the current situa-tion and are liable to come to nothing. It would there-fore be appropriate, at the end of the transitionalperiod, to draw the conclusions from this experimentand to ask the Con-rmission to submit fresh proposalsto us.

President. - I am informed that CommissionerDavignon is obliged to leave tonight and will there-fore not be present tomorrow. As I suspect that theMembers, and particularly Mr Schmidt, would wish tohear Mr Davignon before we adjourn tonight, Ipropose to call Mr Davignon now and to call theother speakers tomorrow.


That is agreed.

I call Mr Davignon.

Mr Davignon, ^tVcntbcr o.f the Comntis.tion.- (F)MrPresident, the Commission regards this issue as a

fundamental one because it belongs to that part of theconstruction of Europe which shows the citizens, inparticular the workers, and all those who areconcerned in the affairs of companies that their rights


Davignon

are better protected within the framework of the Euro-pean Community than they would be if the Commu-nity did not exist. This is the main issue and, in theCommission's view, a fundamental part of the debate'

There is therefore on this point the same determina-tion, the same will and the same doggedness on thepart of the Commission to make significant Progresswith regard to legislation.

Secondly, Mr President, we think it would be a finething if, before adjourning in its current composition,the Parliament showed, on the eve of the elections,the will to put this idea into concrete form.

Thirdly, in several countries a system which has

worked particularly well in other countries is not yetacknowledged as the best. That is a fact. This does notmean that the countries where the system does existshould take a backward step. On the contrary, it is

necessary to continue to improve the system and toensure that, in countries where it does not exist, thepolicy debate is not concerned with the imposition ofone system to the detriment of another, but with theestablishment of an evolutionary system leading topositive results.

These are not subterfuges or rhetorical arguments. Itwould be unfortunate if the discussion of the Conser-vative Group's series of amendments resulted in thereport being referred back to Committee without thisHouse having made its policy known. Must it nowstate its policy and at the same time have already dealtwith all the technical aspects ? I think not, if we

consider ourselves to be in a developing situation.

I therefore ask the Parliament if it could not state its

very clear option on the will to put the process ofdevelopment into concrete form. In this connection, ifit can be of any help to Parliament, I readily agree, as

requested in the motion for a resolution, to takethings further than the working document which Ipresented at the end of last year. '\tr7e could veryquickly examine new working documents or newproposals with the new Parliament. This would not be

setting a precedent: on a previous occasion, Parlia-ment gave an initial opinion on certain aspects of the

Third Directive and subsequently delivered a second

opinion on the Commission's amended proposals. Ishould therefore like to assure Mr Schmidt that thereis absolutely no question of deferring the debate orresorting to delaying tactics. I would be most unhappyif Parliament did not give its opinion and this matterwere referred back to committee, whatever the reason

given. In view of the intensiry of the discussion whichis in progress in some countries, I believe that thisprocess of development which we have proposed andwhich we want to speed up is the one which will

enable employees who are not familiar with the kindof participation proposed here to benefit from it infull awareness of its obiectives.

If that were possible, it would encourage the Commis-sion which could give this issue high priority fordiscussion with the directly elected Parliament. \flewould thus have shown that people's - and in thiscase employees'- rights are better protected, in coun-tries where there is a dualist system, by the mandatorysystem which we would set up and, in countries wherethis system does not yet exist, by a number of provi-sions which, as a result of a process of development,will make this type of protection no longer a topic fordiscussion but a reality throughout the Communiry.

(Applane)

President. - It is time to suspend the proceedings.The debate is adjourned and will be resumedtomorrow morning.

26. Urgent procedure

President. - I have received from Mr Caillavet, onbehalf of the Committee on Agriculture, a motion fora resolution, with request for urgent debate pursuantto Rule 14 of the Rules of Procedure, on training anddevelopment for farming and rural life (Doc. 177179).

The reasons supporting the request for urgent debateare set out in the document.

I shall consult Parliament on the urgency of thismotion for a resolution at the beginning of tomor-row's sitting.

27. Agenda

President. - In agreement with the Committee onBudgets I propose that the ioint debate on the twoRipamonti reports on the supplementary draft esti-mates No 2 for 1979 and on the draft estimates forthe European Parliament for 1980 be taken as the firstitem on tomorrow's agenda.

The motions for resolutions contained in the reportswill be put to the vote tomorrow during voting time.

28. Tabling and inclusion in the agendaof a document

President. - At the request of the Committee onthe Rules of Procedure and Petitions I further proposethat the Luster report on the amendment of the Rulesof Procedure should be taken tomorrow after the jointdebate on the Ripamonti reports.

Are there any obfections ?

That is agreed.

Sitting of Sflednesday, 9 May 1979 159

29. Agenda for next sitting

President. - The next sitting will be held tomorrow,Thursday, l0 May 1979 at 10.00 a.m. and 3.00 p.m.,and possibly from 9.00 p.m., with the followingagenda :

- Vote on requests for urgent debate

- Joint debate on the Ripamonti reports on the draft estr-mates of Parliament

- Luster report on the amendment of the Rules ofProcedure

- Continuation of today's agenda

- Joint debate on the Caillavet report on the seminar ofthe Committee on Agriculture and the Fellermaiermotion for a resolution on the review of the commonagricultural policy

- Prsoni report on the market rn wine

- Hansen report on the calculation of MCAs

- Tolman report on isoglucose

- Joint debate on Howell and Nielsen reports on the milksector

- Joint debate on Lemp report on fisheries and Corriereport on fish farming

- Joint debate on Hughes report on enzootic leukosisamong cattle and Hughes motion for a resolution onnervous disease in pigs

- Br6g6gire report on tobacco

- Brugger report on the protection of animals

- Ligios report on Communiry citrus fruit

- Hansen report on the oil production register

- Friih report on hop producer aids

- Possibly, Albertini report on forestry policy

- Kavanagh report on fishing

- Sandri report on the creation of a European Agency forCooperation

- Nyborg report on working conditions

- Caro report on the European Youth Forum

- Martinelli report on cattle from Yugoslavia

- Notenboom report on own resources.

- 3.00 1t.m Question Time (questions ro theCommission)

- 3.45 p.rt. - Voting Time


(Tbe sitting closed at 9.30 p.m)


ANNEX

Questions wbicb could not be answered during Question Tinre, witb u;ritten ansu'eN

Que.:ition No 20, b1' ltdrs Eu'ing

Subject: Voting rights in direct elections.

In view of the fact that only Ireland and the United Kingdom have failed to grant to their crtizens

living in other Member States the right to vote in these countries'direct election in 1979, will theCouncil give assurance that, in considering any future proposal by the European Parliament under

Article 138 (3) EEC for a uniform electoral procedure for direct elections, it will take the necessary

steps to ensure that citizens of any Member State resident in another Communiry state will be able to

vote in their home country ?

Ansu'er

Under Article 7 (l) of the Act of 20 September 1976 the European Parliament is called to draw up a

proposal foi a uniform electoral procedure. This proposal wrll be submitted to the Council whichwill then act on the basis of the provisions of Article 138 of the EEC Treary and the corresponding

Articles o( the other Treaties. In these circumstances the Council cannot at this stagc prefudge the

provisions which the European Parliament will include in its proposal as regards voting rights fornationals of the Member States of the Community resrdent in another Member State, nor indeed

such provisions as the Council might adopt on the subiect.

Question No 24, by tllrs Euing

Subiect: Human Rights in the USSR

\Uhat steps are the Foreign Ministers taking to keep informed on the current position of breaches ofhuman rights in the Soviet Union, following the foint positions adopted by member countries of theCommunity at the Helsinki and Belgrade Conferences ?

Ansuer

In answer to the honourable Member's question, the Governments of the Nine would like to stress

their profound concern for the respect of human rights, which they regard as a vital element in thedevelopment of good relations between nations. They therefore consider it their dury vigilantly topursue the application by the participant States in the Conference on Security and Cooperation inEurope of this principle, which they were largely instrumental in including in the Final Act ofHelsinki.

At the last meeting of the representatives of the participant States of the C.S.C.E. in Belgrade, theNine therefore took particular care to review the application of the seventh principle of the Final Actand to draw attention to cases in which it had been infringed. Durrng 1978 the Governments of theNine reaffirmed their position, individually and iointly, in their statements of 28 May and l8 July,on the prosecution and conviction in the Soviet Union of individuals who had been charged withdemanding compliance with the Final Act of Helsinki in their own country. Faithful to their beliefs,and in consonance with the action they have already taken in this sphere, the Governments of theNine will remain attentive to every aspect of the respect of human rights and fundamental freedomsby the States which are signatories oI the Final Act. They reserve their legitimate right to make theirown comments and assessments, in the circumstances and cases which they judge to be most appro-priate, in the event of any infringement of that principle or failure to respect it.

Sitting of Thursday, l0 May 1979 t61

SITTING OF THURSDAY, 10 MAY 1979

Con te n ts

t64

164

165

165

l.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Approaal of minutes

Docuntents submitted

Decisions on requests for early aotes

Decision on urgency

Draft supplementary budget No 2 for 1979

- Estimates of Parlianunt for 1980:

Joint debate on tuo reports (Docs. 176/79and 185/79) b1 lllr Riparnonti on behalfof tbe Committee on Budgets:

A4r Ripamonti, rdpporteur

ilIr Danhert, on behalf of the SocialistGroup; .tuIr Notenboom, on bebalf of theCbristian-Democratic Group (EPP); ltlrBrsndlund Nielsen, on bebalf of theLiberal and Democratic Group; tVr Ripa-monti; tllr Dankert; .fuIr Ripamonti; MrShau .

Amendment of tbe Rules of Procedure ofParliament - Report (Doc. 178/79) by MrLuster on bebalf of tbe Committee on theRules of Procedure and Petitions:

illr Luster, rapporteur

frIr Patijn ; lllr Cunringbam; hIrHamilton Lord Reajt, on behalf of theEuropean Conseraatiae Group .

Directiae on the protection of the inserts 0fmembers and otbers in soci4tds Anonlmes(resumption) :

A4r aon Bismarck; ll4r Jakobsen ; hlr Chris'tensen ; fuIr Geurtsen ; Air Broehsz

lllr Schm idt, rapporteur

lllr Gundelach, Vice-President of tbeCommission; LIr aon Bismarck; LtrBertrand; -tuIr Sieglerschmidt ; fuIrGeurtsen

Point of order: lllrs Dunutoodl

lllr Stetter; tVr Caro .

Question Qaestion Time (Doc. 142/79)(conclusion)

Questiotrs to tbe Commission:

Question No 8, by lllr Houell : Disasteraid to soutb and east England :

fuIr Tugendbat, lllember of tbe Contnris-sion; Mr Howell ; hlr Tugendbat

Point of order: llr Houell

Question No 10, by )llr Osborn : fuloderni-zation of special steel, tool steel and cutleryindustries :

1z< lllr Giolitti, lllentber of the Comnrission;roJ tVr 0sborn; llr Gioliiti; .fuIr Corie; tWrGiolitti

r85

185

Question No 11, by hlr Kaoanagb: Deae-lopment of bogs for agricultural purposes :

Alr Gundelacb, Vice-President of theCommission; Mr Kauanagh; lWrGundelach

Questiott No 14, fu lllr Scblns: Distortionsof competition in tbe transportation oftimber:

*Ir Tugendhat ; lllr Scbyns ; lllrTugendhat ; frIr Sbau; tllr Tugendbat ;|l1r Corrie ; lllr Tugendhat

Question No 15, by lWr Dondelinger:Problems raised by redundancies :

lllr Tugendhat ; lllr Hugbes ; lllrTugendhat; Nr Harnilton; lllrTugendhat; hlr Corie; lVr Tugendhat;llrs Dunuoody ; lllr Tugendhat ; Lordillurral of Graaesend; ^fuIr Tugendbat

Question No 17, by Lord Bessborougb :

Relations uitb tbe neu goaernment ofZimbabwe-Rhodesia :

LIr Giolitti ; lllr Osborn ; hlr Giolitti ; hlrsDunwoodl ; Alr Giolitti; lllr Howell ; lVIrGiolitti; JVr Hamilton ; lWr Giolitti ; lllrDanhert ; lllr Giolitti; Air Christensen ;lllr Giolitti ; hlr Fellermaier; hlr Giolitti ;lllr Broeksz; tuIr Giolitti; Lord Ardwick;tVr Giolitti; Alr de la A4aline ; lllr Giol-

186

187

6.

166

174

178

179

183

187170

t7t

7.

r88

8.


itti ; l4r Spdnale ; tutr GiolittiPoint o.f order: A4r Fellernaier

9. Vote-s

Ripartonti report (Doc. 185/79): Draftsupplenentary budget No 2 for 1979:Points of order: Mr Dankert.l[r Ripamonti, rapporteurMr Danhert ; fuIr Klepsch ; foIr Spdnale ;A'Lr Danhert ; Mr fuIitcbell ; fuIr Spdnale ;Mr Notenboon ; fuIr A4itcbellAdoption of tbe resolution

fulr Tugendhat, frIember of tbe Comnission

Ripanonti report (Doc. 176/79) : Draft esti-,ndtes of Parlianrent for 1980:Point of order : A4r Dankert .


Bertrand and otbers notion for a resolu-tion (Doc. 165/79): Entployntent ltoliclt:Anrendntent after paragraph 1 :

fuIr Be rt ra n d, rappo rt e il rlllr AlbersAdoption of tbe resolutiott

Pintat report (Doc. 42/79): Enlargement oftbe Contntunitl: :

Arnendntent after paragrapb 12:.fuIr Bertrand, deput1 rapporteilrAntendrnents to paragraph 20 :

ll4r BertrandAmendment after paragrapb 43:fuIr BertrandAdoption of tbc resolutionZagari report (Doc. 132/79) : Hunanrigbts in Etbioltia:Adoption of tbe resolutionFlcimig report (Doc. 54/79): JRC nulrian-nudl resedrch programme 1980'1983 :

Anendment after paragrapb 9 :

.fuIr Fltirn ig rapport eurAdolttion of tbe resolutiortFltimig report (Doc. 74/79): Communica'tion on cooperation witb deueloping coun-tries in tbe field of energ:,tuIr Klepscb


Brotun report (Doc. 19/79) : Electricitl'production :

Explanation of aote : ,fufr AlbersAdof tion of tbe resolution

Fltimig report (Doc. 96/79): Energy situa-tion in tbe Communitl :

Adolttion of tbc resolutionLustcr report (Doc. 178/79): Amendmcnt ofthe Rules oJ' Procedure of Parliantent :Point of ordcr: Mr CunninghamAntendntent to Rule 7a of the Rules ofProccdure :

.foIr Klepscb, deputl rapporteur

l4r Patijtt ; hlr Klepscb

Amendntent to Rule 35 of the Procedure :

tutr Klepsch

Points of order: Mr Spdnale ; Mr Klepscb ;hlr Cunningham; *Ir Klepsch ; .fuIrSpdnale ; .toIr Broeksz ; tulr Klepsch ; lllrsDunwoodl; .fuIr Holst ; fuIr Sieglerscbnridt ;tllrs Dunwoodl; LIr Cunningbam ; LordKennet ; fuIr Broeksz ; hlrs Dunuoody . . . 198

Directiae on tbe protection of tbe interests,f members and otbers in soci4tds

anonlmes (resumption) :

tVr Caro 200

fuIr Schmidt, rapporteur 201

Point of order: Sir Dereh, lV'alker-Smitb 202

-foIr Broeksz ; fuIr Schmidt ; Mr Bertrand;Sir Derek lV'alher-Smith ;lllr Caro 203

Economic and trade relations between tbeEEC and New Zealand - Report (Doc.

107/79) by Lord Castle on bebalf of theCommittee on External Economic Rela-tions :

Mrs Dunwoodl, deputl rapporteur

*Ir Tolman, on bebalf of tbe Cbristian-Democratic Group (EPP); *Ir Nyborg, on

bebalf of tbe Group of European Progres-siue Democrats ; Mr Gundelacb, Vice-Presi-dent of tbe Commission ; Alrs Dunwoody;,fuIr Tolman 206

210

13. Seminar beld by tbe Comtnittee on Agricul-ture at Echternacb - Reuiew of tbecommon agrirultural poliq Jointdebate on a report (Doc. 128/79) b1' hIrCaillaaet on bebalf of the Comntittee onAgriculture and a motion for a resolution(Doc. 155/79) by,ilLr Pisani and .tuIr Feller-maier:

lV r Ca i I laue t, rappo rt eu r 210

Mr Pisani, autbor of the motion for a reso-

lution 213

fuIr Gundelacb, Vice-President of theCommission 214

Limitation of speaking tinre 218

Seminar held by tbe Conntittee on Agricul-ture at Ecbtemacb - Reuiew of tbeconmon agricultural poliq' (resuntption) :

hlr Hoffntartn, on bebalf of tbe SocialistGroup ; tu[r Tolntan, on bebalf.of tbe Cbris-tian-Democratic Groult (EPP); Mr Corrie,on bebalf of tbe European ConseruatiucGroup ; .lVr Christcn.ten 218

190

191

192

192

r92194t94

194194

195

195195

197

198

10.

I l.

12. Agenda

204r95

r95

195

t96

r96

196196

196

197

197 t4'

15.

197

197

Sitting of Thursday, l0 May '1979 t63

16.

17.

18.

Regulation on tbe market in wine -Report (Doc. 87/79) by .tuIr Pisani onbebalf of tbe Comrnittee on Agriculture

Calculation tf monetary compensatoryamounts in tbe wine sectlr - Report (Doc,79/79) by tuIr Hansen on bebalf of theCommittee on Agriculture :

hlr Hugbes, deputy rapporteur

Regulation on isoglucose L Report (Doc.182/79) by Mr Tolman on bebalf of tbeCommittee on Agriculture :

Mr Tolman, rapporteur

Mr Gundelach, Vice-President of theCornrnission

frIilk sector - Joint debate on tuo reportsby Mr Howell (Doc. 11t/79) and MrNielsen (Doc. 127/79) on behalf of tbeCommittee on Agriculture :

hlr Corrie, deputl raPporteur

.fuIr Nielsen, rapporteur

fuIr Gundelacb,' Vice-President ,f tbeCornmission

Fisheries and fish farming - Joint debateon tuo reports b1 Mr Corrie (Doc, 116/79)and hlr Lernp (Doc. 130/79) on bebalf oftbe Comrnittee on Agriculture:

-fuIr Corrie, rdpporteur

Nr Hugheq deputy rapporteur

Alr Kaaanagb, draftsman of an opinion ;Mr Gundelacb, Vice-President of theCommission

Enzootic leuhosis among cattle - neraousdiseases in pigs - Joint debate on a report(Doc. 105/79) and a motion for a resolu-tion (Doc. 76/79) by l[r Hugbes on bebalfof tbe Committee on Agriculture :

,fuI r Hughes, rapport eur

hlr Gundelacb, Vice-President of tbeComntission

Point of order: lVr Hugheq uice-cbairmanof the Cornmittee on Agriculture

Regulation on the Perustitza and Erzego-aina uarieties of raw tobacco - Report(Doc. 85/79) b1 lltr Brdgdgire on bebalf oftbe Committee on Agriculture ,

Directirc on the protection of animalsduring international transport - Report

(Doc. 129/79) b1 Mr Brugger on bebal.f o.ftbe Contnittee on Agriculturc 229

Regulation on Connnunitl* citrus .fruit -Report (Doc. 183/79) b1 Mr Ligios on

behalf of tbe Conrmittee on Agriutlture 229

Regulation on the oil production regirter

- Report (Doc. 180/79) b1' Mr Hansen onbehal.f of tbe Comnrittee on Agriculture:

Mr Nielsen; fuIr Gundelacb, Vice-Presidentof tbe Contnission 229

Regulation on aids to hop producers -Report (Doc. 181/79) b1 ,tuIr Friib on bebalfof tbe Committee on Agriculture 229

Contmunication on forestry poliq* in theCommunity - Report (Doc. 184/79) by lVrAlbertini on bebalf of tbe Cotnnrittee onAgriculture

223

223

223

223

224

224

225

225

226

227

228

228

228

25.

26.

27.

28.19.

230

29. Actittities of fisheries auxiliary c'esseh -Report (Doc. 101/79) by .ilIr Kaaanagb onbebalf of tbe Committee on Social Affairs,Employment and Education :

lll r K ao-a n a g b, ra p p o rt e u r

-tVr Geurtsen, on behalf of tbe Liberal andDemocratic Group ; Air Gundelacb, Vice-President of tbe Commission ,

Deaelopment and training for farmingand rural life - fuIotion for a resolutiott(Doc. 177/79) by Mr Caillauet on bebalf ofthe Comntittee on Agriculture :

Mr Hugbeq deputy rdpporteur

.fuIr Gundelacb, Vice-President of theCommission

Regulation on tbe creation of a EuropeanAgenq for Cooperation - Report (Doc.aa/79) b1 Mr Sandri on bebalf of tbeCommittee on Deaelopment and Coopera-tion :

fuIr Sandri, rapporteur

fuIr Giolitti, Mernber of tbe Commission

Communication on working conditions -Report (Doc. 111/79) by .tuIr Nlborg onbebalf of tbe Committee on Deuelopmentand Cooperation:

Mr Nyborg, rapporteur

.fuIr Albers, deputl draftsman ,f anopinion ; .fuIr Christensen ; Mr Nyborg; ,fuIr

Giolitti, fuIember of tbe Contmission; MrNlborg 232

20.

230

23t

232

232

230

30.

231

23t21.

31.

22.

23.

24.

229

32.


33. Europearr Youth Forun - Report (Doe.

151/79) b1' Mr Caro on behalf of tbeConrntittee on Social Affairs, Enploynentand Education:.fuIr Caro, rctPporteur 235

.foIr Albers, o,t bebalf of the SocialistGroup ; fulr Giolitti, ALenrber tf theComntission 236

34. Regulatiott on oun resources - Report

IN. THE CHAIR: MR HOLST

Vice President

(The sitting was opened at 10.15 a.m.)


l. Approual of ntinutes

President. - The minutes of proceedings of yester-day's sitting have been distributed.

Since there are no comments, the minutes of proceed-ings are approved.

2. Docurnents tubntitted

President. - I have received the following docu-ments:

a) from the Council, requests for opinions on :

- the proposal from the Commission to the Council fora regulation extending Regulation (EEC) No. 2862177

concerning agricultural levies om imports of certainadult bovine animals and beef from Yugoslavra (Doc.t72/7el

which has been referred to the Committee onExternal Economic Relations as the committee resp-ponsible and to the Committee on Agriculture andthe Committee on Budgets for their opinions ;

- the proposal from the Commission to the Council fora directive amending for the seventh time Directive73l24l|EEC on the approximation of the laws of theMember States relating to cocoa and chocolateproducts rntended for human consumption.

which has been referred to the Committee on theEnvironment, Public Health and Consumer Protec-tion.

b) from the Committees, the following reports :

- report by Mr Shaw on behalf of the Legal AffairsCommittee on the proposal from the Commission tothe Council for an eighth directive pursuant toArticle 54 (3) (g) of the EEC Treary concerning the

(Doc. 167/79) by ,tuIr Notenboom on bebalfof tbe Contmittee on Budgets 237

Regilation on imports of adutt boaineanimals from Yugoslaaia - Report (Doc.174/79) by .tuIr llartinelli on bebalf of tbeCommittee on Extemal Econotnic Rela-tions . 237

Agenda for next sitting 237

Annex 238

approval of persons responsible for carrying out statu-tory audirs of the annual accounts of limited Iiabilitycompanies (Doc. 173179) ;

- report by Mr Martinelli on behalf of the Committeeon External Economic Relations, on the proposalfrom the Commission to the Council for a regulationextending the period of validiry of Regulation (EEC)

No 2862177 on levies applicable to imports of certainadult bovrne animals and beef from Yugoslavia (Doc.t7al79);

- report by Mr Luster, on behalf of the Committee onthe Rules of Procedure and Petitions, on the amend-ment of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parli-ament (Doc. 178/79);

- report by Mr Hansen, on behalf of the Committee onAgriculture, on the proposal from the Commission tothe Council for a regulation amending Regulation(EEC) No 154175 as regards the financing of theregister of olive cultivation (Doc. 180179);

- report by Mr Friih, on behalf of the Committee onAgriculture, on the proposal from the Commission tothe Council for a regulation laying down aids to hopproducers for the 1978 marketing year (Doc. l8ll79);

- report by Mr Tolman, on behalf of the Committee onAgriculture, on the proposal from the Commrssion tothe Council for a regulation amending Regulation(EEC) No lllllTT laying down common provisionsfor isoglucose (Doc. 182179);

- report by Mr Ligios, on behalf of the Committee onAgriculture, on the proposal from the Commission tothe Council for a regulation amending Regulation(EEC) No 2511169 layrng down special measures toimprove production and marketrng of Communitycitrus fruit (Doc. 183/79);

- report by Mr Albertini, on behalf of the Committeeon Agriculture on the communication from theCommission to the Council concerning forestrypolicy in the European Communiry (Doc. 184/79);

- report by Mr Ripamonti, on behalf of the Committeeon Budgets on the supplementary draft estimates ofrevenue and expendrture of the European Parliamentfor 1979 (Doc. 185/79) (originally this repon was tohave dealt with the draft supplementary budget No 2

for 1979).

35.

36.


3. Decision on requests for early aotes

President. - The next item is the decision on tworequests for early votes.

I first put to the vote the request for an early vote onthe motion for a resolurion (Doc. 166179) tabled byMr Bertrand and others on behalf of the Christian-Democratic Group (EPP) to wind up the debate onoral question Doc. 126179 on employment poliE.

The request for an early vote is adopted.

The motion for a resolution will be put to the vorethis afternoon. I now put to the vote the request foran early vote on the motion for a resolution (Doc.169179) by Mr Fellermaier and others on behal. of theSocialist Group to wind up the debate on oral ques-tions Docs 125179 and 126179 on employment policy.

The request for an early vote is rejected.

Pursuant to ftule 25 of the Rules of Procedure themotion for a resolution is referred to the committeeresponsible.

4. Decision on urgenE

President. - The next item is the vote on urgentprocedure in respect of the motion for a resolution(Doc. 177/79) on deoelopment and training forfarming and rural life, tabled by Mr Caillavet onbehalf of the Committee orr Agriculture.

The request for urgent procedure is adopted.

I propose that this motion for a resolution be place ontoday's agenda after the Kavanagh report.


5. European Parliament draft estimates

President. - The next item is the joint debate on :

- the report (Doc. 176179) drawn up by Mr Ripamontion behalf of the Committee on Budgets on the draftestimates of revenue and expenditure of the EuropeanParliament for the financial year 1980;

- the report (Doc. 185/79) drawn up by Mr Ripamontion behalf of the Committee on Budgets on supple-mentaty draft estimates of revenue and expenditure ofthe European Parliamenr f.or 1979.


Mr Ripamonti, rapplrt (I) Mr President,ladies and gentlemen, it was agreed yesterday eveningto combine the debate on the draft Parliament esti-mates for 1980 with the debate on the situationarising from the Council's failure to draw up draftsupplementary budget No 2 concerning the delibera-tions on its own estimates of the European Parliamenton 15 March.

After the Bureau meeting this morning, theCommittee on Budgets looked at this problem inawareness of the urgent need to approve the supple-

mentary budget f.or 1979 inasmuch as it relates tocertain appropriations not included in the budget forthe current financial year, for example the paymentfrom 17 July onwards of the allowances for membersof the institutions, the rent and operating expenses ofthe premises required for the proper functioning ofthe Parliament of 410 members, and the need toensure that 107 permanent posts and 2 temporaryposts can be added to the establishment plan, as wellas to strengthen the reserve list of officials attached tothe political groups.

At yesterday's sitting, the Bureau of Parliament agreedon the urgency of these measures and pointed out thatit would be better to disregard what had been decidedat the sitting of 15 March concerning the 188 frozenposts made available to the new Parliament, sincethese posts could not be filled even if Parliamentwished to do so in the last few months of this year, onaccount of the procedures for unfreezing them and fortaking on staff.

The Bureau has therefore pointed out the desirabilityof drawing up a new supplementary budget, and thismorning the Committee on Budgets accepted. thissuggestion, after ascertaining that the Council has notchanged its attitude - which derives from the declara-tion included in the minutes of its meeting of 22April 1970 - of not intervening on questions relatingto the Parliament budget, and acknowledging thatParliament has the power to decide on its own budget.This declaration represents a gentlemen's agreementbetween the Council of Ministers and Parliament andis made effective by the budget procedure itself. Thefinal decision on the operating expenditure of Parlia-ment falls therefore, in accordance with the Treatiesand the Financial Regulation, to Parliament itself.

On the basis of these considerations, the Committeeon Budgets has approved a new draft supplementarybudget for the current financial year which containstwo changes with respect to the decision taken on 15March 1979. The first change is the elimination, for1979, ol the 188 frozen posts for the new directly-elected Parliament, posts which - as I explainedyesterday evening when presenting the draft budgetfor 1980, are to be included, on a proposal from Parlia-ment, in the establishment plan for 1980. The secondchange, resulting from the first, affects the amount ofappropriations additional to the draft 1979 budget. Asthe 188 frozen posts are not included, the estimatedexpenditure in the corresponding chapters is reducedby a total of I 340 000 EUA, so that the new draftsupplementary budget involves an increase in expendi-ture over that envisaged by the 1979 budget of29 986 995 EUA.

This decision will provide the new directly-electedParliament with appropriations to cover the paymentof the allowances to Members of Parliament, whosenumber will increase from 198 to 410. It should benoted that, in the current budget of the European


Ripamonti

Parliament, these emoluments are calculated for only198 Members. Moreover, this enables the administra-tion to take on 107 officials and 2 temporary officials,to add eight posts to the reserve list for the groups -as unanimously requested by the Sroups themselves

- and to have appropriations for furnishing the new

premises and for operating expenditure, which, as youno doubt realize, will inevitably increase when themembership of Parliament rises to 410.

A problem arises here which is closely connected withthe budget procedure. I7hen supplementary budgetNo 2 is drawn up by the Council and communicatedto Parliament, the decision on the matter must be

made known to the Members of Parliament, who willhave the right to debate it.

I hope that the commitment we are making today onthis supplementary budget will lead to a similar atti-tude being taken when it is finally examined. Parlia-ment has the right to review the Council Decisionunder the normal budget procedure. I think, therefore,that there will be a need for another debate, followingthe budget procedure envisaged by the Treary and theFinancial Regulation, in this Parliament before 17

July next, that is before the inaugural sitting of thedirectly-elected Parliament, so as to complete theprocedure for the approval of supplementary recti-fying budget No 2 which will be drawn up by theCouncil. On behalf of the Committee on Budgets, Iask Parliament to bear in mind the desirabiliry ofapproving this new supplementary budget and ofvoting on it today. It could then immediately be

communicated to the Commission and the Council so

that the latter may draw up the supplementary esti-

mates No 2 of the European Communities.

(Applause)


Mr Dankert. - (NL) Mr President, I should like tobegin by thanking, on behalf of my Group, Mr Ripa-monti and the others who have spent many hoursdiscussing the supplementary budget during the past

week. However, the result of their labours is not bril-liant, although they cannot be blamed for this.

This is, in fact, another of those famous smoke-screens, whose purpose is to save loss of face. I don'tthink we shall get away with it entirely. For thisreason it is a good thing that the supplementarybudget f.or 1979 and the draft budget for 1980, whichhas a somewhat different legal significance, are beingdealt with together. This gives me an opportuniry tosay a few words on the notorious 188 frozen posts.

The motion for a resolution accompanying the supple-mentary budget for 1979 refers to the laudablecustom, in existence since 1970, whereby the Councildoes not concern itself with Parliament's budget. Thetext of the motion also notes that 'the Council does

not intend going back on the declaration included in

the minutes of its session of 22 April 1970 whichrecognizes thenceforth the power of the EuropeanParliament over its own budget'. This considerationthen leads to a number of conclusions,

I have some doubt about the accuracy of this consider-ation, or at least about the need to include this para-

graph, since it is perfectly clear that the Council has

intervened in this budget, particularly as regards those188 posts.

In the preliminary stages Parliament nonetheless

approved resolutions, I think it was in March, whichquite clearly referred to those 188 posts. Now these

188 frozen posts have suddenly disappeared and are

nowhere to be seen. My question is, where are they,who caused them to vanish ? Since the text of themotion states that the Council does not intend goingback on its declaration of April, I must assume that itwas the Bureau of this Parliament which removedthose 188 posts.

If that is so, I should like to have had the Bureau say

so earlier. I can well imagine that the Bureau took theview that they had made a mistake, that these posts

were not necessary after all, and that if the new Parlia-ment felt that, after all, some or indeed all of theseposts were needed or should be included in frozenform in the budget the new Parliament would be able

to arrange for that in the context of the 1980 budgetprocedure. Instead, they have disappeared f.or 1979 | |take this to mean that the Bureau accePts that theywere not urgently required in 1979, and that we shallfind them reappearing in the 1980 draft budget.

My own personal inclination was originally to recom-mend to Parliament that it should also scrap these 188

posts from the 1980 draft budget, to ensure that theBureau is consistent, but opinions were divided in myGroup and we shall not make this proposal. Theseitems have disappeared for 1979, and they should alsonot have been necessary for 1980. Moreover, if thenew Parliament considers that they should be

included after all, it can arrange for this quite easily inthe budgetary procedure. However, I must admit thatmy argument becomes a bit contorted, because as Isaid I read 'the Council does not intend . . . . . .'. Thereis in fact an enormous inconsistency between the rwoversions : between the motion for a resolution relatingto 1979 and the background to it, and the draft budgetfor 1980.

I believe that we have therefore to accept that Parlia-ment has gone back on its earlier decisions relating tothese 188 posts. If the Bureau insists that the Councildid not intervene, we must regard that as a terminolog-ical inexactitude, as a specimen of parliamentaryhypocrisy. The fact is that there has most certainlybeen intervention, and that the Council and theBureau of Parliament reached agreement during theirdiscussions during the last few days whereby Parlia-ment has to swallow these 188 posts. That being so,let us not pretend otherwise. Instead of proposing, as


Dankert

was my original intention, that these 188 posts shouldbe removed from the 1980 draft budget, I have got myGroup to agree that we shall abstain from voting onthis paragraph in the 1979 motion for a resolution,which refers to the Council's intention not to interferewith Parliament's powers with respect to its ownbudget.

So, Mr President, subject to these reservations myGroup is able to go along with the rest of what MrRipamonti said. But, again, I hope that this kind ofsituation can be avoided in future. It is naturallyextremely important that the principle that theCouncil keeps its hands off Parliament's budgetarypowers in this respect should be observed, and thatthe Council should continue to respect the situationwhich has prevailed in the past. I well understand thatdifficulties can arise during the transition from the oldto the new Parliament, but I believe that it is of vitalimportance to the new Parliament that the Councilshould not again do what it has done on this occasion.

President. - I call Mr Notenboom to speak onbehalf of the Christian-Democratic Group (EPP).

Mr Notenboom. - (NL) Mr President, theCommittee on Budgets has had to meet four timesthis week already, quite apart from all the meetingsbefore that. I share Mr Dankert's assessment - theresult of our efforts is not brilliant, but we have doneeverything that could be done and the rapporteur andthe many others who took part deserve our thanks fortheir work and for their effors to find sensible solu-tions which can help us along for the time being. Ourgroup fully supports the motion for a resolution,despite its lack of brilliance. The primary objective ofthe supplementary budget for 1979 is to make itpossible to receive the new Members and allow themto begin their work. That is Parliament's responsi-bility. The second aim is that the agreement betweenthe Council and Parliament on non-interference ineach other's budgets should be respected, and that thepowers which Parliament has obtained, at the cost ofconsiderable effort, should not be encroached upon.

Once again the Council has egg on its face. TheCouncil consists, of course, of nine individuals, inother words nine points of view, and these nine indi-viduals could not agree, so that no decision wasreached. Certainly some of those in the Council hadan interest in having a dig at Parliament for internalpolitical reasons. There will also have been membersof the Council who wondered whether Parliamentwasn't going a bit far with these 188 posts. Nonethe-less, the important thing is that, at least formally, theCouncil did not want to go back on the importantagreement on non-interference. !7e should not forgetthat, and we too should respect that agreement. I have

already stressed the importance of this agreement as

an element in our powers on two occasions, but Ishould like to add my personal opinion - and I

think the lawyers will approve of this - that this kindof gentlemen's agreement, which are so important, areonly of value when they are respected by both sides.

'$7e must hand on this tradition to the new Parlia-ment. I fear that in the past this was not always thecase, even on our side. In my personal view it was notnecessary at this stage to create extra grades, either inthe management levels in the directorates-general, orin the translation division. I shall not go into this anyfurther ; this is a personal view which I share with a

number of Members. Parliament must be well awarethat this sort of agreement will only last if we are rea-sonable, and the same applies to the Council. TheCouncil must also be reasonable.

Our group also supports the draft estimates for 1980,that is the report and the motion for a resolution,while realizing that there are two discussion stages tocome, namely the first and second readings, and thatthe directly-elected Parliament can cut down orexpand if it so wishes. For that reason, we support thisestimate at this time, although I must admit that, likeMr Dankert, I have my doubts, and even though Irecognize that the inclusion of these posts in the 1980budget is not without risks, even for Parliament's posi-tion. However, given that it is an estimate which wehave to settle now, and that the directly-elected Parlia-ment can trim or expand it, our group supports the1980 estimate as proposed by the rapporteur.

President. - I call Mr Brsndlund Nielsen to speakon behalf of the Liberal and Democratic Group.

Mr Brondlund Nielsen. - (DK) Mr President, myremarks will be brief, since I can say that I feel satis-fied with the motion we have before us. It is correct tosay, as Mr Notenboom has just done, that we heldmany meetings in the Committee on Budgets and weare of the opinion, in our Group, that the compromisethat has now been arrived at is reasonable and sens-ible.

Perhaps someone in this Assembly remembers theviews which I, as the Liberal spokesman, expressedduring the previous debate on the budget. In the lightof those views, this present development is a reason-able one, the new directly-elected Parliament will beable to consider the composition of its staff, both interms of numbers and of the whole structure, and Ihope that the opportuniry will be taken to considersome of the views which I put forward previously. Inthe same context, I should also like to stress that theestimates for 1980 are only a preliminary draft whichthe new Parliament can alter. I would add that, withregard to the possibility of including proposals forextra expenditure in that draft, it should be remem-bered that it is easier to prune the budget in its finalform than to have new appropriations added to it. The1980 budget, which will be passed on to the new Parli-ament, is therefore essentially a fresh canvas to becompleted in whatever way the Parliament sees fit.


Brsndlund Nielsen

Consequently, we think that it would not be reason-able at present to thrash out this matter in Parliament.At the same time, it would be wrong not to make prov-ison for the staff changes which the new enlargedParliament will naturally need to make, given that itwill have twice as many members as previously. Andso, against that background, we can say that the prop-osal before us is right and proper. I would also saythat there is no question of Parliament's budgetarypowers being changed, much less reduced, which is as

it should be. The Liberal and Democratic Group is

therefore fully in favour of this motion.

President. - I call Mr Ripamonti.

Mr Ripamonti, rapporteur. - (I) Mr President, Iwish first and foremost to thank those who took anactive part in the meetings of the Committee onBudgets, as well as Mr Dankert, Mr Notenboom andMr Nielsen who took part in the debate, for following,in their approach to the supplementary rectifying esti-mates No I of Parliament and to the draft budget for1980, the line suggested by Mr Nielsen - to leave thedirectly elected Parliament a preliminary draft whichwould allow it to take the final decisions both on theestablishment plan and on appropriations. fu MrNielsen stated that it is easier to revise the budget byreducing appropriations than by increasing them.Secondly, I wish to mention that, with regard to theestablishment plan, the initiative was taken not by theCommittee on Budgets but by the Bureau under theterms of Article 49 of Parliament's Rules of Procedure,that there was a long debate before the first draftsupplementary budget was being approved and thatthe Committee on Budgets has drawn up comparativetables of the present and future structure to providethe Members of the directly elected Parliament withall the information required to draw up the establish-ment plan.

My third point concerns the new draft supplementarybudget. In our discussions with the President-in-Of-fice of the Council we noted that the Council ofMinisrers has not changed its attitude, expressed inthe declaration included in the minutes of themeeting of 22 April 1970, of fully acknowledgingParliament's power to decide on its own budget. Norcould it be otherwise, since this power is conferred onParliament by the Treaty and the Financial Regula-tion. There was therefore no conflict between theCommittee on Budges and the Council of Ministers,but the need was borne in mind to include in the newestimates the most urgent headings - those relatingto permanent posts and appropriations - since itwould be difficult to fill the 188 frozen posts in thelast four months of 1979, precisely because it was Parli-ament which froze them.'We can not therefore acceptthe suggestion, Mr Dankert, that there has beeninterference on the part of the Council of Ministers.

On the contrary, the Bureau considered the desira-bility of reinstating the 188 posts in the budget andconfirmed the earlier decision to put these posts atthe new Parliament's disposal. There has thereforebeen no retreat on the part of Parliament, such as

might suggest collusion between Parliament and theCouncil of Ministers. I think we have acted in fullawareness of the electoral atmosphere in which Parlia-ment is currently meeting and of the undesirability ofstarting a conflict between Parliament and theCouncil of Ministers at this stage on a problem which,essentially, is not so urgent as to require a solution inthe course of this part-session. On the other hand, wehave reaffirmed the exclusive responsibility of Parlia-ment - if the representative of the Council of Minis-ters will forgive with regard to its own budget.Yes, there is a gentlemen's agreement between theCouncil of Ministers and Parliament, by virtue ofwhich I as rapporteur on the budget estimates of theCouncil of Ministers for 1980 made no comments ontheir substance, nor did the Council of Ministersmake comments on our draft budget for 1979.However, in addition to this gentlemen's agreement,there are the rules laid down by the Treaties and theFinancial Regulation, which cannot be tinkered witheither by the Council of Ministers or by Parliament.

Finally, I wish to point out that there is a proceduralproblem which we are leaving the new Parliament --of which I shall not be a Member - to solve. ArticleI of the Financial Regulation stipulates that the proce-dure for supplementary and rectifying budgets issimilar to the procedure for the ordinary budget esti-mates of revenue and expenditure. Consequently, theterms of Article 203 of the Treaty relating to the deci-sions of the Council of Ministers and Parliament areapplicable by analogy to the procedure followed forsupplementary budgets. \(e did not wish in this part-session to go into what was the correct interpretationof the combined provisions of these two articles.However the problem, as I said in my report, can beput in the following terms: if one allows that, oncethese supplementary budget estimates have been trans-mitted by Parliament to the Commission and by theCommission to the Council, and when 45 days haveelapsed after the Council's decision the budget isfinally approved without Parliament having been ableto study this decision, one is treating the Parliamentdecision in a different way from that of the Council ofMinisters.

To avoid this we ask that, after today's decision infavour of the supplementary budget estimates No 2 ofthe European Parliament, Parliament should beconvened to receive an official communication of theCouncil of Ministers' decision and express an opinionon it. In this connection we entirely reaffirm thepowers of the' European Parliament deriving fromArticle 203 ol the Treaty and Article I of the Finan-cial Regulation, just as we confirm that the whole

Sitting of Thursday, l0 May 1979 159

Ripamonti

procedure hitherto followed has shown full respect forthe fact that it will be the directly-elected Parliamentwhich draws up the budget estimates for 1980concerning its own operations. In conclusion, I shouldlike to thank not only my colleagues but also the offi-cials who assisted in the difficult drafting of thesedocuments, and particularly the Secretary and officialsof the Committee on Budgets. I think that the speed

with which we manage to communicate the docu-ments to Parliament must be ascribed to theknowhow and goodwill of our officials who have

always assisted us competently and objectively.

Finally, I am certain that Parliament will vote infavour. I share Mr Dankert's concern and thank him :

he promised that his Group would abstain and nottable amendments to the draft budget, bearing inmind that the directly-elected Parliament will have

the last word.

(Applause)

President. - I call Mr Dankert.

Mr Dankert. - (F) Yes, Mr President, I am surprisedat one element in Mr Ripamonti's reply. He criticizedme for saying : 'The Council intervened', whereaswhat I in fact said was: 'The Council did not inter-vene'.

Mr President, that is basically what I wanted to say. IfMr Ripamonti says'there was no intervention on thepart of the Council', perhaps he can tell me preciselywhat happened to the 188 posts which existed untilthe day-before-yesterday and then disappeared all of a

sudden ? In what mysterious circumstances have theydisappeared, and who is to blame for their disappear-ance ? I am still waiting for a reply to this question.

President. - I call Mr Ripamonti.

Mr Ripamonti, rdpporreur. - (I) Mr President, Irespect the right of Members to make comments andask for clarification, and I have replied to Mr Dankertthat in my view, as I have already said in theCommittee on Budgets, any decision on changes tothe establishment plan deriving from Parliament'sdecision of 15 March must be left to the Bureau. At itsmeeting yesterday the Bureau decided against rein-stating the 188 frozen posts in the draft supplemen-tary budget which we shall vote on today, since thelack of time makes it technically impossible tounfreeze the posts and take on staff between Octoberand December.

The Bureau has therefore decided under the terms ofArticle 49, paragraph 3, that the 188 posts should be

inserted in the draft estimates for 1980 and then be

subject to the decision of the directly-elected Parlia-ment.

Moreover, I replied to Mr bankert that there was a

long discussion, a kind of shuttle service between the

Bureau and the Committee on Budgets, under theterms of Articles 49 and 50 of the Rules of Procedureof the European Parliament. I mentioned that theCommittee on Budgets had drawn up comparativetables of the present situation and the future establish-ment plan, together with a breakdown of posts, toenable the directly-elected Parliament to make an

exact assessment of the sftuation and take the finaldecision. The new Parliament therefore even has theoption of deciding that it does not need to use the188 posts which we are reinstating in the draft esti-mates for 1980, and after 5 October, when theCouncil of Ministers will have drawn up andcommunicated to Parliament the overall budget of theEuropean Communities, Parliament will be able totake a final decision on the basis of the documentswhich the present Committee on Budgets willtransmit to the future Committee on Budgets. I thinkthat the minutes of our meetings can be very usefulfor assessing how seriously and in what depth wetackled these problems ; taking account of the factthat it was impossible to adopt positions which mightpre-empt the decisions of the directly elected Parlia-ment.

I thank Mr Dankert for his intervention, whichenabled to give Parliament this further clarification.


Mr Shaw. - V..y briefly, I think it would be inappro-priate to let this occasion pass without thanking MrRipamonti for the tremendous amount of work thathe has carried out in very difficult circumstances. MrDankert has said that there is an air of mystery ;

frankly, the pressure of work in this last part-sessionmay well have led to an air of mystery - sometimes Ilike an air of mystery - but through it all Mr Ripa-monti, our rapporteur, has led us carefully and, Ithink, rightly. I would like to thank him and to say

that we will follow him along the course that he has

outlined to us.

(Applause)

President. - I have no more speakers listed. Thetwo motions for resolutions will be put'to the vote as

they stand during voing time this afternoon. Thedebate is closed.

5. Amcndment of tbe Rules of Procedure ofParliament

President. - The next item is the debate on thereport (Doc. 178/79) drawn up by Mr Luster on behalfof the Committee on the Rules of Procedure and Peti-tion on the amendment of the Rules of Procedure ofthe European Parliament.

I call Mr Luster.


Mr Luster, rdpporteilr. -

(D) Mr President, in yester-day's plenary sitting rwo motions for resolutionsinvolving amendments to the Rules of Procedure weretabled and then referred by Parliament to theCommittee on the Rules of Procedure and Petitionsfor its consideration. The Committee on the Rules ofProcedure and Petitions discussed these motionsyesterday and is today able to let you know theoutcome. One of the motions was tabled on behalf ofall six political groups, and the other by five groups.This meant that they were important motions whichwere sure to be adopted. Despite this, when thecommittee met yesterday, it looked carefully into hownecessary, practical and right they were. SomeMembers maintained that at this late stage we shouldnot anticipate the directly elected Parliament. Thepoint was also raised that in this Parliament theremight not be i quorum to vote on amending theRules of Procedure, and it was proposed that, insteadof a motion for a resolution to amend the Rules ofProcedure, we could restrict ourselves to makingrecommendations to the new Parliament.

The great majority of the committee approved themotion for a resolution and the two amendmentsproposed, one of which involved the insertion of a

new Article 74. ln Parliament we already have a

system by which three quaestors are responsible foradministrative and financial matters directlyconcerning Members. I am sure we all agree that thissystem has proved successful, and the quaestorsdeserve Parliament's thanks. However, this system hashitherto not been enshrined in the Rules of the Proce-dure.

On the basis of the Bureau's experience it appearedexpedient, since potentially administrative and finan-cial matters may always be relevant in its delibera-tions, to include the quaestors as attending but notvoting members of the Bureau. If this is to happen, itwould be convenient in future to elect the quaestorsimmediately after the election of the Vice-Presidents.The Rules of Procedure must make both substantiveand formal provision for this before the new Parlia-ment is constituted, which is what the new Article 7Ais intended to do. The method of election and thelength of office will be the same as for the Vice-Presi-dent. The new article provides for at least three quaes-tors. There was a difference of opinion on this incommittee, since some Members felt that the provi-sion would be more precise if there were a fixednumber of quaestors and that therefore it would bebetter to delete 'at least'.

The authors of the motion explained to thecommittee that the insertion of the indefinite 'at least'had been a compromise solution, since some of thesix groups favoured five quaestors while the otherswanted three as before. The committee finally agreedby a large majoriry to the proposed version of Article7/..

!7ith regard to the second motion proposing theamendment of Article 35 (5), the question was alsoraised as to whether it would not be better to leavethis matter to be dealt with by the new Parliament,which alone would know best what it wanted withregard to its Rules of Procedure. It might want ro laydown stricter or less strict rules governing theminimum number required to form a group.

However, the view which predominated in committeewas the one which had moved the authors to table themotion, namely that the amendment was a necessaryconsequence of the increase in the number ofMembers of Parliament from the present 198 to 410in the new Parliament. Proportionally this means thatinstead of l4 being the minimum number required toform a group if they come from only one MemberState, in the new Parliament it will be 29.

The same proportional increase also means that theminimum number of Members required to form a

multinational group will in future be 2l instead of thepresent 10. At the same time we have, in the interestof small groups, struck a compromise that from nowon groups formed from Members from two countriesinstead of three will qualify as multinational groups. Afurther consideration was that, if Article 36 (5) were toremain as it is, when the new Parliament with its 410Members is constituted there could be tiny groups ofl0 Members with all the disproportionate demands forsecretariat staff and equipment which this wouldinvolve. Presumably the new Parliament, in accor-dancce with all parliamentary experience, will notwant such a situation. It was therefore felt that wemust make sure in advance that when the new Parlia-ment is constituted it does not first have to botherwith the question of the minimum number requiredto form a group. Also it is more convenient to settlethe matter now, since before the election this problemcan be solved with greater objectiviry, if only withregard to a quonrm being present in Parliament.Tactical considerations as to appropriate timing whichmight arise among groups of Members after the elec-tion do not now apply. As I indicated at the outset,the majority of the committee agreed with these viewsof the authors and approved the proposed amend-ment.

I should like, if I may, to deal immediately with anamendment tabled today by Mr Cunningham andproposing that Article 36 (5), unlike the commiueeproposal, should stipulate 2l as the minimum numberrequired to form a group.

If I am not mistaken, this amendment in its presentform was not dealt with by the committee, although itmust be stated that by this wording Mr Cunninghamhas expressed his general, feeling of dissatisfaction. Ifwe were to adopt Mr Cunningham's amendment -and I expressly advise the House not to do so - we


Luster

would be acting contrary to the procedure applied bythe Committee on the Rules of Procedure and Peti-tions in adopting new Rules of Procedure. A longtime ago we asked ourselves whether we should, on

the basis of this Parliament's experience, make propo-sals to the new Parliament for a considerable numberof amendments to the Rules of Procedure. But then

we agreed to propose only amendments arising fromthe changed numerical situation in the new Parlia-ment. Mr Cunningham's amendment goes beyondthis. Of course he has the right to table it, but I iustwish to make it clear why I advise the House not toadopt it.

After dealing with the amendments to the Rules ofProcedure, the committee had to consider the resul-

tant motion for a resolution which is now before you.

The committee also adopted by a large majoriry thismotion for a resolution in is Present form. On para-

graph I of the motion for a resolution Mr Yeats raised

the point that it should state that the present Parlia-

ment was tabling these amendments solely in view ofthe urgency of the situation and on condition that the

new Parliament would be able to adopt its own Rules

of Procedure and amend the present provisions. Thisproposal obtained a majoriry in committee. Of course

there was complete agreement with Mr Yeats withregard to the competence of the new Parliament, butthe committee felt that this was superfluous and

might be taken as a sort of apology, which was notcalied for since the present rules required amendmentin any case.

Lastly it had to be decided when these amendmentswere to come into force. It was unanimously agreed

that they should not do so before the end of thepresent Parliament's period of office. They shouldcome into force at the very beginning of the directlyelected Parliament's period of office. These considera-

tions led to the somewhat complicated wording ofparagraph 3 of the motion for a resolution before you.

This wording is taken from the rePort on the Rules ofProcedure, Document 667178, and means in practicethat the amendments come into force at midnight on

16 July 1979.

On behalf of the Committee on the Rules of Proce-

dure and Petitions, I should like to ask the House toadopt the motion for a resolution and the two amend-

ments to the Rules of Procedure. I should like to add

that I am also making this request on behalf of the

Christian-Democratic Group.

President. - I call Mr Patiln.

Mr Patijn. - (NL) Mr President, I should like tomake a brief comment exclusively on my own behalf.

!7hat Mr Luster has iust said is naturally extremely

important. !7hat we are doing, after all, is binding the

new Parliament as to what is and what is not a group,and everything that this involves. !7ill it then be

possible to work with the existing secretariat and theexisting staff ? I have not the slightest difficulry withthe proposal to double the number of members, since

it must be clear right from the beginning what thesituation is.

If Parliament is to be doubled, it is not unreasonable

also to double the number of members needed toform a group. Five per cent remains five per cent, and

that is what it takes to form a group.

However, that is not what is at issue here. The real

issue is something else - the vital point is that thisParliament should not be taking decisions, less than a

month before the direct elections, on the methods ofwork to be adopted by its successor, except where thisis strictly necessary. !7hen we were discussing thebudget a few moments ago, and included a number ofposts but finally not the 188, that was because we

limited ourselves to what was absolutely necessary as

far as our own budget was concerned.

The building going on in Strasbourg and here has todo, not with the fact that a decision must be taken onthe seat of this Parliament, but with the limited butabsolutely necessary realization that we have to be

able to meet somewhere. That is what is at issue and

that is our job. !7e have to make sure that there isaccommodation for the new Parliament.

One point in Mr Luster's report causes me some diffi-culty. If the new Parliament meets in September and

then says, the old Parliament got it all quite wrong,this should be done this way or that, we are going tochange the numbers needed to form a group and so

on, then the new Parliament is perfectly free to do so.

It could even do this on 17 July. I fully agree that the

new Parliament must be able to fix its own rules. But

I do feel that we should provide a basis. !7e have toknow what's what.

But why is it necessary to settle the position of thequaestors ? !7hy is it suddenly necessary to includethe quaestors as members of the Bureau, in a ratherinconclusive manner at that ? Are they also membersof the enlarged Bureau ? Or will they only be there inan advisory capacity ? Are vice-chairmen permitted tobe quaestors or must the latter be outsiders who are

not vice-chairmen ? Is that at any rate what is beingsuggested in Article 7A? ls this really necessary -can it not wait until September or October ?

Does this really have to be decided in June at the last

moment ? I must say that I regard this question of the

quaestors in Article 7A, as an example of Parliament'sgoing too far. Nobody knows whether the new Parlia-ment will leave the composition of the Bureau as itnow is or whether it will not want a different kind ofBureau.


Patifn

Personally, I have considerable objections to thepresent situation where Parliament is all too oftenpresented with faits accomplis by the Bureau. Thenew Parliament should give some serious thought towhether this method of working should continue. Yethere we are saddling the new Parliament with threequaestors who are being included in the Bureau. Thiswill be an elephantine body, and it is clear that in thefuture financial matters will also be kept carefullyunder wraps in the Bureau.

Well, I want none of it ! That would mean that therights of the Committee on Budgets would be under-mined. In my view there is no real need for Article7A at this time, and I should like to suggest to Parlia-ment - and I am speaking entirely on my ownbehalf - that it scraps Article 7A from the proposaland approves exclusively Article 36 (5). '!7e areengaged here in usurping the rights of our successors,who will be able to decide at their ease in October orNovember whether they wish to arrange matters thisway or not. And I shall be perfectly happy if theydecide to look into the composition, activities andfunctions of the Bureau in its totaliry.

President. - I call Mr Cunningham.

Mr Cunningham. - Mr President, in any parlia-ment nothin8 is more important than that the parlia-ment should adhere to its own rules. And I am verykeen that when considering making a change to ourrules today, there should be no doubt whatsoever thatwe are going to adhere to Rule 54(2), which says thatany motion for a change in the rules themselves shallbe adopted only if it secures the votes of the majoriryof the Members of Parliament.

Now, Mr President, before coming to the points ofsubstance I wish to make on this subject, I wonder if Icould ask you to clarify one possible area of doubtwith regard to the application of the rules to themanner in which we are going to decide the issuetoday. As I read the rules, there can be no doubt thatRule 5(2) applies, and that unless, therefore, 100Members vote this afternoon for these changes theywill not pass. It would, however, be possible for a

clever lawyer to say that Rule 33 (3) or Rule 33 (a) hasthe effect of overriding Rule 54. The sub-paragraphsin Rule 33 to which I have referred are the oneswhich say that an application must be made beforevoting begins by a minimum number of Members inorder for any account to be taken of the number ofpeople who have voted for or against a question.

Now, Mr President, if you are able to do so I shouldbe grateful if at this stage you would clarify for theHouse whether or not sub-paragraphs 3 and 4 of Rule33 will be held to override the very clear and unequiv-ocal statement in Rule 54 that you need 100 votes topass these questions this afternoon...

President. - Mr Cunningham, this question wasdiscussed before the sitting and it was decided that itwas Rule 54(2) which would apply in the voting thisafternoon, which means that a majority of theMembers of Parliament, i. e. at least 100, will have tobe present. Neither I nor anyone else can tell whetherso many urill in fact be present, but it has beendecided that Rule 54(2) will apply.

Mr Cunningham - . .. I am most grateful, Mr Presi-dent, for that, because obviously if there had been anyquestion of having to invoke the procedures of Rule33 then one would have had to gather signatures andso on.

Now, Sir, I can be very brief on my points ofsubstance on these proposals. I think we all agree thatchanges to the rules should be only made at thisdying stage of this Parliament if there is an over-whelming case for them, and, I would add, if they arelikely to be relatively uncontroversial in the opinionof the Members of the new Parliament. It is not for usto saddle the Members of the new Parliament with anarrangement which they would find it much moredifficult to change back again than to introduce in thefirst place. That is the principle upon which I thinkwe should go. I therefore entirely agree with theremarks made by my colleague, Mr Patijn, with regardto the proposal on the questors. I do not think it isnecessary for us to do anything at this stage. !7eshould leave that to the new Parliament, and I can'tsee any case at all for the proposal on the quaestors.

Coming to the business of group sizes, I have alwaysfelt that it was wrong for our rules to discriminateagainst the one-country group. It is highly desirablethat a group in this Parliament should be on a multi-national basis. I think that any group like the Conser-vative Group, which is almost a one-country group,has severe disadvantages and loses much of the meritof operating in a multi-national Parliament; but I donot think that this is a provision which should find a

place in the rules. !7e should encourage ourselves tohave multi-national groups, but we should not build itinto the rules by making such a provision. It is in therules at the moment, and I would prefer to see it out.Now there would have been no possibiliry of movinga change in the present rule, and certainly no possi-biliry of getting 100 Members to vote for it" so I havenot initiated any change in the rule as it stands now.But if somebody else is initiating such a proposal,then I am entitled to put in an amendment to do it inthe way I think is right. That is the explanation forthe amendment which I have tabled, which in essencesays we should get rid of the discrimination against a

one-country 8rouP.

Secondly, I do not think it is automatic and neces-sarily commonsense to say that if you double the sizeof the Parliament you have to double the minimumpossible size of a group. It is one thing to say that you


Cunningham

should not acknowledge a grouping of nine Membersas a formal group. It is another thing to say you willnot accept 20 Members in the new Parliament. 20

Members in the new Parliament will only constitutethe same percentage, of course as nine or ten-today.But if 20 Members of the new Parliament choose tocome together, if they choose to agree sufficiently onmatters of policy and procedure to bring themselves

together, are we really going to say that those 20

Members are to be treated as if they are all separate

independent Members, not only denied the finance,which is very, very important, but kept out of all thebehind-the-scenes riggings that go on in this Parlia-ment ? It would be grossly unfair. Of course we can

argue a long time about the actual number, but Icannot see how anyone can reasonably argue that ifthere are 20 Members in the new Parliament, whetherdrawn from one country or from nine, who wish toband together, that they should be denied the proce-dural and financial advantages of being a group.

I would hope, therefore, that the House this afternoonwill decide not to pass either of these amendments. As

a fall-back from that, I would hope that the House

will just not be able to pass the alterations, even if itwishes to do so. The ideal arrangement in my viewwould be to pass my amendment, and then pass theamended resolution. But I would beg people not tocreate the impression that we are rigging things inadvance against any possible small groups that mightfind themselves in this Parliament. Far too much inthis Parliament is done by the Bureau, and Membersdiscover about it afterwards - if they discover about itat all. I want to see a stop put to that, and a move

made in the other direction, rather than see the wholething built into concrete in advance of the new Parlia-ment coming into existence.

President. - I call Mr Hamilton.

Mr Hamilton. - Mr President, the House will prob-ably know that I was the acting chairman of thecommittee which discussed these matters yesterday. Iconfirm the arithmetic of Mr Luster; it was a well-attended committee meeting and we agreed by a

substantial majoriry that the recommendations of thepolitical leaders of the groups be accepted. I made myown position quite clear at that meeting, and I had

made it clear long before we met yesterday, that thetime had come - and I think I said this originally at

least six months ago - when we, in this Parliament,should avoid interfering with the way in which thenewly elected Parliament might or might not behave.

'S7e are acting today, it seems to me, in an absurd way.

Obviously the numerical size of a political group musthave regard to the increased size of the newly electedParliament - that goes without saying. It does notneed any sagacity to assert.that. I think for us to sitformally in a committee or in this Parliament and

decide that the number must be incrreased is daft -to use a British expression.

That alone, however, should have been the limit ofthe recommendations coming from the leaders of the

political groups, if any at all. The whole idea behindthese newly discovered reforms in our Rules of Proce-

dure suggest that a little more attention should be

paid to the ulterior motives of the people puttingthem forward. !7hy has it suddenly been discoveredthat at least three quaestors should be on the Bureau ?

!7hy has it suddenly been discovered that thereshould be certain modifications as to the compositionand size of a political group ? It merits much closerexamination than it has had hitherto. I do not likesudden conversions; I get very suspicious of suddenconversions of this kind, and I suspect that there are

motives among the leaders of the current politicalgroups which have not been disclosed - they prob-ably want to try and make certain that if any of themshould be in the directly-elected Parliament, they willhave what we call a quango in Britain. They are tryingto carve out for themselves a certain position in thenew directly elected Parliament.

I come to the latter point that Mr Cunningham raised,concerning the nationalities in the political groups. Iam firmly of the view, as a committed European, thatthe sooner we get rid of this concept of nationaliry thebetter. After all, that is what the Communiry is

supposed to be about, sinking our individual nationali-ties in favour of a European concept, and yet here we

are putting it down in our rules that unless a group is

representative of certain nationalities, or of a certainsize, then it cannot be recognized as a political group.

I take the very simple view that once we have decidedon the minimum number for a political group, it does

not matter where they come from. They can come allfrom France, they can come all from Britain, they cancome all from any other one country of from all nineor twelve; as long as they comply with the minimumqualification as to numbers, it does not matter a damnas to the nationaliry of those members. For thatreason I myself, although I was the chairman of thecommittee that agreed to accept these proposals, Imust exercise my right as an individual and voteagainst them.

President. - I call Lord Reay to speak on behalf ofthe European Conservative Group.

Lord Reay. - Mr President, the proposals for thesetwo amendments originated, as has been pointed out,in an agreement reached between the chairmen of thegroups. As Mr Hamilton has just emphasized, therewas strong support for them. There were somecontrary votes, but the vast majority of the votes cast

at the well-attended meeting of the Committee on theRules of Procedure and Petitions yesterday was in


Lord Reay

favour of these two amendments, and my group willgo along with Mr Luster's report on them.

As far as the amendment to introduce a reference tothe quaestors in the Rules of Procedure is concerned,I have no reason to suppose that the fears MrHamilton expresses are correct, that there are ulteriormotives behind the proposal that there should be a

reference to the quaestors in the Rules and that thereshould be the qualification that that there should beat least 3 of them. It seems to me reasonable that thisinstitution should have a reference in the Rules wehand over to the new Parliament and also reasonableto suppose that the number of 3 may prove insuffi-cient when that Parliament is enlarged to 410Members.

I must say that I somewhat agree with the reservationexpressed, I think by Mr Patiin, with regard to thesecond paragraph. I am not quite sure why it shouldrefer to the need for the quaestors to be members ofthe Bureau in an advisory capacity. This seems to mea little obscure and possibly the rapporteur couldexpand on what the intention behind this is, and whatsort of members of the Bureau they are to be. But I donot have any great fears in that regard and do not seeit as a sufficient reason for reiecting the proposal.

!flith regard to the proposal to change the minimumnumbers required to form a group, I am entirely infavour of the proposed amendment. It seems to me anextremely modest amendment. It does no more thanmake a proportional adaptation to the rules for thenew directly elected Parliament. It would seem to mein fact absurd not to try and take some sort ofmeasure of this kind.

!7e are going to give a rule book to the new Parlia-ment. It is not that we are not handing them rules,and it seems to me that it should be our duty to tryand see that these rules reflect as closely as possiblethe realities of the new Parliament. Very considerableprivileges are attached to forming a group, and itseems to me quite reasonable therefore that a limitshould be set on the number of groups that can beformed within a parliament.

It would seem to me that Mr Cunningham's proposalthat we should change the rule which stipulates that,where a group is composed of less than 14 Members,at least three Member States must be represented in it,would introduce a more important change thanhitherto proposed. In fact the proposed amendmentmakes a concession in this direction when it statesthat in future a group of 2l Members need onlycontain Members from two nationalities. This conces-sion is along the lines of what Mr Cunningham wanrs,and it seems to me that it goes far enough for themoment.

It is the function, I think, of this Parliament to havemultinational groups. I do not see any objection in

principle to the Rules of Procedure containing a provi-sion discouraging the formation of national groups. Icertainly think there should be a limit on the numberof groups that can be formed within the Parliament,and I therefore considered this amendment to rheRules as a very modest amendment entirely withinour capaciry and within our rights to propose for thenew Parliament. The new Parliament will be able tochange the proposal if it wishes to do so. If we put inthe amendment, we protect the Parliament from thepossibility that, small groups may be formed beforethe future Parliament has had a chance to grasp thequestion directly.

For all these reasons, Mr President, I am strongly infavour of that amendment and I hope - although inview of the objections which have been raised, andyour (in my opinion correct) ruling that the voreshould be taken under Rule 54, I am not very confi-dent - that it will be passed this afternoon. However,I certainly hope it will be.

President. - I have no more speakers listed. Themotion for a resolution will be put to the vote,together with the amendments tabled, during votingtime this afternoon. The debate is closed.

7. Directiae on the protection of tbe interestsof *Iembers and others in soci4tds anonjmes

(resumption)

President. - The next item is the resumption of thedebate on the Schmidt report (Doc. 136179).

I call Mr von Bismarck.

Mr von Bismarck. - (D) Mr President, ladies andgentlemen, yesterday, on the occasion of winding upthe work of the present Parliament, we heard someextremely solemn and thoughtful words about thequaliry of this Parliament and its commitment to thecause of democracy. But I think we all also appreciatethat this is a democracy with the qualiry of freedom,in which power is so controlled and balanced that theindividual citizen has freedom which he does not iustaccept impassively but enjoys with an active sense ofresponsibility. From the beginning, the balance ofpower in democracy has always exercised people'sminds. I think it is the first rask of any parliamenr -and this has usually been the main justification for thesystem to ensure the equalization of powerbetween citizens and between groups of citizens. Andthis is likely to remain the main task of this Parlia-ment when it is directly elected. !7e certainly have a

number of objections to the distribution of power atpresent obtaining in European affairs.

Among many other things, employee participation isalso a question of the distribution of power and it isnot enough for as to parade the moral objective ofinvolving workers in economic decision-making: we


von Bismarck

must give thorough prior consideration to theconsequences of any changes we adopt.

The rapporteur said yesterday that Parliament wouldbe failing in is duty if it did not now reach a conclu-sion in this matter, and he based this on the fact thatthis draft directive has been before us for several years.

There is no doubt, however, that it would be an even

worse failure on the part o[ Parliament if we were

now, without carefully weighing the pros and cons, toadopt in this House a motion which - as I was toldyesterday - came before a very one-sided selection ofthe members on the Legal Affairs Committee at itslast meeting. This would be much worse because itwould show a degree of carelessness in handlingpower. And that, ladies and gentlmen, is somethingwe cannot afford after 79 yearc of the rwentiethcentury. Our experience of power has been too seriousfor us to treat it lightly. Care in making any changesin the distribution of power is therefore a basic prin-ciple, and then we should remember that the propo-sals being made here are not of a general nature butgo into details - and details about which it is impos-sible for the average Member of Parliament to have

any expert knowledge from personal experience, any

more than an ordinary trade union member or busi-ness man can understand what we actually do here

and how we reach our decisions. To put it in a lightervein : after nine months in this House, and even withl0 years' experience in another parliament, it is quiteamazing to see how decisions are hatched here. It is

thus all the more difficult for us here to judge howdecisions are reached on a supervisory board.

This is therefore not the place to try and interfere,after an hour or two's discussion, with the details ofpower sharing. If we want to achieve more employeeparticipation in Europe, we must not make maximumdemands, particularly on questions of detail. The prop-osals before us here are essentially concerned withChapter II, Article 3 (2) and Article 4, paragraphs 3, 5and 6, which cover areas in which one Communirycountry already has a great deal of experience. For thepast 30 years we have been experimenting andgaining experience in this field. The striking thinghere, however, is that these proposals disregardprecisely this experience. In 1976, with all-parryapproval, we passed a bill in the Bundestag whichtook account of the lessons learned in our country.Precisely the proposals contained in that bill have allbeen pushed aside, although they were put forward.!7hy should this be ? S7e put forward these proposals

because our experience in handling power led us to be

more cautious here. I should like to give you a classicexample. In our dual system - a supervisory boardcontrolling the management organ, the board ofmanagement - if we have a regulation, as is proposedhere, giving thE unions the right to appoint a memberof the management board, the employee director, thenthis disturbs the balance between management boardand supervisory board, as well as the relationship

between the management board as the employers'representative t'is-d-tis the unions on the one handand the employees' representatives on the other hand.The basis for free collective bargaining - to put it inindustrial relations terms - is destroyed. !/hat wouldthis mean ? It would destroy the autonomy of wage

negotiations, the mechanism which allows wages, the

price paid for work, to be freely agreed. The alterna-tive would be orders handed down from governmentofficials, from civil servants. That, ladies and

gentlemen, cannot be our aim. To put it plainly, thiswould mean adopting an arrangement which woulddestroy a key feature of our system, namely the abiliryof the people, the unions and the employers todetermine free prices.

The second point is that this proposal, which covcrssomething that we in the Federal Republic have notfound to be an acceptable solution, is designed toarrange things in such a way that there is no longerany clear way of resolving conflicts. According to thisproposal, a person is to be put at the top, with powerto take decisions, who will normally have no specialistknowledge. !7e have tried this and in our opinion it is

not a good arrangement. Moreover, the result is to esta-

blish within the management board a situation where,in ways that are difficult to detect from outside but are

thus all the more effective, the members of the boardare dependent on trade union decisions. This meansan end to decisions on introducing new products oropening up new paths. !7e shall eliminate couragefrom the boardroom, thereby eliminating also - and

this is a very serious point - the increases in produc-tiviry which form the basis for all our hopes ofimproving the social balance, improving the distribu-tion of wealth in Europe and helping the underdeve-loped countries. If we eliminate courage from theboardroom we shall substantially reduce the rate ofincrease in productiviry. This is an extremely seriousquestion, which we cannot afford to see in terms ofthe clich6s of capital and labour.

There is one last point I should like to make. Theproposal put forward here to make a sizeable reduc-tion in the minimum number of employees, i.e. thenumber above which this participation system applies,has also not been properly thought out. This systemrequires a certain organizational capacity in the firms.The figure 250 takes in a large number of small andmedium-sized firms and would impose quite excessive

burdens on the whole small-business sector.

Finally we have here the proposal to allow theMember States to decide whether the workers are tohave an individual say, in other words how the elec-tion process is to operate. That is precisely the oppo-site of previous practice. This now sets aside a lesson

we have learnt, namely that it is important for theworkers to hold elections on the factory floor, thusleaving the possibiliry that the unions alone may be

allowed to decide.


von Bismarck

These examples should be enough to show that thisquestion has not been discussed thoroughly and noaccount has been taken here of the lessons that wemust take into account if we are to be sufficientlycareful in the way we handle power. S7e now proposethat Mr Caro's amendment, which fits in exactly withwhat Mr Davignon said yeiterday, should be adopted.In this amendment the Commission is asked tosubmit as soon as possible an improved proposaltaking account of the experience gained. And that iswhy it says that a workable form of parity must befound, i.e. one that is compatible with the laws offreedom and of power and is balanced and wellthought out. I think this amendment should be accep-table to everyone in this.House. It may well be right

- and Mr Davignon commended them for thisyesterday - for the Legal Affairs Committee to callon us to set out objectives here that are applicable atEuropean level. But it would be quite wrong for us tomake detailed, extreme demands which are not practi-cable and would in fact reduce this whole affair to anabsurdity. I ask yort, therefore, to adopt our amend-ment.

(Applause)


Vice-President


Mr Jakobsen. - (DK) Mr President. I am very sorrythat my colleague, Mr Stetter, had to concentrateyesterday on points of procedure since there were only5 minutes left. I am not objecting to him doing so butit was a pity since both Mr Stetter, the EuropeanConservative Group and myself have a number offundamental points we wish to make which are tosome extent in line with what Mr von Bismarck hasjust said and some views were expressed in yesterday'sdebate with which I feel in any case obliged todisagree.

I fully support Mr Stetter's remarks ; it is indeed themost preposterous idea imaginable to resort to sharppractice of this kind to get such a motion through thisParliament. Now, when we are on the brink of directelections, to behave in such a way is like treading onpeople's corns. It is a most sensitive issue in all ourcountries. People say that down here there are cliquestrying to foist something on the member countries,particularly the small countries, which they do notwant, and this is a typical example. There are very fewpeople in Denmark who have any enthusiasm for thismotion, and that goes for the working class too.

Almost everything in this document rests on falsepremises. It was said yesterday that the Conservativeswere reactionaries, but that depends on the direction

taken by developments. If you think that the path tosocialism and collectivism is inevitable, then it is fairto describe those who wish to follow a different pathas reactionaries. But it is wrong to assume that we areheading for increased collectivism and moving awayfrom private ownership and private initiative, that isno longer the case. Even in Eastern countries moreand more emphasis is being put on getting the indi-vidual to assume responsibility, getting him toproduce etc. The participation of employees is advo-cated in the report but it is really the participation ofthe trade unions, of shop stewards which is aimed at.In any case, there ought to be a provision stating thatemployee participation would be agreed to only oncondition that a maiority of the employees in anyundertaking voted for it, for if the employees do notwant it their professional organization must not forceit on them. That would be unreasonable.

There was a reference yesterday to another falsepremise, when it was said that this was in the main anattempt to achieve industrial peace, but that is not a

convincing argument. Industrial peace in our labourmarkets is not disturbed by the lawful trade unions. Inall our countries, with the possible exception of theUnited Kingdom, trade union leaders are moderatepeople who understand the country's needs but, ifthese moderate leaders share responsiblity for theundertaking, the revolutionary groups among theworkers will do everything possible to embarrass theselawfully elected leaders, there will be more, and notless, unrest, that is what will happen everywhere. It isnot the lawfully elected trade union leaders in thevarious countries who cause unrest in the labourmarket, but rather small groups which, in oppositionto the lawfully elected leadership, start wildcat strikes.Finally, there is one other obiection I would make. Itwas stated, I think by Mr Schmidt, that this was ameasure which could be implemented without diffi-culty in all the member countries. Not in Denmark. Itis probably against Danish Constitutional law right ofproperty, which is interpreted by both sides ofindustry to mean that the employer has the right todirect and allocate work. This is a provision of Danishbasic law. No Danish Government can deviate fromthis principle and, if the Government was in anydoubt about any legislation which seemed to be inbreach of it, then not less than 50 members of theDanish Parliament could demand a referendum on itand it would be resoundingly rejected. In Denmark,with the many small firms which are a dominantfeature of the country, there is no popular demand forrestriction on private initiative or for controls of largeundertakings, for we have none of any importance.Such a measure could therefore not be implementedin Denmark, although I know quite well that there arethose who would like to. Denmark stands firmlybehind the system of private capitalism, as does a

majority of the Social Democratic voters. I am sure ofthat because I was in that party for 40 years and was


Jakobsen

one of its members in the Folketing for 20 years. Amajority of the Social Democratic Party in Denmarkdoes not want socialism nor anything that tends

towards it and that is really what this motion is

aiming at.

It would remove an employer's right to direct and allo-cate work and would as a result undermine the verybasis and essence of the capitalist system ; I wouldtherefore warn all those who are not for ideological,fanatical reasons committed to supporting thismotion. I would recommend that it be reiected and, inany case, it would suit the Socialist Group if it was

withdrawn and if we said that Mr Davignon's rroposalrepresents a considerble step forward, that we are fullyconfident that Mr Davignon will continue along thesame path and that we would urge the new Parliamentto adopt the same attitude. But this motion, putforward on one of the last days of this Parliamentdoes, I repeat, tread on people's corns.


Mr Christensen. - (DK) Unlike my compatriots,Mr Stetter and Mr Jakobsen, I am opposed to thismotion not out of concern for the interests of theemployers nor because of conservative principles ; myattitude is based rather on the idea of national self-de-termination. I do not think that the article referred toconfers any legal or treaty right on the European

Communities to adopt this proposal.

I would also argue that the labour market has a rightof self-determination and that these are matters whichthe free organizations of the labour market, bothemployers' and employees' organizations, shoulddiscuss and decide on, instead of having to conform toa preconceived pattern over which they have no influ-ence. The right place for discussions and decisionsabout such matters is the shop floor and it should be

up to the employees themselves to assess the impor-tance of the right to participation and to decide theirattitude to it. It should be up to them to fight forgreater rights of participation if they want them.

I shall therefore vote against this motion because itinfringes the national right of self-determination and

the labour market's right of self-determination, as

regards both employers and employees.

President. - I call Mr Geurtsen.

Mr Geurtsen. - (NL) Mr President, I have asked tospeak, not on behalf of my Group, but as vice-chairman of the Legal Affairs Committee. Thechairman, Sir Derek S7alker Smith and the other vice-chairmen are unable to be present, and I am thereforethe only one here able to represent the Legal AffairsCommittee.

It has been recalled in this debate that we are

discussing a proposal which has been under examina-tion by Parliament for a long time: indeed, the

committees have been looking at it since 1972. Thiscertainly true, as far as it goes, but part of the reason

for the long delay is that the European Commissioncame up with amendments to the proposals it had

originally submitted. So it is not the case that themost recent version of this proposal is seven years

old ; it is in fact about rwo years old. By itself, ofcourse, this is no reason to say that we need not dealwith it as rapidly as possible. But the point has rightlybeen made in today's date that this matter is tooimportant to be rushed. !7hen I look at what has

happened in recent months, and I have had the privi-lege of looking at this matter both in the Committeeon Social Affairs, Employment and Education and inthe Legal Affairs Committee, I am obliged to recallthat the Social Affairs Committee formulated itsopinion to the Legal Affairs Committee in a space ofapproximately ten minutes, without learning what MrSchmidt intended to propose to the Legal AffairsCommittee. And I must also record that the matterwas raised in the Legal Affairs Committee in ratherunnatural circumstances, and was dealt with at a

meeting which, to put it mildly, was not very represen-

tative.

In these circumstances, and in the light of today'sdebate, I feel that as a member of the executive of theLegal Affairs Committee I have no alternative but toask you to refer the matter back to the Legal AffairsCommittee, so that the debate may take place in a

more correct manner than now appears to be the case.

As vice-chairman and representative of the executive

of the Legal Affairs Committee I therefore formallypropose that the matter be referred back to the Legal

Affairs Committee.

President. - Mr Geurtsen, I am quite sure that allthe arguments you have just adduced could be appliednot only to this report and this motion for a resolu-

tion but also to many others. I do not know whetherthis is the right moment to request a referral back tocommittee.

I call Mr Broeksz.

Mr Broeksz. - (NL) Mr President, following Mr

Geurtsen's remarks I should like to say one or twothings. Mr Geurtsen suggested that the Legal AffairsCommittee rushed things somewhat, and that thevarious groups were not properly represented. At thefirst meeting in Rome everyone knew exactly whatwas going to happen. Mr Geurtsen, and others too,

could have been there if they wished. !7hen theRome meeting did not lead to a conclusive result a

new meeting was arranged and this took place in Stras-

bourg during the part-session. All those who wantedcould have been there too. If you don't attend a

meeting, you mustn't complain later that it was such a

pity that you could not be there. After all, virtually allthe groups are perfectly capable of sending representa-


Broeksz

tives to a meeting of this kind. If they decide not to,they know what they are doing. I have therefore veryserious obiections to Mr Geurtsen's argument. Therewas no rushing things and it is not true that thegroups did not know what was going on. There wererwo normal meetings.

In general, indeed, the Rome meetings were wellattended. Unfortunately some matters were dealt within a bit of a hurry, but that is a feature of many meet-ings. Mr Geurtsen says that the latest version is rwoyears old. But I consider that two years is a long timeto take over the Fifth Directive, which had alreadybeen discussed for five years. The first rapporteur wasMr Reischel. How long ago is it now since he leftParliament to go to the Court ? \fle have been dealingwith this matter all that time ! Certainly, the previousCommissioner promised to submit a report, andindeed did so. There is thus nobody in this Parliamentwho does not know this matter inside out. So anysuggestion that the member of the Legal AffairsCommittee were cowed into submission is quite unjus-tified. The matter was dealt with in a perfectly normalmanner, and this applied not merely to the FifthDirective, but also to the Eighth Directive. As yousaid, Mr President, the same is true of a number ofother matters which it was felt had to be dealt withand not left to the directly elected Parliament. MrGeurtsen knows as well as I that t'wo or three years isnot excessive for the examination of this Directive.

Mr President, why arn I protesting ? Our chairmanwas not there, Mr Geurtsen was not there, the othervice-chairmen were not there. So I acted as chairmanof our Committee, and I find it entirely unacceptablethat people who did not attend the meetings shouldcome here and say that the chairman did not do hisjob properly. I protest most strongly !

President. - I call Mr Schmidt.

Mr Schmidt, rapporteur. -

(D) Mr President, Ishould like first to say something about Mr Geurtsen'smotion. Rule 25 expressly refers only to the chairman,not to any deputies, and I think that if, although a

meeting had been properly convened, we are going tohave requests for reference back to committee on thegrounds that certain members were not present, thenthis Parliament and the forthcoming Parliament willbecome totally incapable of adopting any motions,because it will happen time and again that the compo-sition of a committee is more or less one-sided or thatnot all members were present. Both in the discussionsin Rome and at those in Strasbourg a number ofgroups

- x1 lsx51 two or three and sometimes four

-were present at the meetings. And if all the groupswere not equally strongly represented, then this issimply because the individual groups probably havediffering views on these questions and attach varyingdegrees of importance to them.

Now I should like, as rapporteur, to say a few words inreply to those who have spoken in this debate so far. Ishould like to see more honesfy in this debate. Thereis no point in saying that this must not be steamroll-ered through. After seven years of discussions therecan be no question of steamrollering it through. Noris it true, Mr Geurtsen, that the Commission has madenevi proposals. It has submitted a working documentwhile expressly emphasizing that it is making no newproposals. The problem has been before us for solong, and all the ins and outs of it were discussed inconnection with the European company. All theproblems that were discussed in connection with theEuropean company come up again here. I should liketo see more courage here in this debate, so that if youfind this directive politically unacceptable you do notsay it should not be steamrollered through. If that isthg case, please say straight out that it is politicallyunacceptable. I must quote here a passage fromGoethe that may not come over very well in transla-tion. The situation is similar : Thoas is wooing lphi-genia and she makes all sorts of excuses, to which hethen replies : 'ln vain one wraps refusal up in words ;

all that is said so clearly answers no.'

It is also in vain for those of you who find this politi-cally unacceptable to say it must not be steamrolleredthrough and that, while it is reasonable to give theworkers more participation, the whole question callsfor a great deal of time and cannot be rushed through.You should have the courage of your convictions totake a political decision and not make excuses inanother direction.

Then there is the oft-repeated point about gatheringexperience. Even Mr von Bismarck could not helpmentioning that we in the Federal Republic - andthe same could be said of other countries - havedecades of experience of employee participation, and Ishould just like to remind you thar the participationlaw with the greatest degree of parity ever in theFederal Republic of Germany was adopted underChancellor Adenauer with a CDU-CSU majoriry, andthat it was primarily representatives from the coal andsteel sector and members of your own group such as

Mr Burgbacher and Mr Springorum who were particu-larly staunch supporters of employee participation andin particular of participation on a basis of pariry.

And looking back to the debate we had at that time, Irecall that, for example, Mr Bangemann said on behalfof the Liberals:'S7e thus reject the solution containedin the modified text of the Legal Affairs Committee,which in our view does not provide pariry.'

That scheme in fact failed to provide a balance, and inthat debate Mr Bangemann, like Mr Springorum andMr Burgbacher declared his support for employeeparticipation on a basis of parity. There may well bereasons for opposing this, but it is no use explaining


Schmidt

this attitude by saying that the whole thing should notbe steamrollered through.

Mr von Bismarck, concerning any confusion onaccount of the inclusion of the employee director,there have been various attemPts, to take actionagainst such arrangements for example in the Federal

Constitutional Court. No one has ever criticized this,and you, as a representative of industry, can hardlydeny that it would be difficult to find a country wherethere has been as much industrial peace as inGermany, in the German steel industry. For decades

there were hardly any strikes, the reason being thatworkers' interests were represented in such a way that

many problems could be solved without resort to the

ultimate form of industrial action.

If you go on the say that investment decisions are at

risk, I think you ought to ask the workers themselves.

Generally the workers are even more interested ininvestment within the company than the shareholderor holder of capital, since the latter are concernedabout their yield, while the workers are well aware thatinvestment within the company protects their iobs.There have never been any difficulties with theworkers when a company wanted to invest. Trouble ismore likely to come from other quarters. It is in fact a

spurious argument to say the question has been leftopen as to whether decisions are to be in the hands ofthe workers or the unions. That is just not true. It is

sometimes a good idea - and I would also commendthis to Mr Jakobsen - to read the proposal throughagain before the debate.

Moreover, if the workers in a particular company do

not want participation, they have an opPortuniry ofre.iecting it. This is expressly provided for in the direc-tive. No one is forced to accept participation, everyone

is free to decide for himself - and this decision is inthe hands of the company's own workers and no one

else. And for the election process we have expressly

provided that the elections should be carried out inaccordance with national laws and that the decisionon procedure is up to the Member States. It cannot be

said that this in any way introduces an outside influ-ence. Our proposal is based on the principle of deci-sions at national level on the election of rePresenta-

tives by the workers in a company ; to what extentaccount should be taken of members from outside is

another question. I think that in the Federal Republicwe have found a reasonable solution here to theproblem of reconciling both interests.

It is absurd, when discussions here have gone on formany years, to talk about sharp practice. As rapporteurfor three different reports I have covered these ques-

tions often enough in the Legal Affairs Committee.There are a number of Members here in the House,

for example Mr Shaw, who have often contributed tothe discussions. I am sure Mr Shaw will agree that we

have above all thoroughly discussed the critical points.There can thus be no question of springing this deci-sion on you. Perhaps your image of treading on corns

is more to the point. For if someone does not want a

partictrlar thing and already feels threatened by thepresentation of the draft directive, and then someone

else tries to actually get the directive, adopted thatcould perhaps be like someone treading on your sensi-

tive corns. The idea of sharp practice, however, is

something I must, after all our discussions, categori-cally reject, which is also only fair to the chairman ofthe Legal Affairs Committee, who has been at pains tomake sufficient time available for these discussions.

Now a word on the path towards collectivism and thequestion of responsibiliry. You can hardly ask formore responsibiliry for the individual than is providedby employee participation. There is no shortage ofworkers who say : '!7e do not want to be shackledwith this responsibiliry. !7e want a clear demarcationof responsibility and will not let ourselves be trappedinto sharing responsibility for the company.' Yourargument completely misses the point of what partici-pation means, for it involves responsibility for theworkers and for the company. If the workers have thisresponsibility in the company, however, then this is

only right, for it is their jobs, their incomes that are at

stake in a company. The idea is not iust to take invest-ment decisions in accordance with the entrepreneur'sexpectations of profit but to take account of theworkers' interests as well.

I think it is terribly important for Parliament to reach

a decision today. I should therefore like to insist that,if you do not want employee participation because

you are against participation in principle, you shouldactually say so and not repeat arguments about sharp

practice steamrollering and so on. There is no truth inthat at all. !7e have thoroughly discussed this and it is

now time to take a political decision and to stopmaking excuses about the time factor.

President. - I call Mr Gundelach.

Mr Gundelach, Vice-President of the Commission,

- (DK) Mr President, I have not much to add towhat my colleague, Mr Davignon, said on this subjectlast night, but it might not be entirely out of place if Idid say a few words, since for four years this subjectwas my principal concern. I must begin by saying,with some regret, that this debate reminds me to an

alarming degree of debates which I listened to when Ifirst discussed this topic in this Parliament, in 1973

and 1974. Later on we made significant progress, theStatute for the European Company and other Commu-nity directives were adopted. But it now seems to me

that the previous antagonisms are reappearing and Ivery much regret it. I do not know whether thisshould be attributed to the forthcoming election or toother reasons but I feel, nonetheless, that it is much tobe deplored. lfhy ? Because I am convinced that the

topic we are discussing, worker participation, is notmerely a Christmas-tree decoration. It is a matter offundamental economic and social importance for oursocieties.


Gundelach

It is generally recognized that our economic andindustrial structures are undergoing a fundamentalchange. If anyone was under the illusion that theyears 1973, 1974, 1975 and a spell of unemploymentwould see the end of this period of change, and thatmatters are now about to improve, he should thinkagain. The events of those years swept us along like a

furious tide ; another tide is approaching and we arecompletely unprepared for it. There must be anotherfundamental change in the way in which we conductour economic affairs, in the way we adapt our industryto a totally new world. There are problems here of a

magnitude we have not known since the end of theSecond !7orld !Var. Let there be no mistake aboutthat !

If these problems of reorganization are to be solved, itmust be on a basis of cooperation and we thereforeneed cooperation on the shop floor. I take Mr Jakob-sen's point that this requires the cooperation of theworkers at their workplaces and full respect for thetrade unions and the rights of the trade unions. Butthe aim of this reform is in fact to achieve coopera-tion between thc managements of undertakings andworkers at shop-floor level. This is something funda-mental and it would be a retrograde step if Parliamenttoday simply referred the matter back to the LegalAffairs Committee. It has been discussed for years, as

has been pointed out, and not a single argument hasbeen put forward here today which I have notdiscussed for hours in the Social Affairs Committeeand the Legal Affairs Committee and in full session.Nothing came of it all and I agree with Mr Schmidtthat the time has come for this Parliament to give itsopinion on the Fifth Directive so that we can makesome progress. Another consideration is that this FifthDirective is a fundamental element in the chain ofdirectives concerning company law. If it is delayed, a

number of other matters will also be delayed, anentire sector of Communiry activify will be put on iceat a time when, more than ever, we need reform inthis area. I must therefore recommend Parliament as

strongly as I can to approve the motion, as mycolleague, Mr Davignon, has proposed. Personallyspeaking, I have no doubt that during the furtherdiscussions and regular contacts between Parliamentand the responsible Commissioner, between the LegalAffairs Committee and the responsible Commissioner,certain textual adjustments will have to be made toArticles 3 and 4 in the light of the lessons which wemust learn, not in the field but at a political level. Imust say to Mr Stetter that, however sympathetic I amto the idea of a solution based on parity, one cannotget away from the fact that we live in a Communitywhere the pace of development in different areas hasnot been uniform. !7e all agree that the aim shouldbe to have identical provisions or to ensure that thevarious wordings have the same force. Our attitudemust not be so rigorous as to require exactly the sameformula in every single case. So long as the same level

of result is obtained, it will not be possible for anyoneto say that this or that country has not progressed as

far as another, even if it may choose a somewhatdifferent path. I therefore imagine today, as I did threeyears ago, that there could be certain fundamentalchoices. It is for that reason that I mention the possi-bility of textual alteration in the political discussion,but that discussion cannot begin until this Parliamenthas given its opinion on the Fifth Directive. If we donot do so, we shall remain stuck where we are andshall not move on to the political discussion which isof fundamental importance for our economic andsocial development. I therefore request once morethat Parliament's opinion on the Fifth Directive beadopted today. You have the Commission's guaranteethat further work remains to be done with Parliamenton Articles 3 and 4. That should satisfy the SocialistGroup.

President. - I call Mr von Bismarck.

Mr von Bismarck. - (D) Mr President, ladies andgentlemen, I must, for several reasons, reply to MrSchmidt. First of all, he described me quite simply as

a representative of industry. May I point out to you,Mr Schmidt, that when I entered the Bundestag Ibroke off any connections with my firm. I am inBonn as a completely free man with a conscience ofmy own. I am not aware that all trade union represen-tatives left their unions when they came to Bonn. Somuch for me personally.

Secondly, you spoke of honesty. You have not yet toldthis House that the fundamental proposals you areputting forward cast aside something that was adoptedby the German Bundestag by an overwhelmingmajority and that you are harking back to old wisheswhich the Bundestag simply did not regard as realisticin the light of experience. The Members of this Housemust realize that we are here taking a step back anddisregarding the Bundestag's ability to rake decisionson the basis of experience. Your three-way parity is a

step back, not a step forward. The Christian Democ-rats' amendment sets out the goal we want to achieve.You have been glossing over this. Our aim is not toplay for time but to fix our objective. That is whatparagraph 5 is about, and if you had been honest youwould have recognized that.

Thirdly, if decisions are to be taken on this questionnow, they must - as Mr Davignon's representativesaid - represent a step forward in all the MemberStates. In our country, Mr Schmidt, we have 30 years'experience. The relevant legislation was drawn up bythe Christian Democrats. It was brought up to datewith our help in 1972. The current legislation, which

Sitting of Thursday, l0 May 1979 l8r

von Bismarck

has not yet had time to prove itself in practice, is theresult of a joint effort. !7hy are you now trying tocreate the impression that the other side wants to turnthe clock back ? No, we sincerely want to moveforward, cautiously and step by step. It is caution thatobliges us, in deciding a question such as this, toregard the distribution of power as a central issue. Youcannot simply sweep it aside and say 'we are for theworkers'. !7hat do the trade unions in the Federal

Republic say to that , *g, put it in black and white ;

seats on the board are political posts..thgy want,a footin the door in otder to be-a[il6 iol apply pressure onthe employee director. That is'what our trade unionssay in print. It would therefore be completelydishonest suddenly to try and exclude the question ofpower from discussion in this House and relegate it toa subsidiary position. No, this involves power as well.Care is needed here, for any excess of power destroysfreedom in a pluralistic democracy. It is easy to makemoral demands but much more difficult to balancethem properly against the demands of freedom.

My last point is this. You say that everything you say

is for the workers. Pardon me, but you are forgettingthat the worker is also citizen and consumer. If youregard the question of increasing productivity as an

entrepreneurial question, then you have not under-stood the first thing about the market economy. Thepurpose of the market economy is for all citizens tohave freedom, freedom from bureaucracy and thefreedom provided by an income which gives them thepower to decide. . Therefore you cannot make themanagement organs dependent on political decisionsfrom case to case, because otherwise we end up withthe sort of machinations we can well do without. Ithink these are things we must discuss in all serious-

ness and cannot lightly sweep aside. I should like theCommission to put forward a solution which willallow us to move decisively forward on the soundbasis of experience.

IN THE CHAIR: MR SCOTT-HOPKINS

Vice-President


with great interest to the impassioned plea made byMr Gundelach, who naturally wants to see the

Commission's proposals accepted. I understand theposition Mr Gundelach's feelings to be in as a

Member of the Commission. But he ought not toforget that he is here facing parliamentarians who are

about to go into elections, and whose approach at thistime is no longer objective, and who are really onlyinterested in the opinions of their volers,55-70 Yo per

cent of whom are wage-earners. !7e can follow yourargument when you state that owing to the structuraland cyclical malaise in our economy something has

indeed changed in social relations, and that there has

been a change in the companies, indeed that we have

in recent years evolved the concept of the 'companyCommunity'. This implies that the three parties in a

company are obliged to cooperate with a view toensuring the future of their company. The threeparties, of course, are the investors, the workers andthe management.

In recent years we have seen too many companies inEurope bite the dust owing to mismanagement. Inrecent years we have seen many decisions takenaffecting thousands of workers, whose opinion was notasked, and who were presented with faits accontplis.That is the new atmosphere which prevails today andmy question to you is this : are you prepared todiscuss this matter objectively ? Are you prepared todiscuss this matter seriously with the parties

concerned ? If so, do not insist on this Commissionproposal, because it leaves so many possibilities ofinterpretation open that it will most certainly onlycause great confusion among the public during thiselection campaign. I will not deny that in my owngrpiil there are various currents of opinion on thiswhole matter. But the same is true of the Socialists,for some Socialists want autonomy, and are not inter-ested in worker participation, even on the basis ofcomplete pariry. They too include persons who holdthis view.

At this time, just before elections, and when the polit-ical parties have to contend with these internaltensions, it is unwise to ask us to take a decision onthis matter. Raise it again with the directly electedParliament. You have plenry of time. From 1973

onwards I have been involved in the preparation ofthis Fifth Directive as chairman of the Social AffairsCommittee and as rapporteur. I took part in all thediscussions during the time of Mr Copp6 and otherswhen we got to grips with the one-third questionwhich caused difficulties in the composition of thesupervisory board. !7e rejected it in Parliament,because we had proposed a pariry representation ofthree times one-third. The Commission did not

ffi*r *ir paqptat- md crrne back with ideas along

frc dd [ncq and at.the present tirne there are greatpifferences of opinion in spite of the flexible nature ofihe proposal. Mr Schmidt suggests that each of theMember States should develop a system of its own.But if we do that, what is left of a European soci4tdanonlme ? The answer is nothing, for then we shallhave the same differences which now prevail amongthe Member States.

IUThat we need, therefore, is a directive with a numberof clearly delineated basic principles, which must


Bertrand

provide the foundation for the concept of a Europeansoci4td anon1me. It is perfectly acceptable to start it offon an optional basis, given the tremendous divergen-cies between the systems obtaining in the variouscountries. Those who wish to accept it, however, mustbe given the opportuniry to do so, but on the basis ofclear principles which indicate how the supervisoryboard is composed, what its powers are, and how it is

chosen. !7e are for pariry cooperation on these condi-tions. This is the unanimous view of the ChristianDemocrats. If the Commission is prepared to acceptthis principle, and prepared to look for a formula for a

supervisory board set up on a basis of pariry, andwhich is workable and viable, we are prepared to giveyou the opportunity to continue your discussionstomorrow on this basis, and to raise the problem againin a couple of months' time in the directly electedParliament. For you know, Mr Gundelach, that thetrade unions are greatly divided about the way inwhich codetermination, that is worker participation inmanagement, should be organized in the future, andsince the time is not ripe we must not try to push thisthing through now, just before the elections, for other-wise we shall cause enormous difficulties which canonly be detrimental to the Europe we wish to build. Ifthe workers become confused as to the possibilitiesopen to them in the new Europe they could well with-draw into apathy and indifference and refuse to takepart in these elections, which would mean, of course,that the elections for the European Parliament wouldbe a total failure. !7e cannot take that risk at thistime, and that is why I should like to urge that weshould limit ourselves today to agreeing on the basicprinciples, so that you can continue the negotiationstomorrow.


Mr Sieglerschmidt. - (D) Mr President, ladies andgentlemen, I shall try to be much briefer than theprevious speaker. Indeed, I asked to speak simply tomake three points in reply to Mr von Bismarck'ssecond speech.

Mr von Bismarck, it is a fine thing to argue aboutwords, and there is also room for discussion as to whatwe actually mean by parity. One thing, however, has

always been clear to the Social Democrats in theFederal Republic, and that is that the present participa-tion law does not establish parity but can at best bedescribed as an approximation to parity betweenemployers and employees. That has always been theview of the Social Democrats and of the German tradeunions. If we have nonetheless entered into thiscompromise, then that is because we are very muchaware of being in coalition with the Liberals, so that itwas not possible to go any further and what we didachieve was better than nothing at all.

But if you claim, Mr von Bismarck, that this nowshows that this law is what corresponds to the generalsocial conscience at present in the Federal Republic

- that is roughly what you said - then I would saythat this is clearly true at least for participation in thecoal and steel industry, which is participation on a

real basis of parity with an employee director ; withregard to more general proof of the social effects itmust be said that the current participation law hasonly been in force for a relatively short time and hasyet to prove itself, whereas I think there is no doubtthat participation in the coal and steel industry hasalready stood the test of time.

One last remark, Mr President, on something I thinkmust be corrected. Since it has been said that therevised, really effective German law on industrial rela-tions was adopted in the Bundestag with the help ofthe CDU-CSU, I should like to point out here thatthis law was adopted in the face of opposition fromthe CDU-CSU with the exception of, I think, 29CDU-CSU colleagues who voted with us.

President. - I call Mr Geurtsen.

Mr Geurtsen. - (NL) Mr President, Mr Gundelachis quite right to stress that this is a matter of vitalimportance. I do not think anyone has denied that.But it may well be asked whether it is right to force adecision on Parliament if the matter is indeed so vital.I don't want to sound unpleasant, but Parliament isprobably meeting for the last time this week, and it isreally on its last legs. In fact, you could say it has onefoot in the grave. It is just because it is such a funda-mental and vital matter that I felt it necessary to makea proposal that would avoid having to take these deci-sions today. I understand Mr Gundelach's impatience.He naturally wants to see his efforts over a number ofyears crowned with success. I fully understand that MrSchmidt wants to have his report dealt with finallytoday. It is naturally very unpleasant to leave thematter hanging in the air, but it is not because I amafraid to commit myself politically that I propose thatthis matter should not be dealt with today. I madethat political commitment when the right of workerparticipation was introduced in the Netherlands, by a

Netherlands Government which contained Liberals,by the way. And the present government in theNetherlands, which combines Liberals and ChristianDemocrats is currently giving greater substance tothese workers' rights. It is in no sense a political issuefor me that workers should have rights of codetermina-tion. I endorse what Mr Bertrand said - workersmust have a say in the running of their concerns ifonly to ensure proper cooperation. So that is not thepoint.

If it had simply been a question of deciding today onthe Commission's proposal as such, a proposal which


Geurtsen

indeed has been with us for a number of years, Ishould have had no hesitation. But Mr Schmidt has

made a number of fundamental changes in theCommission's proposals, changes which are veryrecent. They are fundamental not merely in a politicalsense, but also with respect, for example, to the posi-tion of the trade unions. The say which Mr Schmidtwants to see given to the joint consultation councilswill have consequences for the position of the tradeunions.

I am not suggesting that we have no right to take deci-sions which would have adverse effects on the posi-tion of the trade unions, but if we are going to adoptthat viewpoint publicly the trade unions must at least

be given the opportunity to react and let us knowtheir views on this.

Mr Schmidt's proposed changes are of such recentdate that those involved have not even had the oppor-tuniry to let us know what they think about them. Itwould be most incorrect of us now to proceed to deci-sions on these matters without this opportuniry beinggiven to those concerned. I should like to make thatquite clear to Mr Broeksz. This is not intended as acriticism of a man who, although of a different polit-ical persuasion from myself, is one for whom I have

great affection, and who presided over the most recentmeetings of the Legal Affairs Committee because

nobody was present from the committee's executive. Itwas not my intention to criticize him. I have not Soneinto the reasons why the attendances at the committeemeetings were as they were. I have simply stated thefacts. I have simply pointed out that the number ofcommittee members who took part in the preparatorydiscussions for this plenary part session was insuffi-cient, whatever the reason for that may have been. Asyou are probably aware, Mr Broeksz, the reason I was

absent was that we Dutch were occupied with the

campaign for the coming elections. I am afraid I donot possess the gift of being in two places at once.!7hen I am in place A I find it beyond my powers tobe in place B at the same time.

Mr President, as vice-chairman of the Legal AffairsCommittee I have tabled a proposal. Mr Schmidt has

reminded us that the Rules of Procedure provide thatthe rapporteur or the chairman of a committee canpropose that a matter be referred back to committee.The question now is whether the term 'chairman' inthe Rules may also be taken to include the only vice-chairman of a committee who was present at the time.In my view this is the obvious interpretation, because

if it were othenwise it would mean that the question ofwhether a proposal may be tabled to refer a matter tocommittee would depend on the fortuitous presenceof one man. Clearly, we must be reasonable, since thisis a possibility which would be politically abused.

That is evident. The political opinions of the commit-tee's chairman and vice-chairmen differ. If such a

faciliry shculd be politically abused, I believe that thecommittee should draw the necessary consequences. Istand by my view that if the chairman and the moresenior vice-chairman are absent the vice-chairmanwho is present must be regarded as the chairman inthe sense of the Rules of Procedure of our Assembly,and that as chairman he can table a proposal forreferral back to committee.

I have made that proposal. I see one other possibleway of getting off the horns of this dilemma. If myinformation is correct, Sir Derek l7alker-Smith is withus again this afternoon. He is the real chairman. I donot consider it absolutely vital that you take a decisionon my proposal at this moment. As far as I amconcerned, it can quite properly be left until SirDerek is present. Then we can see whether Sir Derek,as the real chairman, is prepared to take over my pro-posal.

President. - Mr Geurtsen, I will deal with yourrequest at the end of the debate.

I call Mrs Dunwoody on a point of order.

Mrs Dunwoody. - Sir, I wonder if you could giveme some guidance, because it does seem to me thatwe are having a very interesting debate. People are notonly making one speech but they are making two, andthis goes for a number of people who have intervenedin the debate so far. Now why is it that we appear tobe having a totally open-ended debate where people,if you will forgive my saying so, appear to be filibus-tering deliberately, when we had four specific debates

on social subjects, including unemployment and equalpay, and they all of them were limited as to time tosuch an extent that some groups felt that they weren'table to participate fully ? I wonder if you wouldexplain to me how it is that some people appear to beable to use the procedure to do whatever they likewhen they want to filibuster.

President. - Mrs Dunwoody, as Rule 3l (2) of the

Rules of Procedure states, no Member may speakmore than twice on the same subject except by leave

of the President. So far no one has asked to speak fora third time. \flhen Members speak, they are limitedby the Rules of Procedtrre to ten minutes. One hopesthat the second time they intervene, they will not takethe second full ten minutes. But as far as the Rules are

concerned, that is so until and unless, at 7 p.m., thePresident of the moment limits speaking-time at hisdiscretion. This he is entitled to do by the decision of15 February of this year. Until 7 p.m.the Chair has

no authority to do so.

I call Mr Stetter.


Mr Stetter. - (DK) Mr President, it is quite true thatthe proposal from the Commission for a Fifth Direc-tive and the Commission's other documentation has

been available to this Parliament for years. However, itis not the proposal from the Commission which weare discussing at present, but Mr Schmidt's report andopinion on the Commission's proposal for a FifthDirective. This report was available in Danish onTuesday afternoon and the amendments onl7ednesday afternoon, i.e. yesterday, and this item wasplaced on the agenda for l7ednesday evening. Inother words, those of us who have spoken on thismotion have had only 24 hours to study it. \7e have

had no opportunity to examine the national back-ground to our resolutions. I would like to point out toMrs Dunwoody and other members that yesterday wehad five minutes on which to speak on this funda-mental issue and I would warn Parliament againstrushing this motion through without members havingan opportunity to express their views clearly and indetail. It would inevitably damage the reputation ofthis Parliament.

I thank Commissioner Gundelach for his seriouscontribution to the debate. I should like to say thatthere were two possible policy decisions which Parlia-ment can take. Mr Schmidt's report contains a prop-osal for a supervisory organ based on parity and otherproposals which I do not intend to discuss at present.!fle have Amendment No I from the Christian-Democratic Group which also contains a proposal fora supervisory organ based on parity.

I cannot travel down here to this Parliament onMonday and on !(ednesday vote for a supervisoryorgan based on parity without having an opportunityto talk with my voters, with my many differentinterest groups, for whom it is crucially important toknow what we are doing. To adopt this proposal for a

supervisory organ based on parity would be to weakenthe foundations of a private enterprise society. Insteadthen of talking about private property, let us ratherconsider the question of freedom of action. How onearth can we expect responsible management tooperate if the supervisory body contains an equalnumber of employees and shareholders ? it is iust notpossible. The management body is the most impor-tant group we have in our society, it must strive tocreate jobs and compete with other rnanagementgroups throughout the world in order to maintain ourposition.

I cannot under any circumstances vote for a proposalwhich involves a supervisory body based on parity. Iam quite willing to discuss the matter and, I may add,we sent out signals to that effect, to the Christian-Democratic Group among others. There has been nowillingness, at least until now, to discuss the wordingof paragraph 5. If anyone does want to discuss it, there

is still time, but it is almost 12.55 so not much time isleft ! In taking this line, I am aware that the topic weare dealing with is one of considerable importance. Itis consequently the duty of Parliament to consider itseriously and we must also ensure that the societies werepresent are still able to function after we havefinished this discussion.

President. - I call Mr Caro.

Mr Caro. - (F) Mr President, as spokesman for theChristian-Democratic Group I set out yesterdayevening, in the course of a sitting which had to becurtailed for technical reasons and in which eachspeaker had only two or three minutes, the reasonswhy the Christian-Democratic Group had tabled anamendment - Amendment No I - which had twofundamental objectives : firstly, to assist the Commis-sion in proceeding with its task and above all not tobring this work to a halt; secondly, to make everyeffort to stress the evolutionary aspect of the proposalfor a Fifth Directive, with a view to the harmonizationnot only of the existing systems in the variousMember States but also of the conflicting political andsocial positions with regard to this problem.

If I may quote an example from my own country,while the politicians on the Left or in the'progressive'camp are fighting for equal representation of theworkers in the supervisory organs, it is quite clear thatthe unions - including those furthest to the left -do not agree with this obiective, for want of theminimum conditions necessary to achieve it.

The Commission has thus accomplished a ratherremarkable task in its proposed directive, and I thinkParliament should welcome this and so prepare theway for further progress ; if provision has been madefor a minimum transition period of five years, this isclearly not a technicaliry - the truth is that this willtake time and everyone is perfectly well aware of it.

But does this means we must keep our true colourshidden ? Must we therefore eliminate from our polit-ical programme the ideas we support 7 Some are notwilling to put it in writing but are willing to seek a

solution. Others are willing both to seek a solutionand to put it in writing. Do you think that that hasthe makings of a political debate ? Those whose aim isto grace Parliament with a really fundamental politicaldebate are, in my view, turning this House into a

forum for Byzantine disputations, splitting hairs aboutthis pariry or the form of employee representation,and this will ultimately discredit us in the eyes of thepublic.

The Christian-Democratic Group is aware that thedemand for parity in the employee representation onthe supervisory board is an objective which we shouldnot only keep in mind but actively pursue in the workto be done by the Commission.


Caro

Now what has the Commission done ? In Article 4 (5),it has made provision, in a liberal, open and progres-sive spirit, for a threshold - a minimum equivalenceto take the expression used by the European TradesUnion Conference - allowing for a maximum of rwothirds for the shareholders and a minimum of onethird for the employees. There is no need to be a legalexpert to understand this.

The Christian-Democratic Group takes the view, inaccordance with our social philosophy, that it is notsufficient, to refer only to this minimum requirement,and calls for provision to be made for the maximumcase. On this question of fundamental pnnciple, weshare the attitude of a large majority of our colleaguesin this House.

That is the purpose of our amendment : to help theCommission to complete is proposal and above allnot to refer the matter for further study. It is notstudies that are needed now, since the Commissionhas all the necessary material for presenting us withproposals : there is the report from the Legal AffairsCommittee, there are the amendments which havebeen tabled and there is our motion. Need I add, MrPresident - although I am not really entitled to saythis - that since yesterday evening we on thesebenches, across party barriers, have been seeking a

formula for agreement so as to reply to the Commis-sion with a positive act and not with a further referralto committee. There are many of us who areconcerned that the House should benefit from theseefforts. I beg you, with a view to the meetings of thegroups this afternoon, not to take a wait and see atti-tude which would reduce to nothing not only thework which has been done but also the efforts ofthose Members who, before this Parliament isdissolved, would like to give the Commission a

chance of bringing its work to a conclusion andcoming forward with proposals, which is what wewant.

President. The proceedings will now besuspended until 3 p.m.


Qhe sitting was suspended at I p,m. and resurned at3.05 p.m)


Vice-President


8. Question Time

President. - The next item is the third part of Ques-tion Time (Doc. 142179). !7e continue with the ques-tions addressed to the Commission.

Since its author is absent, Qestion No 7 will receive a

written reply. t

I call Question No 8, by Mr Howell:

!7ill the Commission report on the findings of thethree-man team dispatched to London to investigate thealleged misuse of Community aid granted to East andSouth-East England following the floods of January1978 ?

Mr Tugendhat, lllember of tbe Commission. - MrPresident, I am pleased to be able to inform thehonourable Member that the Commission officialshave now completed their mission to London todiscuss the allocation and distribution of Communitydisaster aid for damage incurred in the early part of1978: 9. 190 000 of the f 530 000 of Commission aidhas been paid to farmers who have lost more thanl0 o/o ol their livestock, and the remaining Commis-sion aid will go to those local authorities which sufferdamage in excess of one penny in the pound of theirrates. The authorities concerned are Cleethorpes,Lancaster, North Norfolk, Thanet, Devon and Somer-set. Seventy-five per cent of the damage in excess ofthe one penny rate will be borne by the BritishGovernment and the Commission aid will contributewell over half of the remaining 25o/o. The exactfigures of the total cost are not known because of thetime it has taken to prepare and improve the sea

defences. Finally, I should like to add that although,we, the Commission, regret the delay in distributingthe aid, we are satisfied, from information from theBritish authorities, that the money is being put togood use and is appreciated by the beneficiaries.

Mr Howell. - I think that is a most deplorableanswer. Since when has Somerest been in the South orSouth-East of England ? This money was given to theSouth and South-East of England and it has not beenused in the way in which it was intended. That wasthe reason why the three-man mission went toLondon to find out what had happened to the money.Now it seems to me that the Commission has beenthoroughly fobbed off by the late Socialist Govern-ment, and I suggest that they make a fresh approachto the new Conservative Government to see if a littlemore light can be thrown on this matter.

I would like to draw the Parliament's attention to iustwhat has happened. This money was allocated forrelief in the South and South-East of England, and 16months later no money has been received anywherein that area yet. I think that this totally destroys theobiect of emergency aid: the Commission shouldinvestigate this further and it should be reported tothe Court of Auditors.

I See Annex.


Mr Tugendhat. - I can understand the strong feel-ings of my honourable friend, and I can recognizethat Devon and Somerest certainly do not belong tothe part of the country to which he referred. But as hewill remember and as the House will remember othervery serious storms occurred very soon after the eventsfor which this aid was initially earmarked, and a

further request was made to the Commission. Nowthe Commission felt it right in these circumstances tofollow the judgement of the British Government thatthe aid should not be confined to one part of thecountry as more than one part of the country hadsuffered from the damage. It was felt right, therefore,that, as we have very limited funds at our disposal,there should be a more equitable distribution thanseemed justified when it appeared that only one partof the country had been affected.

President. - I call Mr Howell on a point of order.

Mr Howell. - Mr President, the Commissionerreferred to a subsequent disaster. I am complainingabout the money being spent on a previous disaster.

President. - Mr Howell, I would point out that youhave not raised a point of order but have gone intothe subject in hand.

Since its author is absent, Question No 9 will receivea written reply. I

I call Question No 10, by Mr Osborn:

!flhat has been the outcome of further discussions withMember Governments and industrial organizations repre-senting the industries concerned about the need torestructure and modernize the special steel, tool steel, andcutlery industries to meet cheap competition from over-seas, and provide adequate and effective protection fromdumping from third countries ?

Mr Giolitti, Member of the Commission - (I) Ishould like to thank the questioner on behalf of theCommission, for having given us the opportunity ofexplaining what we have done and are doing in thissector.

As regards special steels, the Commission isconducting talks with the authorities of the MemberStates and industrial organizations with a view toobtaining a clearer picture of economic developments.At the external level, special and fine steels arecovered by agreements with some third countries.Furthermore, the vast majority of these steels areincluded on the list of products to which the systemof basic import prices applies.

At the internal level, the departments of the Commis-sion are currently carrying out a study, in close cooper-ation with the relevant industrial organizations, whichshould enable us to determine the structure of theproduction units and the demand prospects in the

medium and long term. This study, which should becomplqted around the middle of 1979, will provide uswith indications of the type and extent of moderniza-tion and restructuring measures required in thespecial steels and tool steels sectors.

As regards cutlery, the Commission has establishedthe necessary contacts with the relevant professionalbody, i.e. the European Cutlery Industry Federation,with a view to obtaining data regarding structure,productiviry and prospects in this sector, as todetermine the nature of the problems in a sectorwhich must cope with increasing competition fromcertain third countries. The Commission does not as

yet have this data at its disposal.

On the basis of this information, the Commissionshould be in a better position to assess whether thereis in fact dumping by certain third countries such as

Japan and, in particular, South Korea. If so, theCommission can apply the procedure provided forunder Community law.

Finally, the Commission would remind you rhat othercountries are importing vast quantities of cutlery fromthese countries. For example, United States importshave reached 75 o/o. However, the United StatesGovernment has not decided that protectionistmeasures would be a valid and lasting solution, andthe Commission shares this view. Furthermore, protec-tionist measures are not in keeping with the positionwhich the Community wishes to adopt in interna-tional trade, nor do they, in the long term, constitute a

safeguard for a sector which will only be able tosurvive if it continues to be imaginative and to main-tain its technological and commercial dynamism. Inview of the situation, the Commission will not hesi-tate to have recourse, if necessary, to the proceduresprovided for under Community law with a view tosupporting this sector.

Mr Osborn. - Mr Giolitti should know that thecutlery and special steel industries are looking to theCommunity and the Commission as well as to theBritish Government not for protection but for supportin restructuring the industries. To what extent has theCommission been supported by the recent SocialistGovernment to look after the interests of the freeenterprise cutlery and silverware industry, and in parti-cular the private sector of the steel industry involvedin stainless steels ?

Can he explain how it is that so many special steelsfall outside the Treaty of Paris, and to what extent hasthe Commission been able to prevent dumping bothindirectly and directly in this sector ?

Lastly, is the Commissioner aware that one of theproblems is that cheap blanks in the cutlery industry,mainly from Taiwan, Korea and elsewhere, aresubsequently re-assembled in various CommunityI See Annex.


Osborn

countries and sold in Britain as British made or madein Sheffield, and could he look at the Trades Descrip-tion Act or its equivalent to ensure that we know whatwe are buying in the United Kingdom and otherCommunity countries ?

Mr Giolitti. - (I) The points just raised by thehonourable Member have been taken into considera-tion in the study I mentioned which, as I said, shouldbe completed towards the middle of 1979.

In this study the Commission has made use, and conti-nues to make use, of information provided by theMember States, including, no doubt, the BritishGovernment. fu I also pointed out, we are lookinginto the question of dumping. !7e have no preciseinformation on this subject as yet, but, as I havealready assured you, we will initiate the procedureprovided for under Community law if this shouldprove necessary. The same is true in the case of theorigin of products - a problem to which the honour-able Member rightly drew our attention in his finalremark. The Commission will certainly look into thismatter too when the necessary data are available.

Mr Comie. - Can the Commissioner say what atti-tude the British Government has taken to what he hasjust said ?

Mr Giolitti. - (I) Mr President, we received theinformation we requested from the governments of allthe Member States, and I do not think the BritishGovernment was an exception.

President. - I call Question No 11, by Mr Kava-nagh:

!7hat possibilities exist within the framework of Commu-niry policy for measures to allow for aid for the develop-ment of bogland for agricultural purposes, does theCommission agree that afforestation is a particularly effec-tive way of developing bog-land, and will it ensure thatthis aspect is studied carefully and included in anyCommunity proposals on forestry policy ?

Mr Gundelach, Vice-President of tbe Commission.

- (DK) The question of how land of this kind, i. e.

bogland etc., should be used is the subiect of consider-able debate in lreland and other Member States. Sometake the view that this land should be drained and,where possible, used as arable land. Others point outthat this land provides us with a possibility ofincreasing our forestry resources, since there is a woodshortage. And then again there are those who thinkthat these areas should be left as they are out of envi-ronmental considerations, since they often provide a

habitat for wild animals and, not least, wild birds.

Pending further clarification, therefore, the Commis-sion has not taken any decision regarding theapproach we should take, nor regarding the specificproposals it intends to make in connection with this

kind of land. However, having said, this, I should liketo point out that in the case of certain parts of theCommunity, such as the west of Ireland, land of thiskind may well be included within the field of applica-tion of the directive concerning a proSrammedesigned to speed up drainage work in that area. Thisland might also be covered by the measures proposedby the Commission to the Council - and which theCouncil has received favourably - regarding the deve-lopment of forestry, which form a part of the proposalregarding the development of agriculture in the westof Ireland. In both cases, however, a specific applica-tion is required, i. e. the Irish Government will have

to submit a project which will be dealt with accordingto the normal procedures.

Mr Kavanagh. Could the Commission say

whether the Irish Government has made any applica-tion in any of the three areas that he has mentioned,

- agriculture, forestry and environmental develop-ment - for aid from any of the agricultural funds ?

Mr Gundelach. - (DK) - So far, no such applica-tions have been made, but this is perhaps only to be

expected in the case of forestry in these areas, as theCouncil has not yet given its formal approval, even ifit has approved the proposal in principle. The firstproposal is either still at the final stage, or has

completed the final stage in the decision-makingprocess only very recently, so there is no way ofknowing to what extent these proposals will be used

for the purposes you mentioned. However, I think itis very likely that an application will be made.

President. - Since their authors are absent, Ques-tion Nos 12 and 13 will receive written replies. I

I call Question No 14, by Mr Schyns:

Vhy do the authorization periods and fees for the trans-portatron of timber differ so much from one MemberState to another that the authorization procedure repre-sents a real distortion of competition within the meaningof the Treaties of Rome ? Vhat can those concerned doto eliminate these obstacles without delay ?

Mr Tugendha\ nlem.ber of tbe Commission, - TheCommission is conscious of the problem raised by thehonourable Member - a problem which arises in a

wider context than that of exceptional movement ofabnormal loads. The Commission has been looking atthis question for some time. We have already had a

meeting with independent experts and have scheduleda further meeting in the current month. It is our aimin this, as in other fields, to make the necessary propo-sals to eliminate distortions of competition and obsta-cles to trade caused by unnecessarily complex anddivergent administrative procedures within theCommunity.

I See Annex.


Mr Schyns. - (F) Can the Commission take actionagainst a Member State if it is clearly hindering freetrade in this field ? Belgian transport companies, forinstance, have to pay a fee of DM 450 every sixmonths in order to be able to transport timber intothe Federal Republic of Germany, and no one candeny that this is a case of discrimination. \(hat doesthe Commission intend to do in order to put an endto discrimination of ths kind ?

Mr Tugendhat. - !fle are certainly looking into theproblems, as I have mentioned, with the study that weare undertaking. I must, however, confess - and Ithink this will not be the last time that a Commis-sioner says in this Parliament what I am about to say

- that our abiliry to conduct reviews of this sort andour ability to undertake the action that is required isvery severely limited by the shortages of staff whichwe have and which have, of course, been accentuatedby the misadventures of the recent budget. There is

no point in the honourable Member shrugging hisshoulders, one cannot conduct a review if one has notgot the people to conduct it.

Mr Shaw. - Is it not a fact that there are manyfactors that influence transport costs and that this isone of them ? It may, perhaps, be a particularly acuteexample, but there are all sorts of .otfier case,s t&ftto..ui fo, reasons of taxation policy etc., and I ptrstiii.ally would ask whether it is not very difficult to dealwith one problem in isolation and not look at theothers at the same time ?

Mr Tugendhat. - I certainly believe that there ismore than one factor that enters into variations intransport costs - different prices of fuel, road systemsand all the rest of it. But certainly where an allegationis made of discriminatory practices or if there is a

belief on the part of one Member State or of interestswithin one Member State that discriminatory practicesexist, well then, clearly the Commission is obliged,and would wish to feel obliged, to do its best to main-tain as far as it can freedom of movement of goodswithin the Community.

Mr Comie. - !flould the Commission agree that oneof the main additional costs imposed on areas likeScotland comes from the new tachometer rules ? !7ehave to travel long distances over very bad roads. \7enow have to put two drivers onto a wagon where onlyone was required before, because of the Commissionrules. Is this not unfair, particularly in the timberindustry, where we have to transport timber from thenorth to the south of Scotland ?

Mr Tugendhat. - I cannot agree with the honour-able Member. I believe that the Community - and Iemphasize the word Communiry as distinct fromCommission - rule on tachographs is thoroughlydesirable, because it helps to reduce accidents and is

good for safety. I am pleased to say the unions andthose who are concerned with the transportation busi-ness in a number of continental countries have under-stood the safety aspect of this measure, as indeed havemany people in our own country. Apart from beinggood for safety, it also ensures that there cannot beexploitation of the drivers and that the machingsthemselves cannot be used to an excessive degreewithout the appropriate examinations.

President. - I call Question No 15, by Mr Donde-linger, for whom Mr Hughes is deputizing:

Is the Commission following the serious problems raisedby the major redundancies affecting staff at the Monsantofactory in the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg ? !7hatcontribution can the Communiry organs make toresolving these problems and what measures are plannedat European level in order to avoid similar situations inthe future ?

Mr Tugendhet, lllember of tbe Commission. - TheCommission has been informed that Monsanto istaking important decisions regarding the future of itsfactory in Luxembourg and, as reported in today'spapers, elsewhere in Europe as well. Like othersynthetic fibre production units, the company is facedg.Iq#Fg problems of an industry with excess capacity.

rrqd$rion hn.plced before the council a

f<ir a regulatidii rih ieorganization and redeve-lopment operations in connection with certain indus-trial sectors, and has specified that the synthetic fibreindustry is, in its view, one of the sectors concerned.Appropriations exist in the budget to provide thenecessary funds once the way ahead is clear. TheSocial and Regional Funds also have a r6le in helpingto deal with these problems.

Mr Hughes. - I hope the House will accept that,when my colleague Mr Dondelinger put this questiondown, he did not realize that it would be taken on thevery day when yet further closures were announced inthe United Kingdom.

Firstly, how can the Commissioner justify to theconstituents voting in the European election that inthe area where one-fifth of the losses accrue, two-thirds of the iobs are lost ? How does this square ? Ontheir own figures, Monsanto lost 8 million in theirUnited Kingdom operation and, 32 million in Luxem-bourg. Yet two-thirds of the iobs are being lost in theUnited Kingdom, including 560 in my own part ofthe world, Crook and St. Helens-Auckland, and 900 inScotland. Secondly, what powers, even under the prop-osals, would the Commission have to examine thismethod of procedure of many multinationals ?

Thirdly, how quickly could the resources from theSocial and Regional Funds be made available to help ?

Because, if I may take the Crook and St. Helens-Auckland case, this is .in an area where already maleunemployment is well into the ten-thousands.


Mr Tugendhat. - I appreciate the concern of thehonourable gentleman about the job lossei in trisconstituency, as well as those which have 'occurred

elsewhere in the United Kingdom. The questionswhich he pu! however, about how could they be justi-fied in the light of the pattern of the company's inter-ests should, I feel with great respect, be put to thecompany rather than to us ; and no doubt they willbe. The speed with which the payments can be madedoes, as he knows, depend in very large part on thespeed with which the requests come forward from theMember States. I hope very much that the Commis-sion will not be found wanting in the speed of itsresponse, but that depends in large part on when theclaims come in.

Mr Hamilton. - In view of the fact that 900 jobsare to be lost in Scotland by this operation, does theCommissioner not agree that there must be morepublic and social accountability for these multina-tional firms ? lfould the Commission also agree thatit underlines the need for a much bigger RegionalFund to cater for these problems ? Thirdly, will theCommission be more aggressive in its approach tothese multinationals, more particularly in view of thenew government's view in Britain that these industriesmust be written off as lame ducks in need ofshooting ? In view of that desperate, reactionary viewof the matter, would he not agree to take more ener-getic action to protect workers from the depredationsof these multinationals ?

Mr Tugendhat. - I have been interested in the ques-tion of multinationals for a very long time, but I don'tfeel that this problem is peculiar to the multina-tionals. One only has to look at what is happening inLorraine, for instance, as well as in other parts of theCommuniry, to see that lay-offs, redundancies andclosures can occur in the private sector and in thepublic sector, in nationally-owned companies and ininternationally- or multinationally-owned companies.They are the result of the economic circumstances,the recession in which we find ourselves ; I think onehas to approach it from that point of view. This is thedifficulry.

In my own view, if jobs are to be guaranteed in theCommunity over a period of time, it is very importantto make sure that we secure the adaptability andcompetitiveness of our industries in all parts of theCommuniry. That is the surest way of providing a

higher level of employment in the long term. Oneonly has to look at those Member States which havepursued that sort of policy, as compared with thosewhich haven't, to see the truth of that. I notice thatthe unions have already taken this matter up with theSecretary of State for Scotland. I have no doubt that hewill be in contact with us if, as I hope and believe,there is action that can be taken at Community level.

Mr Corrie. - Sflould the Commissioner accept thatthe loss of the 900 jobs at Monsanto in Scotlandmight only be the tip of the iceberg; that othercompanies who provide the raw materials forMonsanto, such as ICI, will now be in trouble as well ?

\(ill the Commission make a study of the rippleeffect that this will have ?

Mr Tugendhat. - I am not an expert on thesynthetic fibres industry, but I agree that when onebig company runs into troubles of this sort, there areoften ripple effects. As I say, I am not an expert onthe industry and I would not like to comment onwhat, if any, these effects might be on this occasion.

Mrs Dunwoody. - Is the Commissioner aware thathis rather smug attitude, to the effect that this can betaken up with the multinationals, contrasts verystrongly with the attitude of this Parliament, whichhas for a long time been asking for real application ofthe rules of competition in relation to multinationals ?

Is he aware that in Luxembourg alone the job loss willbe absolutely disastrous, in an area where people havealready got considerable problems with other multina-tional companies ? !flhat practical effort is he going tomake to safeguard the fobs of those people ?

Mr Tugendhat. - I am sorry that the honourablelady should find my answer smug, because what I wastrying to say, and I will say it again, is that I thinkthat if one concentrated only on the job losses thatarose from multinationals, one would be focussing ononly a small part of the problem. !7e are in a reces-sion, and jobs can be lost in state-owned as well as inmultinationally-owned companies. I drew attention towhat has been happening in France as an example ofthis. !(e therefore need measures covering a widerarea. The Commission, certainly, applies the rules ofcompetition to the multinational companies as well as

to others, and with the same severity. I would alsopoint out to the honourable lady that in this industry,as in others, turn-rounds can occur with surprisingspeed: one only has to look at what has happened inthe synthetic fibre industry in Italy in the last year tosee the speed with which turn-rounds can occur.

Lord Murray of Gravesend. - Does the Commis-sioner know that we have just fought a general elec-tion in Britain where one of the parrot cries was, 'theunions are running the country'? Does he not thinkthat that applies more to the multinationals, not onlyin Britain, but in Europe ?

Mr Tugendhat. - I would have thought one thing,if I may say so with great respect to the honourablegentleman, that general elections show, is that it is thepeople who run countries.

(llixed reactions)


President. - Since its author is absent Question No15 will receive a written reply. I

I call Question No 17, by Lord Bessborough forwhom Mr Osborn is deputizing :

In what way has the Commission's attitude to the Govern-ment of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia altered, taking account ofthe national multi-racial elections held in April, and theconsequent establishment of black maiority rule, with a

black president, black prime minister and mainly blackgovernment ?

Mr Giolitti, Metnber of tbe Conrnrission. - (I) TheCommission has no relations with the Government ofZimbabwe-Rhodesia.

Mr Osborn. - I for one, and certainly Lord St.

Oswald, who witnessed the recent elections inZimbabwe-Rhodesia, will regret this reply. Vhat Iwould like to know is to what extent the telegram sentby Mr Cheysson to Mr Nkomo is Community policy,in which he said:'On European Community Commis-sion behalf, and in my personal name, I should like toexpress the esteem we feel for your struggle.' TheCommission should know that in 1955 a BritishSocialist government chose confrontation with Mr IanSmith, and has misled the United Nations and the'l7estern world in the search for racial harmony inSouthern Africa and Rhodesia ever since. Electedrepresentatives are singularly lacking in ACP-EECjoint meetings. Is the Commission, on behalf of theCommuniry, yet prepared to acknowledge andwelcome the internal settlement in Rhodesia, nowcalled Zimbabwe, as a move which will achieve racialharmony and consolidate democracy in SouthernAfrica ?

(Protetts fronr the left)

Mr Giolitti. - (D I repeat that the Commission as

such has no relations with the Government of Rhode-sia-Zimbabwe. The telegram to which the honourableMember refers was sent on the personal initiative ofMr Cheysson during a period when the Commissionwas on holiday, so that Mr Cheysson was not able toconsult his colleagues before sending it. For the rest, itis normal for the Members of the Commission toexpress their opinions on matters for which they are

competent.

Mrs Dunwoody. - !7ould the Commissioner be

kind enough to convey our congratulations to MrCheysson on demonstrating an absolutely sensibleapproach to an election which was manifestly riggedto ensure white domination for the next 25 years, andwill you please point out to the Commission that itwill not be in the interests of any democrats to accept

a system where the partial government is pretendingto represent the majoriry of the African people ?

Mr Giolitti. - (I) | think it would be a perfectlysimple matter for the honourable Member to informMr Cheysson of her opinion directly herself.

Mr Howell. - Mr President, can I ask the Commis-sioner to disassociate the Commission from the tele-gram sent by Mr Cheysson, because it was sent in thename of the whole Commission, including theCommissioners present ? !flould the Commissionerdisassociate the Commission from that telegram, andalso censure Mr Cheysson for acting in the way thathe has ?

(Protests from tbe left)

Mr Giolitti. - (I) I have explained the circum-stances under which this telegram was sent. I can also

point out that the reference to the Commission in thistelegram was due to a misunderstanding.

(Cries from tbe left)

Mr Hamilton. - !flould the Commissioner agree

that if the Communiry recognizes the new Zimbabwe-Rhodesian Government, that would have disastrouseffects on the relationship bet'ween Europe and thewhole of the rest of Africa, and not least with the oil-producing country of Nigeria, and will he very muchbear those considerations in mind ? Irrespective of thevirtue of that telegram, could I say to him that thisside of this Assembly whole-heartedly applauds MrCheysson for the action that he took ?

Mr Giolitti. - (I)The question of political relationsbetween the Communiry and the Government ofZimbabwe-Rhodesia is a matter for political coopera-tion and will be discussed in that context.

Mr Dankert. - @f) I should also like to put a ques-tion regarding this famous telegram. Mr Giolitti hasjust said that the Members of the Commission are

entitled to make statements on matters within theircompetence. Is the Commission also competent tomake statements regarding problems of foreignpolicy ?

Mr Giolitti. - 0 | can only reapeat what I have justsaid, namely that this a matter for political coopera-tion and will therefore be dealt with in that context.

Mr Christensen. - (DK) As I understand it, theanswer the Commissioner has just given means thathe still maintains that the Commission is entitled tomake political statements. I will not go into the rightand wrongs of this telegram of support, but I shouldlike to ask to what extent Mr Cheysson was politicallycompetent to send it ? That is what interests me. Thisis a political matter in which, as far as I know, theCommission has no right to get involved. For thisreason, I should be grateful if the Commission wouldI See Annex.

Sitting of Thursday, l0 May 1979 19t

Christensen

stop being evasive and give us a straight answer. to thequestion put by Mr Dankert a few momehts ago.

Mr Giolitti. - (I) The Commission is a politicalbody and as such also expresses political views. In thisparticular case the position was adopted by an indi-vidual member of the Commission. As I said, he hadreason to express his views on this matter.

Mr Fellermaier. - (D) The longer one listens themore interesting the Commission's definition of itscompetency in matters of foreign policy becomes. Ihave hitherto regarded the Commission as a collegiatebody and for this reason I should like to ask whetherit is collectively competent in matters of foreignpolicy or whether it is up to the individual Commis-sioner to decide, as he personally thinks fit, if andwhen and for what purpose telegrams on matters offoreign policy should be sent ?

(Scattered applause from tbe left)

Mr Giolitti. - (I) ln view of the delicacy and polit-ical implications of this question I have explained thatit is really a matter for political cooperation.

Mr Broeksz. - (NL) Is the Commissioner aware ofthe fact that it is Mr Cheysson who is responsible forrelations with all the Lom6 countries ? Does he realizethat the Consultative Assembly on which the Commis-sion was represented adopted a very clear position onthis matter ? Is it not therefore natural that MrCheysson, who is the person most directly responsiblefor this matter, should send a telegram of this kind,since I am not clear as to whether the Commissioneris dissociating himself from this telegram or not ? Ifso, we should like to know how the Commission actu-ally stands ois-d-ais the Consultative Assembly of theLom6 Convention.

(Applause from certain quarters on the left)

Mr Giolitti. - (I) | do not think this is the place forme to be asked to state my personal opinions.

I have explained, in the terms which the Commissionfelt necessary, the circumstances under which this tele-gram was sent by Mr Cheysson and I also pointed outthat this was a perfectly normal thing to do in accor-dance with a tradition which is by now fairly firmlyestablished within the Commission.

Lord Ardwick. - Is it not a fact that there is broadagreement under the aegis of political cooperation onthc affairs of Southern-Africa and that this agreementis in accord with Anglo-American policy ? Is it notunwise, therefore, before the new Foreign Secretaryhas had time to express himself on this very delicateissue, and particularly on Rhodesia, for his com-patriots to commit him to some kind of abruptchange ?

Mr Giolitti. - (I) | cannot comment on that.

Mr de la Maline. - (F) | think it is vital that thismatter be clarified to some extent.

ITas the Commission informed by Mr Cheysson ofthis telegram before it was sent ? If so, did it give itsapproval ? If not, does it go along with it neverthe-less ?

Mr Giolitti. - (I) | repeat that the Commission wasnot informed, since Mr Cheysson sent ,this telegramduring a holiday period. The Commission was notasked for its approval, and for this reason I have noauthority to express an opinion on the matter whichwould commit the Commission as a whole.

(Cries frotn the left)

Mr Sp6nale. - (F)How does the Commission recon-cile the collegiate nature of its political responsibilitywith the liberty of its individual members to makeany political statement they wish ? Has it ever reallyconsidered this question ?

Mr Giolitti. - (I) Mr Sp6nale has undoubtedlybrought up a problem which is extremely delicate, as

the Commission and I myself realize. However, as Ipointed out, there is a tradition whereby the membersof the Commission can express their individual opin-ions, including political opinions, as in the presentcase.

President. - (I)Mr Sp6nale, things like this happinin the best of families.

Question Time is closed.

I call Mr Fellermaier for a procedural motion.

Mr Fellermaier. - (D) Mr President, I should liketo request a topical debate. The Commission's answerswere so incomplete, self-contradictory and, in the caseof Mr de la Maldne's question, so meaningless that wecannot leave this matter hanging in the air wheresuch a serious question of foreign policy is involved.'!7e must have a topical debate to obtain more infor-mation from the Commission. I should therefore liketo request this on behalf of my Group, and I amcertain that there are others in this House who wouldalso be glad if this matter could be clarified, as thisunfortunately did not prove possible during QuestionTime.

President. - Paragraph 3 of Rule 47B of our Rulesof Procedure states that:

The decision as to whether to hold a debate on requestshall be taken by the President only at the close of Ques-tion Time and shall not be subiect to debate.

The agenda is so full that it will be difficult to dealwith all the items, which means that it is impossibleto include an additional item. For this reason, I havedecided by virtue of the powers conferred upon me bythe Rules of Procedure to reiect your request for a

topical debate.


9. Votes

President. - The next item is the vote on themotions for resolutions contained in the reports onwhich the debate is closed.

Ve begin with the motion for a resolution containedin rhe Ripamonti report (Doc. 185/79): Supplemen-tary draft estimates for 1979.

I call Mr Dankert on a point of order.

Mr Dankert. - (NL) Mr President, I said during thismorning's debate that the supplementary budget for1979 and the draft estimates for 1980 were closelyrelated.'!7e are now going to vote on the draft estimates for1980, while tomorrow we shall be voting on thesupplementary budget for 1979. I do not think thereis any justification for this in view of theconsequences that might arise for the new Parliament,especially as regards the 188 posts.

Consequently, I propose that the draft estimates for1980 be put to the vote tomorrow morning, after thevote on the supplementary budget for 1979.

President. - Mr Dankert, we shall consider first thesupplementary budget No 2 for 1979 and then theestimates for 1980. In this way, the first vote will helpclarify the second.

Mr Dankert. - (NL) Mr President, I feel it is

extremely difficult to vote on the supplementarybudget for 1979 before we have heard the Council'sreply.

At the moment we do not know what that reply willbe. I feel it would be better to put off the vote untiltomorrow or, at any rate, until we have been informedof the Council reply. S7e can then vote on the draftestimates for 1980.

President. I call Mr Ripamonti.

Mr Ripamonti, rapporteur. - @ Mr President, inmy view Parliament does not need to know the Coun-cil's opinion before adopting the draft supplementarybudget for 1979. Our decision on this matter, taken inthe light of the decision by the Committee onBudgets, is completely free. The result of our vote willbe considered by the Council, which will inform us ofits decision. This is a second stage in the budget proce-dure, as I explained this morning when I presentedthe report to the House.


Mr Dankert. - (NL) Mr President, the motion for a

resolution on the supplementary budget for 1979states that the Council does not intend going back onthe 1970 declaration, which recognizes the power ofthe European Parliament over its own budget.

I have not been made aware of any clear Council viewuntil now, and I cannot vote until I know what the

Council thinks. If I do not know what the Councilview is, I must abstain from voting.

President. - Parliament's decision is freely taken onthe basis of a decision by the Committee on Budgets,and following certain considerations by the Bureau ofParliament.

Mr Dankert. - (NL) That may be so, Mr President,but I am sitting here as a Member of this Parliamentand not as a member of the Committee on Budgets

- where, as a matter of fact, I also abstained fromvoting.

I am being asked to approve a recital in this motionfor a resolution on the supplementary budget lor 1979where it says that the view of the Council is that the1970 agreement will be left as it is.

I have heard nothing to this effect from the Council.If this Parliament is going to express an opinionwithout having heard from the Council, I am afraid Ishall have to abstain from voting. I shall vote only ifthe Council says that it has no intention of changinganything. That is why I am doubtful, and I do notthink we can vote in these circumstances.

President. - Mr Dankert, I sought to clarify the situ-ation somewhat but I have no intention of influencingyour vote.

I call Mr Klepsch.

Mr Klepsch. - (D) In my view, there is a very slighterror of logic in what you said, Mr Dankert. If weassume that the Council is not querying this position,there is no need for it to declare that it agrees with us.

Only if it did not agree would there be any need forsome statement. It would be duty bound to inform us.

I am waiting to see whether this happens. However, ithas been clearly established that we are assuming thatthere is to be no change in the situation, and you are

insisting a bit too much on doing things by the book,because we cannot keep on asking the Council torepeat the same statements it has already made. !7eshould simply be saying that we are making thisassumption and if the Council disagrees with us, itought to tell us so.

President. - I call Mr Sp6nale.

Mr Sp6nale. - (F) Mr President, if we are going tounderstand the present situation, I think we ought torecapitulate. First of all, this part-session is the last ofthe present Parliament. '!7e have to bequeath to thenew Parliament the means of getting on with its workby enabling it to recruit new staff, in accordance withthe estimates drawn up by the Committee on Budgetsin the Ripamonti report. \U7e can do this during thecurrent part-session only if we are in a position tovote tomorrow morning, which means that the


Sp6nale

Council and the Commission must get these estimatesand we must have the Council's reply by tomorrowmorning.

If we attempt to change the order of things, we shallachieve nothing. Moreover, this would be the firsttime that Parliament's vote on its own budgetdepended on getting prior approval from the Council.'S7e were the ones who instigated matters after consul-tations with the Council. Tomorrow, when we getround to voting, we shall see if the Ripamonti reportneeds any alteration and if the motion for a resolutionput before the House is suitable. \7e have been toldthat the Council agrees to let the procedure outlinedin the statement of. 22 April 1970 remain in forcewhere Parliament's independence with regard to its

own budget is concerned. If we do not do our iob nowand point out that we are waiting for the Council toapprove something which has not yet been submittedto it, we may find that the Council, too, intends totake is time. I can see no way out of this situation.There is very little time left and the only thing we cando is vote on this motion for a resolution tomorrowafter debating it today. In spite of all the discussionand wrangling that may occur within the Bureau or inthe Committee on Budgets, you cannot ask someoneto approve something he has not seen. \7e have tovote on the findings of the Committee on Budgets, so

that there is a chance to conclude the mattertomorrow.


Mr Dankert. - (NL) Mr President, Mr Sp6nale is ofcourse right as regards the supplementary budget for1979, and I do not deny it. But in the motion for a

resolution on the supplementary budget there is a

clause which is fundamental to what is contained inthe 1980 estimates, namely that there is no indicationthat the Council intends to interfere in drawing upthe 1980 budget. If I can be sure of this - and this iswhat I am asking - there is no problem with thedraft estimates for 1980, which include the 188 posts.If what the motion for a resolution says is not true -and it says that the Council does not intend goingback on the 1970 declaration - the vote we are goingto take will place the new Parliament in a situationwhereby the Council might delete the 188 blockedposts. The new Parliament would thus begin its exist-ence by arguing with the Council. I find thisextremely undesirable. !7e have to realize the politicalrepercussions of such a move and we can perfectlywell express it all in the second preamble, but as a

Member of this Parliament I have no desire to createdifficulties for the new Parliament. The new Parlia-ment will have every opportunity of introducing the188 posts itself if it wants to - that will be noproblem - but if we do this and create difficulties, Ifeel that, to put it mildly, we shall be acting unconsti-tutionally.

Mr President. - I call Mr Mitchell.

Mr Mitchell. - I am getting more and moreconfused, Mr President ; perhaps you could help me.Do I understand that we are being asked to vote nowon Doc. 185179 ? If we are, Mr President, as this docu-ment is dated l0 May, what opportuniry has beengiven to backbench Members of this Parliament tomove amendments to this motion ?

President. - The document was adopted by theCommittee on Budgets this morning. Amendmentscould be tabled at any time thereafter, but this was notdone. Consequently, there is no reason why the voteshould not take place.

I call Mr Sp6nale.

Mr Sp6nale. - (F) Mr President, I am sorry if thisdebate is dragging on, but I feel that a number ofMembers need to be reminded of the procedure inthis case. 'S7e are considering something which Parlia-ment has already voted on, namely, a supplementarybudget regarding ll7 posts for which staff could berecruited immediately, as soon as this budget hadbeen finally approved, and 188 posts which are toremain blocked. It is clear that these 188 posts cannotbe filled before December 1979 or January 1980,because of recruiting procedures. Consequently, wedecided to include these 188 posts, for which there isno urgent need, in the 1980 budget and to keep theothers in the 1979 budget. The breakdown is differentbut the basic situation is the same. Parliament has

already voted unanimously on these expenses. !7hatwe are doing is splitting them between the supplemen-tary budget No 2 for 1979 and the initial budget for1980. This was why there was no need to table theusual large number of amendments.

President. - I call Mr Notenboom.

Mr Notenboom. - (NL) W President, I endorsewhat was said by you and by Mr Sp6nale. I also share

Mr Dankert's concern about the 1980 budget. I admit,I said this morning that it is a bit risky, but does MrDankert believe that the Council is going to provide a

clear answer tomorrow ? Has the Presidency in recentmonths ever given a clear answer. In recent monthswe have had more and more and more evasive

answers, and I am quite sure that we are going to get a

similar answer tomorrow. There is still a risk but Ithink we ought to take it and vote now.

President. - I call Mr Mitchell.

Mr Mitchell. - I am sorry to push this, but I thinkthis is very important for the rights of backbenchMembers of this Padiament. \flhat goes on in yourenlarged Bureau with the leaders is one matter ; whathappens to us is another.


Mitchell

Three questions: at what time was this documentprinted and circulated ? Second question : what wasthe latest time for the receipt of amendments ? Andthird question : if there was no time for the receipt ofamendments, are you still prepared to take them nowin manuscript form ?

President. - The document was approved by theCommittee on Budgets this morning. Naturally, thedeadline for amendments expired when it was distri-buted, i. e. this morning.

I call Mr Mitchell.

Mr Mitchell. - At what time was this documentcirculated this morning ? I know when theCommittee on Budges finished. It had to be circu-lated after that. At what time was it circulated ?

President. - At l1' a. m.

I put the motion for a resolution to the vote.


I call Mr Tugendhat.

Mr Tugendha,t, lVember of tbe Commission. -Following your vote, Mr President, and in the light ofthe fact that it establishes a new preliminary estimatefor a supplementary budget, I should like to say onbehalf of the Commission that we shall immediately,by which I mean this afternoon, fulfil our task of trans-mitting this to the Council as a preliminary draftsupplementary budget.

President, - I have been informed that the Councilwill consider this draft budget as soon as it has beenreceived from the Commission.

If the Council decision is communicated during theevening, we shall vote on the draft supplementarybudget No 2 during tomorrow's sitting and thuscomplete the budgetary procedure, following approvalof the estimates by the Council.

In these circumstances, the deadline for tablingamendments will be set at 8.30 tomorrow morning so

that the Committee on Budgets will have the opportu-nity to consider them. If everything goes according toplan, the vote will take place at 10.30 a. m. tomorrow.

President. - I now put to the vote the motion for a

resolution contained in the Ripamonti report (Doc.175/79): Draft estimates of Parliament for 1980.

I call Mr Dankert on a point of order.

Mr Dankert. - Mr President, I should like topropose voting item by item in order to enable at leastsome Members of my group to vote against the para-graph containing the 188 blocked posts.

President. - !7e shall vote on paragraph I subpara-graph by subparagraph.

I put the preamble to the vote.

The preamble is adopted.

I put to the vote subparagraph (a) of paragraph l.Subparagraph a) of paragraph I is adopted.

I put to the vote subparagraph (b) of paragraph 1.

Subparagraph (b) of paragraph I is adopted.

I put to the vote subparagraph (c) of paragraph l.Subparagraph (c) of paragraph I is adopted.

I put to the vote subparagraph (d) of paragraph l.Subparagraph (d) of paragraph I is adopted.

I put to the vote subparagraph (e) of paragraph l.Subparagraph (e) of paragraph I is adopted.



I put to the vote the motion for a resolution as a

whole.


President. - \(/e shall now consider the nrotion fora resolution (Doc. 166/79) b1 lIr Bertrand andotber.r : Enployntent poliE.

I put to the vote the preamble and paragraph l.The preamble and paragraph I are adopted.

After paragraph l, Mr Albers has tabled AmendmentNo I seeking to insert five new paragraphs :

la Insists that a significant effort be made to create newjobs and, more particularly, that demand beincreased ; that industrial, regional and vocationaltraining policies be developed both at national andCommuniry level ; that jobs be created by developingthe service sector, and specifically those servicesneeded to satisfy the basic requirements of theworking and retired men and women of our Commu-nity (improvement of medical facilities, education, theenvironment and housing) ;

lb Considers that investment in each major economicsector is guided by development plans and that aninvestment notification system should be introducedat both national and Community level and that coher-ence should be ensured;

lc Feels that the granting of government aid to privateenterprise should be conditional upon the preserva-tion and the creation of iobs and compliance with theprocedure outlined above ;

' OJ C 140 of 5. 6. t979 ' OJ C 140 of 5. 6. 1979


President

ld Stresses that national and Community policies to

promote employment form part of the search for a

new international economic order and internationaldivision of labour, which will in the immediate futureenable the developing countries to progress in parallel

with the industrialized countries, and at the same

time demonstrate the Community's resolve to give

the unemployment problem the priority it deserves;

le Demands that the Community be provided with an

economic and social policy capable of solving the

unemployment problem, responsibility for adoptingthe necessary measures lying with the Council and

the Governments of the Member States.

I call Mr Bertrand.

Mr Bertrand. rapporteur.- (NL)W President, I can

accept paragraph l(a), and also paragraphs 1(c) to l(e).But I cannot accept paragraph l(b), because accordingto this paragraph an investment notification system

should be introduced at both national and Commu-nity level and coherence should be ensured. !7e findthis unacceptable because of the risks where competi-tion is concerned. This is likely to bring more disad-vantages than advantages in the creation of new jobs.

!7hile we approve of the other paragraPhs, I ask theHouse to reiect paragraph l(b).


Mr Albers. - NL) In view of Mr Bertrand'scomment, I withdraw paragraph l(b). There will be no

need for the House to vote on it.

President. - I note the withdrawal of paragraph I(b) of Amendment No l.I put to the vote Amendment No l, thus amended'

Amendment No l, thus amended, is adopted.




whole.


President. - !7e now consider the motion for a reso-

lution contained in the Pintat report (Doc. a2/79):Enlargement of tbe Community.

I put to the vote the preamble and paragraphs I to 12.


After paragraph 12, I have Amendments Nos 1,2 aod

3, tabled by Mr Dankert on behalf of the Committeeon Budgets, seeking to insert three new paragraphs:

l2a Vants to be informed on the likely problems interms of eff iciency and operational costs in themanagement of the institutions ; asks the Commis-sion to calculate the costs for the institutions ofworking in extra Communiry languages ;

l2b Asks the Commission to submit proposal immedi-ately for the implementing of the special enlarge-ment reserve, proposed by the European Parliament,so that aid can quickly be provided to the regionsmost disadvantaged of the applicant countries;

12c Asks the Commission to give serious attention tothe final consequences for the countries connectedwith the Community by Association Agreementsand to make appropriate proposals to Providecompensating arrangements for these countries.

Vhat is Mr Bertrand's position ?

Mr Bertrand, deputy ra.Pporteur. - (NL) On behalfof the Committee, Mr President, I ask the House toreject Amendment No 1. '!7e cannot accept Amend-ment No 2 either, but we are ready to accept Amend-ment No 3.

President. - I put Amendment No I to the vote'

Amendment No I is adopted.

I put Amendment No 2 to the vote.






On paragraph 20, I have three amendments :

- Amendment No 5, tabled by Mr Ansquer and MrInchausp6 on behalf of the Group of European

Progressive Democrats, seeking to reword the para-

graph as follows :

Requests that prior to any enlargement the organizationof the market in Mediterranean products be strengthenedin accordance with the principles of the common agricul-tural policy;

- Amendment No 5, tabled by Mr Tolman onbehalf of the Christian-Democratic Group (EPP),

seeking to delete the word costly ;

- Amendment No 7, tabled by Mr Tolman onbehalf of the Christian-Democratic Group (EPP),

seeking to reword the second indent as follows :

speedy application of the Community regulations onmountain and hill farmers.

!flhat is Mr Bertrand's position ?

Mr Bertrand, deputy rapporteur. - (NL) Mr Presi-

dent, we are against Amendment No 5 but for Amend-ments Nos 6 and 7.' OJ C 140 of 5. 6. t979.


President. - I put Amendment No 5 to the vote.

Amendment No 5 is rejected.







I put paragraphs 2l to 43 to the vote.

Paragraphs 2l to 43 are adopted.

After paragraph 43, I have Amendment No 4, tabledby Mr Dankert on behalf of the Committee onBudgets, seeking to insert the following new headingand paragraphs:

As regards the consultation of Parliament on the negotia-tion and conclusion of accession agreements and otherinternational agreements

43 a Believes that Parliament must be more directly andclosely associated with the negotiation and conclu-sion of accession agreements and internationalagreements made by the Community;

43 b Believes that Parliament must be provided withfuller information during the course of these negoti-ations ;

43 c Therefore instructs, for the future, the rapporteurs ofthe committee responsible and the Committee onBudgets to obtain this information, offrcially, onbehalf of Parliament ;

43 d Suggests that they obtain the information

(a) from the Commission, and

(b) by participating, as observers, in the principalmeetings of the negotiating bodies.

!7hat is Mr Bertrand's position ?

Mr Bertrand, deputy rapporteur. - (NL) $7'e canaccept paragraph 43 (a), Mr President, but not theother three new paragraphs.

President. - I put paragraph 43 (a) to the vote.

Paragraph 43 (a) is adopted.

I put paragraphs 43 O) to 43 (d) to the vote.

Paragraphs a3 (b) to 43 (d) are adopted.




whole.


President. - I put to the vote the motion for a reso-lution contained in the Zagari report (Doc. 132/79):Human rigbts in Etbiopia.


President. - !7e now consider the motion for a reso-lution contained in the Fltimig report (Doc. 54/79):JRC multiannual progrdmme I 980-l 983.

I put to the vote the preamble and paragraphs I to 9.


After paragraph 9, I have Amendment No l, tabled byLord Bessborough on behalf of the Committee onBudgets, seeking to insert the following new para-graph :

Approves the recruitment of these temporary additionalstaff on the assurance that

(a) these new posts represent a transitional measurewhich will have the effect of replacing permanentposts by temporary personnel on contracts of limitedduration, and

(b) the officials aged over 60 years who rerire will not betaken back on temporary contracts.

!7hat is Mr Fliimig's position ?

Mr Fliimig, rapporteur. - (D) I recommend adop-tion.

President. - I put Amendment No I to the vote.


I put paragraphs l0 to 15 to the vote.

Paragraphs l0 to 15 are adopted.


whole.


President. - !7e now consider the motion for a reso-lution contained in the Flcimig report (Doc. 74/79):Communication on cooperation uitb deoeloping coun-tries in tbe field of energt.

I call Mr Klepsch.

Mr Klepsch. - (D) Mr President, on behalf of MrDewulf I should like to withdraw the two amend-ments which he tabled.

President. - I note that Amendments Nos I and 2have been withdrawn.

' OJ C 140 of 5. 6. 1979. I OJ C 140 of 5. 6. 1979.


President

I put to the vote the motion for a resolution.


President. - !7e now consider the motion for a reso-lution contained in the Brown report (Doc. 19/79):E lectricity production.

I call Mr Albers for an explanation of vote.

Mr Albers. - (NL) In my view, Mr President, this isan excellent report which lists a series of measures

which have already been taken internatior,ally toresearch and implement alternative means of energyproduction by way of wind, wave and tidal power. I goalong with the rapporteur on all this and can acceptthe first eight paragraphs of the motion for a resolu-tion. However, I disagree entirely with paragraphs 9,l0 and ll, where the rapporteur says that the Euro-pean Community should not finance research anddevelopment work on these alternative energy sources.I ask you to put paragraphs 9, l0 and ll to the voteseparately.

President. - I put to the vote the preamble and para-graphs 1 to 8.







whole.

The resolution is adopted.r

President. - I put to the vote the motion for a reso-lution contained in the Flcimig report (Doc. 96/79):Energ situation in tbe Community.


President. - !7e now consider the Luster report(Doc. 178/79): Amendtnent of tbe Rules of Procedureof Parliament.

In view of certain requirements, I feel it would be

better if we postponed this vote.

I call Mr Cunningham on a point of order.

Mr Cunningham. - Could you iust explain whatyou had in mind there, Mr President ? Is there anyreason why we should not proceed to vote on MrLuster's motion for a resolution and the amendmentthat I have tabled ?

President. - There is a quite definite reason, whichyou will understand as the vote proceeds.

In accordance with Rule sal! of the Rules of Proce-dure, all motions for resolutions seeking to amendthese Rules require for adoption the votes of themaioriry of the Members of this Parliament, i.e. 100

votes.

!7e shall now vete on this motion for a resolution.

On Rule 7(a), Mr Patiin, Mr Hamilton and MrCunningham have tabled Amendment No 2 seekingto delete this rule.

\7hat is Mr Klepsch's position ?

Mr Klepsch, deputl rap|orteur. - (D) Mr President,the rapporteur, Mr Luster, asked me to stand in forhim if voting was to go on as late as this. I am toreject the amendment on his behalf.

President. - I call Mr Patijn.

Mr Patijn. - (NL) Mr President, I expected thisfrom the deputy rapporteur. There is one thing I wantto say as co-author of the amendment : this is exactlythe sort of thing that the new Parliament will have todecide and there is no need for the present Parliamentto take a decision on it.

President. - I call Mr Klepsch.

Mr Klepsch.- (D) If an explanation is due, Mr Pres-

ident, I can say only why the rapporteur rejected theamendment. This motion was contained in the Lusterreport and was a joint motion by all six groups in theHouse . ..

Interruption; (fl Not by the groups but by thechairmen of the groups !

Mr Klepsch. - (D) . . . I can do nothing if thechairman of the Socialist Group tells me he can signon behalf of his group ; I assume that, as with all theother groups he is entitled to do so. lfherever wouldwe get to otherwise in this Parliament ? At any rate,

this was the basis on which the Committee on theRules of Procedure and Petitions made its decision.

This was a motion tabled by all six groups, since itwas felt that arrangements had to be made if the officeof quaestor were to be introduced on the day thatParliament was constituted. For this reason, the rappor-teur recommends reiection of the amendment.' OJ C 1,l() of 5. 6. 1979.



Amendment No 2 has not received 100 votes, nor willany other amendment. It was for this reason that Iproposed to defer the vote.

Amendment No 2 is not adopted.

On Rule 3(5) of the Rules of Procedure, MrCunningham has tabled Amendment No I seeking toreword the paragraph as follows :

A group shall consist of not less than twenty-onemembers.

Vhat is Mr Klepsch's position ?

Mr Klepsch, deputy rapporteur. - (D) The rappor-teur recommends rejection of the amendment, MrPresident. It was previously put to the Committee onthe Rules of Procedure and Petitions and was alsorejected then, because the committee wanted to intro-duce only one amendment involving, on the basis ofthe present Rules of Procedure, the proportionalincrease from 198 to 410 Members. The Cunninghamamendment would reduce the requirements forforming groups to such an extent that the balance inrelation to the current Rules of Procedure would notbe maintained. The rapporteur therefore recommendsthat the Cunningham amendment be rejected.


It is not adopted.

I call Mr Sp6nale on a point of order.

Mr Sp6nale. - (F) Mr President, the aim of theLuster report is to change the Rules of Procedure. Theaim of the amendments is to change the proposalsmade in the Luster report, and we know that even ifwe all vote the same way, there will be no result. Thatis how things stand, so is there any need to carry on ?


Mr Klepsch. - (D) Mr President, in view of thenumber of Members present in the House, I shouldlike to ask on behalf of my group that the vote bedeferred.

(lllixed reoctions)

President. - I call Mr Cunningham.

Mr Cunningham. - Mr President, we have alreadybegun voting on this matter. !7e have disposed of thetwo amendments to the Luster report. I would suggestthere is no reason at all why - it will only take usabout 30 seconds now - we should not complete theprocess. There is a very good reason why we shouldproceed. It is this. You cannot have a situation wherepeople say: We have not got the numbers this after-noon, maybe some other time we shall have thenembers, so we put it off from the proper time on theagenda of Parliament to some other time. In practice,we all know that it is highly unlikely that there will

be any other time when the numbers are available.Moreover, it would be a bad principle to establish thatpeople can have a look round the room, decide thatnumbers are not available for their purposes now, andpostpone the report. !7e have begun this matter. Letus get rid of it, which we can do in about one minute.


Mr Klepsch. - (D) Mr President, I only want topoint out to Mr Cunningham that when we last votedon changing the Rules of Procedure we proceeded as

follows : if there is no quorum, the matter is deferreduntil a later sitting. That is all I am proposing now.

(fulixed reactions)

My dear Mr Cunningham, you may think what youlike, but this is normal procedure in the House, andthis is how we proceeded when we last amended theRules of Procedure. I7hether you are happy with thistoday is irrelevant. I only want to point out that I amproposing this course of action because the House hasproceeded in this fashion on earlier occasion.

President. - I call Mr Sp6nale.

Mr Sp6nele. - (F) Mr President, there are only twosolutions : either we do what Mr Klepsch proposes orwe vote on all the amendments together. None will beadopted and then the Luster report will fail to beadopted. There is no point wasting time on thedetails.

Either we realize that nothing is going to be adoptedor we defer the vote ; otherwise we are just wasting ourtime.


Mr Broeksz. - (DK) Mr President, I believe weshould carry on with the vote. \7e are not going toachieve anything but we have to go through with it.After we have done that, we shall have to table thesame motion again when there are 100 Memberspresent and we can then get done what in our viewneeds to be done.


Mr Klepsch. - (D) Mr Presiden! I entirely agreewith Mr Broeksz that we should reconsider this reportby the Committee on the Rules of Procedure and Peti-tions when we have a quorum. This is how we haveproceeded hitherto. Anyone can look at the minutesand see that the House has proceeded in this fashion,and this is what I think Mr Broeksz was saying. Thesimplest solution is to suspend the vote and to recon-sider the report when there is a quorum in the House.This is what we have done in the past.

(Intemuptions)

!7e have never produced a new report in the past.


President. - I do not think there is any point incontinuing this discussion. Before we began voting, Isaid it would be better if we postponed the vote, butthis proposal was turned down.

I call Mr Klepsch.

Mr Klepsch. - (D) \7e would have accepted yourproposal but it was never put to the vote. !7e agreedwith you, Mr President" but you did what MrCunningham wanted.


Mrs Dunwoody.- Mr President, are we not havinga classic example of what happens when some peoplecannot fix the vote ? It was not Parliament thatdecided that it wanted this change in the rules, butthe Bureau and the Committee on the Rules of Proce-dure and Petitions. There is really no point in the indi-vidual Members of this Parliament saying : If we

cannot win the vote, we shall put off the vote until wehave 100 Members here and can manage to fix it. Youtook the decision to ask us if we wanted to vote. S7e

asked for a vote. Can we now complete it ?

President. - I call Mr Holst.

Mr Holst. - (DK) Mr President, I had the greathonour to be in your chair this morning, and we quiteclearly decided then that the voting would take placeunder Rule 54 (2). I understood from you, Mr Presi-dent, that you told Parliament that we should eitherstart the vote and conclude it under these rules, or else

we should not start the vote at all as there was noquorum present. It might well be that, if there hadbeen a quorum present, the voting on the amend-ments would have been different. We must thereforecontinue with the voting.


Mr Sieglerschmidt. - (D) Mr President, as far as Iknow, there is nothing in the Rules of Procedure -and if I am mistaken on this, kindly enlighten me -to stop us from deferring a vote at any time duringthe voting procedure, if there are other votes still tocome and if the maiority of the House so decides. Iwould ask you to consider this point and come to a

decision on Mr Klepsch's request.

President. - I put Mr Klepsch's request to the vote.

The request is adopted.

I call Mrs Dunwoody.

Mrs Dunwoody.- \7ith the greatest respect to you,Mr President, I find that little incident absolutelyastounding even by the bizarre standards of this esta-

blishment. We started a vote ; we actually started thatvote after it had been put to the Assembly - it was

announced by the Vice-President in the chair thismorning - that there would be a vote ; there hasbeen no change in that procedure whatsover, and inthe middle of the vote on the whole thing, yousuddenly make the totally different suggestion that itshould be put off, because Mr Klepsch doesn't thinkhe can fix the vote. Now, frankly, that is utterlydisgraceful. Any democratic organization, or even anyorganization that pretends to have any involvementwith democracy, cannot play around with the rules ofthe game in that way. If this Parliament seeks, as itobviously does in this motion, to try and fix what isgoing to be the rule in the new Parliament, it cannotin the middle of the entire vote suddenly change itsmind. \7hat happened was that the Committee on theRules of Procedure and Petitions, without consultingParliament as a whole, took a decision ; they wantedto get it through, for which they needed a hundredpeople, and because they haven't got a hundredpeople, they now want to put off the vote in themiddle of voting on the amendments. How you, Sir,as a democrat can defend that I will never understand.

President. - Mrs Dunwoody, you should havespoken out against the vote on Mr Klepsch's requestbefore it took place, but you took part in the vote, andyou cannot take part and then complain. In my view,this is not the right way to go about it.

I call Mr Cunningham on a point of order.

Mr Cunningham. - Mr President, I am sure noneof us wants to prolong this further, but could youclarify now two points ?

(Interruptions)

Is it in future to be the procedure of Parliament in itsnew form that in the middle of a vote it will be opento any Member, not iust from the front benches, topropose putting off the vote and that the proposal canbe carried by a simple majoriry ? Can you tell us ifthat is now the established practice of this House ?

That is point one.

Since we are having a procedural dispute., Mr Presi-dent, could I ask you also to clarify a further pointwhich arises, not out of the incident we have just had,but out of the entire debate on that subject ? It has

been suggested that if I had not tabled my amend-ment and Mr Patijn had not tabled his amendment,and if the House had generally accepted the proposalsin the Luster report, then it would have been possibleto change the rules of the House without the need for100 votes in favour under Article 54 (2). Now couldyou clarify, Sir, whether in fact it is possible to changethe rules without having the support of 100

Members ? It has been claimed by leading Members ofthe House that if no-one raises an objection then theHouse can decide to override Rule 54.


President. - I call Lord Kennet.

Lord Kennet. - Mr President, I rise to seek furtherclarification on this procedural matter. At some futuredate, either you yourself or another President of theParliament will be sitting in that chair when this prop-osal comes forward for vote. At that time it will bepointed out that arnendments to the proposal wereconsidered and rejected today - has been an unsuc-cessful attempt to amend it. I ain sure that the futurePresident of the Parliament or of the sitting would begrateful if he had before him a ruling or even a suSges-

tion from yourself now on the question whether atthat future sitting the Parliament could consideramendments to the proposal.


Mr Broeksz. - (NL) Mr President, I feel we haveended up in a particularly vexing situation. I agreewith you that the best thing would have been, nowthat the motion is before us, not to introduce anyamendments. Parliament could then have adopted themotion with a general vote. But amendments weretabled and we have now begun the vote. Since wehave begun it, we shall have to finish it. Anyway, wecan no longer put the same motion before Parliament.I have therefore asked that we carry on with the voteand then request the Committee on the Rules ofProcedure and Petitions to submit a new motion, inview of the opinion that has been expressed here inthe House. If necessary, this could be done tomorrowor on the next occasion when 100 Members arepresent. I am sorry that this has not been done,because Mr Klepsch's request means that we arebreaking off in the middle of the vote and it gives theimpression that something else could be done. Thereis nothing else we can do, Mr President. That is thesituation, unfortunately. I am very sorry about it, and IsupPose you are, too.

President. - Let me attempt to summarize the situa-tion. I am not going to repeat what I said at the outsetabout the lack of a quorum for this vote on amendingthe Rules of Procedure. W'e went on to vote on amend-ments which required the same quorum in order tobe adopted, and of course we did not have a quorum.

I have been asked whether amendments to the Rulesof Procedure may be adopted in future without thequorum laid down in Rules 5a (2). The answer is 'no',because the Rules of Procedure are quite specific onthis point.

!7hat is the significance of the vote taken on MrKlepsch's request. I should like it to be recorded inthe minutes that this vote was simply to see if a

quorum was present. !7e do not have a quorum,which means that even if we had completed ourvoting, the amendments to the Rules of Procedurewould have been null and void.

At this point, if the House is in agreement, we couldrefer the matter to committee, so that the committeeitself can decide whether to submit the same motionor other motions.


Mrs Dunwoody.- Well, sir, I am very grateful toyou for that minimum clarification. But, with the grea-test respect, it does not actually answer the otherpoints which were put to you. If we are halfwaythrough a vote and a number of amendments havebeen reiected, as they were, and in the middle of thatyou suddenly take a vote to put off the final vote andrefer the whole thing back to committee - in otherwords, halfway through the vote you throw the wholething into chaos - then would you please tell mewhat exactly has happened ? Does that mean that theamendments, which at least sought to establish a

degree of democracy in this nonsensical process, werelost or can they be revived when they come back tothe Committee on the Rules of Procedure ? Or areyou really saying that, because Mr Klepsch couldn'tpack this chamber with 100 people that he knewwould vote the way he wanted them to vote, we arenow going to pretend that none of this has takenplace and we are going to return to square one ? Ifthat is so, then presumab$ we can put all of theamendments again.

President. - That seems quite logical to me. Theamendments were not adopted because there was noquorum. It is obvious that they can be put forwardagain when the committee reconsiders the matter.

In view of the discussion, and since I note that thereare no objections, the report will be referred tocommittee,

10. Directioe on tbe protection of tbeinterests of members and otbers in

soci4tds,tnonyrnes (resumption)

President. - The next item is the resumption of thedebate on the Schmidt report (Doc. 136179).

Mr Guertsen requested this morning that the reportbe referred to committee.

I call Mr Caro.

Mr Caro. - (F) As we were told this morning, MrPresident, we have reached a stage with this debate -which is of paramount importance for this Assemblyduring the final run-up to the direct elections -where most of the Members have made an effort toreach a compromise so that the Commission's workwill be easier and so that we can get a positive result.

If I may say so again, the European Parliament's maintask is to consider the efforts by the Commission inpositive terms and not to scuttle then by means ofsome procedural stratagem or reference to committee.


Caro

Nonetheless, Parliament and all the political grouPs

are also aware that there are still one or two points tobe settled before we can give our full support to this

fifth directive and state our position on the conditionsrequired in a Community directive on employee parti-cipation of the management boards of undertakings'

The situations in the Member States and the attitudesof the political parties are worlds apart, to say theleast. I7e are in a transitional period as regards thismatter, and we have to come up with a guideline textfor gradual change.

Yesterday we looked at a text proposed by the Legal

Affairs Committee and which, in the opinion of a

considerable part of the House, went rather too far inview of the current situation and threatened to change

the Commission's proposal for gradual change into a

text which would be far too rigid for present needs, bybecoming compulsory at the end of the transitionalperiod. Several groups are not ready to accept this iustyet. Furthermore, many Members felt that there was a

need to incorporate in this directive not only theminimum requirements before any new concept can

be introduced, but also the ultimate aim which themaiority want to achieve and which is omitted here,

i.e. parity.

!flhat in fact happened ? The Christian-DemocraticGroup tabled an amendment along these linesyesterday, and during the morning the groups gottogether in response to the appeal which MrDavignon made on behalf of the Commissionyesterday evening and which Mr Gundelach repeated

this morning. \fle discussed the matter withoutyielding on our basic positions. The Christian-Democratic Group consulted in particular MrSchmidt, the rapporteur for the Legal AffairsCommittee, to see if we could not work out a iointtext which satisfied the basic positions which I have

just referred to.

I must say that I was delighted when we found ^n

area

of agreement at the end of these talks. As a result, theChristian-Democratic Group is withdrawing the textwhich I presented as Amendment No I yesterday and

is instead tabling, together with Mr Schmidt on behalfof the Socialist Group, a new amendment to replace

the resolution proposed by the Legal AffairsCommittee and the draft amendment which I tabledduring yesterday's sitting. I trust that this text willsatisfy all those who felt that new proposals had to be

sought from the Commission, especially with regard

to Articles 3 and 4 of the directive, and that in themeantime - instead of shelving the matter withsome procedural stratagem or other - the Commis-sion could get to work and submit new ProPosals tothe directly elected Parliament.

Since this has been done, we believe that we have satis-fied those who were wanting more time for considera-

tion. I am referring to those who did not want toreach any decision here and now on the problem ofworkers' representation on supervisory organs in parti-cular, as well as those who wanted to see expressed the

principles which they hold and for which they were

elected, by direct universal suffrage, back home intheir own countries.

I want to pay tribute to the Members of the SocialistGroup who accepted this area of agreement so thatthe European Parliament could act in a positivemanner at this significant time on a matter as weightyas the one we are dealing with. I call on the othergroups, on the Conservative Group, on the EPDGroup, on the Liberal Group and on the unattachedMembers, to go along with this approach so that we

can enable the Commission to respond to Parlia-ment's call.


Vice-President

President. - I call Mr Schmidt.

Mr Schmidt, rapPorteilr. - (D) Mr President, I cango along with much of what Mr Caro said. TheMembers of the Socialist Group - if for once I mayspeak at the same time as rapporteur and as a Memberof my group - are of couse not altogether happywith what has come out of all this, because we wantedsomething more. In this we had the support of theLegal Affairs Committee. But both Mr Davignonyesterday and Mr Gundelach today passionatelyappealed to us not to cause any further delay byrejecting the whole thing or exploiting proceduralmeans to prevent the directive from being adopted.Our group then decided with some reluctance toadopt a joint approach, which was worked out by MrCaro and myself, and we agreed to replace our motionwith a ioint amendment, which is now being consid-ered.

As rapporteur, I also go along with the view - whichin my opinion also satisfies the wishes of those on theLegal Affairs Committee who were in favour of theproposal - that we should not get caught in a situa-tion whereby these important questions would still be

pending.

A number of major points have been retained: forexample, redrafting on the basis of the report by theLegal Affairs Committee with due regard for the prop-osals made by the Committee, and the fact that we donot agree with Articles 3 and 4 is also made clear. It is

on this basis that we can reach agreement. I withdrawmy motion, which is replaced by the joint amend-ment, and I ask the House to vote in favour of thisjoint amendment.


President. - I call Sir Derek lTalker-Smith.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith, Cbairman of the LegalAffairs Committee. - Mr President, if I may speak as

chairman of the committee responsible, I should likefirst to express my regret that I have not been able toattend the debate until this afternoon. The reason isthat I was accorded the honour of proposing the elec-tion of Mr Speaker in the House of Commonsyesterday, and that is an occasion not only of practicalimportance but also of symbolic value to many parlia-ments and many people throughhout the English-speaking world, as sign and symbol of the historiccontinuity of our parliamentary practices. I must alsoexpress regret that I was unable to be present at, orpreside over the last and definitive meeting of theLegal Affairs Committee for a less agreeable reason : itcame in the middle of the period of the general elec-tion in the United Kingdom.

Mr Caro has made reference to the intervention of MrGeurtsen, one of the distinguished vice-chairman ofthe committee in regard to Rule 25. Now as theHouse so well knows, paragraph 2 of Rule 25 says thata request for reference to the committee shall alwaysbe granted if it is made in person by the chairman ofthe committee responsible.

That the rule does not say, of course is by what princi-ples the chairman is to be guided : is he to exercisehis right as a servant of the committee seeking tointerpret its will ? I have no doubt that it is in thatsecond capacity that he is intended to exercise theright, that that is an implied provision of the rule,though not an express one. I see that Members of theseniority and experience of Mr Bertrand and othersassent to that view. At this stage there is no possibiliryof my ascertaining the will of the committee becauseit is not in session ; nevertheless, Mr President, it ispossible to ascertain the will of the House, becausethe House is in session. By what I will as chairman bebound in the exercise of my discretion, if you, sir, willpermit us, as is your right to ascertain the will of theHouse as to whether or not I should exercise my rightunder Rule 26.That is my position as chairman of thecommittee, and I hope you will assent to that request.

If I might just add a brief word on my personal posi-tion, and that of the group of which I am a member Ithink it would be unfortunate if, in the final stages ofthis parliament, a resolution, in the terms of thecomposite resolution commended by Mr Caro and MrSchmidt, was adopted after very little discussion, in a

form which overturns in some vital respects the draftof the Commission's directive ; I refer, in particular, tothe provision of Article 4 in relation to the composi-tion and balance of the supervisory board.

I speak as a long-time believer in, and exponent of,the principle of employee participation, as a believerin its importance as a vital progress. Nevertheless, Ibelieve that precipitate action today would be likely to

be counter-productive in two respects : first withregard to the further consideration by the Commis-sion of this matter, and also very importantly, Mr Presi-dent, to its ultimate and definitive consideration bythe Council of Ministers, which, as the House wellknows, is the constitutional legislative organ of theCommuniry under the provisions of the Treaty; andsecond, if I may say, so with regard to the reputationof this Parliament, I sympathize, of course, with thedesire of our valued rapporteur Mr Schmidt, to finalizehis long and conscientious labours, and I would likethis to be for his sake, because he is a valued friendand colleague, ol finis coronat opus; but a report orresolution adopted with inadequate study and delibera-tion would not constitute a crown worthy of the greatcontribution which Mr Schmidt has made to this Parli-ament.

This Parliament, sir, is close to its end, and I recallShakespeare's comment in ^fulacbetb on one of thecharacters in the play : 'Nothing in his life becamehim like the leaving of it.' Paragraph six of thiscomposite resolution repeats and adopts the mainpoint of departure of the report from the Commis-sion's original draft directive as discussed at length,inour committee. I do not believe that the adoption ofthis resolution, in these circumstances and by thisnecessarily precipitate action, would rebound to thecredit of this Parliament or enhance the reputationwhich it would wish history to accord it. That,however, is a personal view; it may well be the viewof my group - and I see that the chairman of mygroup nods his assent - and of other groups as well.But in my capacity as chairman of the committeeresponsible and in exercise of my right under Rule 26,I would submit myself to the will of this House if you,sir, would be good enough to cause it to be ascer-tained. If you would do that, sir, I should show theobjectiviry which I think would be proper ro a

chairman in such circumstances, by abstaining onsuch a vote. That seems to me to be the proper democ-ratic and constitutional procedure for a chairman inthis position. I respectfully commend that course toyou, Sir, and ask you to ascertain the will of theHouse.


Vice-President

President. - I should like to know, Sir Derek, whichprocedure you are referring to. I thought you werespeaking in a personal capacity, i.e. pursuant to Rule32 of the Rules of Procedure, when moving referenceto committee. If this were so, I should have to ask forone speaker for and one against the motion, and thenput it to the vote. On the other hand, if you aremaking this request in your capaciry as chairman ofthe committee responsible Article 26 applies and refer-


President

ence is automatic. I should like to know in what

capacity you are making this request.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith. - I am asking you, sir, as

President of this Parliament, to ascertain the will of

this Parliament. Nothing, I think, can be more democ-

ratic and appropriate than that. And I have said that

in the exercise of my statutory right under Rule 5 (2) Iwill be bound by the opinion of the House, because itwas unanimously, as far as I could see, assented to by

the Parliament that I should exercise this right not ina personal capacity but in accordance with the will of

thi committee. In the absence of a meeting of the

committee, it is clearly appropriate that you should

ascertain the will of the House quite simply as towhether or not they would wish the matter to be

referred to committee. This is, I think, sir, a perfectly

simple, viable, proper and democratic proposition, and

I respectfully ask you to accede to it.

President. - Ladies and gentlemen, at this stage we

shall have one speaker for and one speaker against

and then we shall vote. I call Mr Broeksz.

Mr Broeksz. - (NL) Mr President I have simplyasked to speak in this debate because I believe thatwhat the chairman of the Legal Affairs Committee has

now put forward can be discussed in the debate. Ihave not yet made up my mind whether I am for oragainst and I should like the debate to continue. Inmy view the chairman of the Legal Affairs Commit-tees is justified in the way he is acting. A chairmancannot decide the matter for himself and merely use

his own political iudgment at a moment like this. Thechairman is the servant of the Committee and in myview it is clear that the majority of the Committee and

the maiority of Parliament consider that decision must

be taken today. This is not entirely accidental. Both

Mr Davignon yesterday and Mr Gundelach thismorning asked for this to be done. This led to MrGeurtsen's ddmarcbe. Mr Geurtsen felt that he was

entitled as vice-chairman of the Legal Affairscommittee to suggest that the matter should be

referred back to the Committee. 'S7e did not discuss

that suggestion. In my view Mr Geurtsen had no rightto act as he did. Vice-chairmen do not have this right,only the chairman is entitled to act in this way. Thisseems to me to be the proper mode of operation, laiddown in the Rules of Procedure. In these circum-stances I think that the chairman is right to ask

whether the majority of Members of this Parliamentwish the motion for a resolution tabled by MrSchmidt and Mr Caro to be accepted or whether, if itis not accepted the matter should be referred back tothe Legal Affairs Committee.

I think this is entirely the correct procedure, Mr Presi-

dent, and I consider that if the vote takes place on

this question tomorrow morning, the question whichthe chairman of the Legal Affairs Committee posed

must first be dealt with - whether what he did was

correct. That should not be discussed now buttomorrow when the voting takes place on this ques-

tion probably at the beginning of the sitting. Everyone

knows that the voting will take place then, and that

the motion tabled by Mr Schmidt and Mr Caro will be

on the agenda. I would consider it entirely wrong tohave that vote now, when nobody knows about it and

everyone thinks that the votes have been completed.

Tomorrow when the subject comes uP on the agenda

you can ask who is for and who is against. That can

then be discussed very briefly, but I should regard it as

quite wrong to hold this vote hastily now.

Mr President I do not wish to comment further onwhat Sir Derek lTalker-Smith gave as his personalopinion. That is no longer relevant, but if it is nowclaimed that this matter has been too summarily dealtwith, that there has hardly been any preliminary workor discussion on it, I would reply that the latest propo-sals from the Committee have been under discussionin the Legal Affairs Committee for nwo years and thatis quite long enough.

President. - Before asking Mr Schmidt to speak Ishould like to remind Mr Broeksz that by Rule 32 a

point of order takes precedence over the main ques-

tion, the discussion of which must be suspended.

I call Mr Schmidt.

Mr Schmidt, rapporteur. - (D) Mr President, may Ibe permitted the following comments. Firstly,following the remarks of the chairman of the Legal

Affairs Committee there is at present no motion forreferral back to Committee before the House. MrGeurtsen's proposal has been nullified by the state-

ment of the chairman of the Legal Affairs Committeewho is now with us. The only question which must be

decided today is that put by Sir Derek Walker-Smith,who quite iustly says that he is no longer in a positionto ask his Committee and is therefore asking theopinion of the House. He has in effect said that ifParliament considers that the vote should be taken onthis report he will respect Parliament's decision. Thatis what is now at issue, and I do not believe that anymore long speeches are necessary. That's what he

wants and that is what we should do.


Mr Bertrand. - NL) Mr President, I fully agree

with your interpretation of Rule 32, in other wordsthat a Member may always ask during a debate tomove reference to committee. The debate is thensuspended and a vote must be taken. So I fully agree

with your interpretation.


Bertrand

Secondly, I should like to thank Mr Schmidt for hisaccurate interpretation of the function of thechairman of the Committee, who is not permitted toreact on his own behalf, but who is a servant of theCommittee and must be guided by the majoriry ofthat contmittee. I thank him for those rernarks.However, in addition he also asked as an ordinaryMember that the entire text should be referred back tothe Committee and he added that if this request wasrejected he would accept rhat decision in the normalmanner. . . Obviously I am mistaken, since he is indi-cating that he did not request that. Sir Derek lTalker-Smith now tells me that he did not ask for the marrerto be referred to committee. In that case we mustcertainly not vote ! I should thus like to ask Sir Dereklflalker-Smith to tell us unequivocally whether he isasking for referral to committee at this time, as anordinary Member of this Parliament. If he is not, andI ask him not to, then we can continue the debate andvote tomorrow.

President. - I call Sir Derek l7alker-Smith.

Sir Derek Valker-Smith. - Mr President, I hopedand thought it would be clear from the tenor of myspeech that I personally was not moving the referenceto committee. I said that I hoped that the Housewould be put in a position in which it could come toa decision. It can come to a decision if one Membermoves a reference to committee and this is oposed byanother Member, as you, Mr President, have alreadypointed out. I am not the person to make a personalreference, because I am the chairman of thecommittee and have already stated that I think itwould be appropriate for me to abstain on any suchvote. All that is required in the mechanics is thatsomebody moves it as a technical matter and it isopposed, and then the decision is taken. If nobodymoves it then nobody wants it and cadit quaestio, thematter is settled.

President. - Obviously I had misunderstood you,Sir Derek. The debate will therefore continue.

I call Mr Caro.

Mr Caro. - (F) Mr President, may I congratulate SirDerek lflalker-Smith, who has not used the poweravailable to him under the Rules of Procedure out ofrespect for this House, although he was perfectlyentitled to do so.

It stands to reason that all those who have workedhard over a period of 48 hours to produce a motionfor a resolution that would permit a decision to betaken are not going to be satisfied with a vote or areferral to committee. !7e would like to see theCommittee take up the matter again, in view of themandate which we are giving it to ensure that thematter comes up again before the directly elected

Parliament. In other words, Mr president, we areasking you to interpret the will of this House, asadequately reflected in the agreement of the twolargest groups in this Parliament, to take a decision,and if you think it necessary, to have this decision rati-fied by a vore which could be proposed by a Member,but which has not been asked for by the chairman ofthe Legal Affairs Committee.

In some respects, my views do not differ so muchfrom those of Mr Broeksz, although this is a proce-dural matter - no decision can be taken uniil wehave been invited to vote on the motion proper.Consequently the debate will continue, and I f;na inisgratifying.


The motion for a resolution and the amendmentswhich have been tabled will be put to the vote ar thebeginning of tomorrow's sitting.


ll. Economic and trade relations between tbeEEC and New Zealand

President. - The next item is the debate on thereport (Doc. 107179), drawn up by Lord Castle onbehalf of the Committee on External Economic Rela-tions, on economic and trade relations between theEEC and New Zealand.


Mrs Dunwoody, deputl rapporteur. - Mr president,

I am glad that we have eventually come to the consid_eration of Lord Castle's report on what to me is anextremely important subject - namely, the relation-ship of the Community with New Zealand.

For a very long time the Community has benefitedfrom its relationship with a country that is, certainlyto my mind, one of the best examples of a stable andan efficient socie$. .The

_ islands of New Zealand,which have long been connected with the UnitedKingdom, have certain lessons to offer us in theCommunity. They are extremely efficient producers ofagricultural procedure. They employ theii investmentin the agricultural industry in a way which not onlybenefits the consumer but enables them to export ahigh proportion of their agricultural produce rig-ht theway across the world and to compete in an excellentmanner with other nations because of their efficiencyand of the quality of the goods they produce. This is alesson that could well be learned by many others.

Lord Castle has produced a report which is verynoticeable, it seems to me, for its sane and sensiblitone. It has not only examined the history of the rela-tionship between New Zealand and the Communitybut has spelled out some of the undoubtedly very diffi-cult and far-reaching political problems that we are


Dunwoody

beginning to encounter in the Community in our rela-tionship with the islands.

Let us examine what happened. !7hen Great Britain,which had traditionally benefited from its relationshipwith New Zealand, entered the Community, it sought

- in my view, absolutely rightly - a special situationfor New Zealand as a supplier of agricultural goods. Itobtained what might not have been, or might nothave seemed to some of us, adequate safeguards,which nevertheless were a guarantee of the goodwillwhich the Communiry wished to demonstrate to NewZealand. Over a period of years New Zealand hasdemonstrated in a most remarkable way ::" responsi-bility, and its understanding of the view of the EEC.Indeed, even at the cost of its own export markets,New Zealand has sought to comply with the condi-tions that were laid down by the EEC. The figures inthe report demonstrate clearly that in fact the pricepaid by New Zealand for this restraint has been veryhigh. I must frankly say, as a British consumer,speaking for a moment for myself alone, I believe thatthe price of New Zealand's discipline has been onethat has been borne by the British consumer as well,because one of the advantages of being closely linkedto an exporter of agricultural produce like NewZealand was that one was able to buy their goods atvery reasonable prices. New Zealand, however,accepted that because inside the Community therewas a common agricultural poicy, which seemed veryspecifically to be aiming at high prices to protect theproducer irrespective of the effect on the market, itwould not be possible for New Zealand to undercutexisting producers. They therefore have agreed to a

system of levies which, frankly has led to considerabledisadvantages, not only for the exporters but for theconsumers.

Those of us who have watched the decline in the saleof New Zealand produce, particularly inside theUnited Kingdom, know that, whatever else, this musthave something to do with the artificial rise in prices,which, of course, is directly connected with a systemof levies administered at the borders fo the Commu-nity. Nevertheless, in Dublin the Community lookedat the whole question of its relationships, particularlywith this country in the South Pacific basin, anddecided that it had both a moral and an economicresponsibility and that is the thing that I think mustbe underlined to the Community today.

'W'e are not simply talking about a straightforwardtrading agreement; we are talking abut a moralcommitment, and the report spells out that whathappened in Dublin was that an undertaking wasgiven to New Zealand that her interests would not beignored. I/e actually say:

'New Zealand needs therefore to be able to feel thatin the Community it has a trustworthy partner with

whom it can discuss matters of mutual concern andmeet with a measure of understanding.'

Not the least of the reasons why it needs to have thisunderstanding and this trust is that New Zealand hasalways provided a market itself for the manufacturedgoods, of the Communiry, a market which, sinceBritain's entry into the EEC, has been expanded forother nations than our own and from which they arebeginning to benefit. There can be no doubt that ifthis is in fact the situation, we have an even greatercommitment to protect the interests of the NewZealanders. !7hat has happened, of course, is that overthe years New Zealand's quota has gone down, and itis only now that she has received any undertaking thatshe is to be allowed to export to the Communitycontinuing amounts of dairy produce.

I must say that I believe the whole question of what iscalled a sheepmeat r6gime is another aspect of thetrading policy that we have to look at extremely care-fully, because New Zealand produces and sells lamband mutton to the Community in such a way that theconsumer benefits tremendously from her efficientmarketing and is able to enioy access to cheaper meatthan that which is increasingly becoming very diffi-cult to buy from within the Community itself.

Therefore when the Community decided to set up a

sheepmeat r6gime, with all the problems that entailsfor the countries of the Community, many of us putforward the argument that in seeking to create an artif-icial market of this kind we should actually bedamaging the interests of the consumers. How muchmore difficult is it, therefore, for a counrry like NewZealand, already having considerable difficulties withits larger trading partner, the EEC, if its other efficientmarket, namely lamb and mutton, is to be damagedby increasing levies and the progressive organizationof a sheepmeat market.

I would commend this report to the European Parlia-ment because it establishes, to my mind, the real situa-tion. It doesn't seek to be a propaganda document andto suggest that all that is New Zealand is best, and allthat is produced in the Community is therefore unac-ceptable. It sets out the history, the trading pattern,the changes that have taken place, the very realdamage that the Communiry has done to NewZealand's trading position, and it also sets out in verymoderate terms the positive advantages to theconsumer inside the Community of the continuationof a trading arrangement with New Zealand. If thereis, in an area with which we have a number of connec-tions like the South Pacific, not only with NewZealand but with other ACP countriei, an establish-ment which is democratic, stable, efficient andanxious to trade with us, I would have thought that itwas extremely important that the Community shouldactually bend over backwards to come to an agree-ment with them which would enable them to


Dunwoody

continue the happy relationship that they have hadwith the EEC over many years.

I hope that this Parliament will today accept thereport. I believe that there are many aspects of itwhich are of very great use. These will, for example,dispose of the idea that it is only New Zealand dairyproduce that is causing difficulty for us in theCommunity. They will demonstrate that although, totake the case of Great Britain, some EEC, exportershave experienced a considerable fall in their exportsof dairy produce to the United Kingdom, neverthelessNew Zealand itself has also had a comparable fall inits exports, and this, I am sure, is largely connectedwith the question of price and the question ofconsumption in general. I think that it will make itclear to those agricultural nations which have hadconsiderable doubts about continuing the arrange-ments with New Zealand that this is somethingwhich we can not only welcome but from which all ofus in the Community will benefit. I trust that if weare to establish ourselves as a world trading bloc, andafter all that is what the EEC inevitably must become,then we are not going to seek in some way or anotherto disciminate against those of our erstwhile partnerswho have proved themselves not only steadfast intheir commitment, but actually extremely helpful inthe arrangements that they have been prepared tomake to accommodate the policies of the Community

at considerable cost to themselves.

I believe that this report, even though I wouldperhaps like to have seen some of the recommenda-tions rather more strongly phrased, is an extremelyuseful document, and I trust that it will be acceptedand acted upon by the Parliament.

President. - I call Mr Tolman to speak on behalf ofthe Christian-Democratic Group (EPP)

Mr Tolman. - (NL) May I begin Mr President, bycongratulating Lord Castle on his report. I considerthat it has become an exceptionally good report -and I emphasize the words 'has become' - partlyowing to the discussions which took place incommittee. I fully understand that with his Britishbackground Lord Castle approaches this questionsomewhat differently from the non-British members

- the same can be seen from Mrs Dunwoody'scomments - and we realize that there is, of course, atraditional link between the United Kingdom andNew Zealand. I believe that we must take account ofthis fact, and I have indeed the feeling that it wastaken into account.

Having said that, I shall limit myself to a few concreteremarks. Mrs Dunwoody is of course right in pointingout that New Zealand is an agricultural country whichoperates most efficiently and which is thoroughlycompetitive. On the other hand, there are seriousobiections nowadays to a structure as one-sided as that

of New Zealand. It can produce cheaply, but it alsohas to find a market for its products. And if we look atthe figures for production and exports, and I shallrefrain from quoting them all, it is perfectly clear thatto bulk of that country's exports went and still goes tothe United Kingdom and to the Community.

'$7hen assessing this report I feel that we must takecare not to make the mistake of thinking everythingwill remain the way it is, even if the Community isnot developing in the way we had expected. If welook at the consumption figures, to take one sectionof the report at random, it is clear that changes aretaking place in New Zealand and also in the UnitedKingdom. The fact that in the space of a couple ofyears production of butter has climbed by more than50 % while consumption has dropped by 7 o/o is indi-cation enough that changes can take place in theexport position, for example, even without theCommunity. I think we must bear that in mind. I donot wish to be mealy-mouthed about this, but it isclear that we must start from the acceptance of theposition that we have a new situation in which certainproducts, particularly butter and cheese, will entaildifficulties for New Zealand, but that there are in myview, good prospects for our trade in mutton andlamb, even after the entry of Greece, Spain, andPortugal. I recognize that the Community has a

special collective responsibility towards New Zealand.That is perfectly clear. However, we must not beblinded by this fact, but must look to the future, andthis means that the United Kingdom, too as a

member of the Community, must realize that it bearsa special responsibiliry towards the Community, inother words we must accept that the old trade rela-tions are changing and must in some senses be lookedat anew. There is no getting round that. If we fail torecognize this, we are only kidding each other on.Moreover, this recognition will have to be given underpressure from the circumstances of the agriculturalmarket in Europe which brings us immediately to thequestion of surpluses. There is a surplus of around240 000 tonnes of butter in the Common AgriculturalMarket, but when we realize that imports from NewZealand total 120000 tonnes of butter it is evidentthat no one in his senses can accept that these figuresshould remain like that, in other words that this trademust be maintained and that these imports from NewZealand sustained at the same level. That is quiteimpossible ! Public opinion will not accept that. Therehas been so much to-do about the surpluses in Europethat I believe, that is the interpretation I would put onthis nonetheless valuable report, that all these mattersmust remain open to discussion.

'We must be correct in our business dealings. $7e arewell aware that there are commitments, that there aretrade relations that you cannot just abandon, and forthis reason I attach great importance to a number ofelements in Lord Castle's report. !7e recall the DublinCongress, but I should like to mention in particular


Tolman

the development of the international dairy productsmarket. I am thinking in particular of the interna-tional agreements which could have the effect ofmaking New Zealand's position more stable in thefuture.

To conclude then, my group approves this report,because it respects the existing agreements. Our inter-pretation of this matter is somewhat different fromthat of Mrs Dunwoody, that is true, but this is

perfectly understandable because she is British. Inother words, we wish to deal with this matter correctlybut we feel that we must work towards the necessary

changes, taking account of each other's interests ofcourse, but in the correct manner that is characteristicof democracies and countries which have traditionalties with each other.

President. - I call Mr Nyborg to sPeak on behalf ofthe Group of European Progressive Democrats.

Mr Nyborg. - (DK) Mr President, I shall be brief. Iam pleased to hear Mrs Dunwoody emphasize the effi-ciency of New Zealand, the high quality of its agricul-tural produce and the country's competitiveness. Allthis is very gratifying. \flhen we consider the burdenthat imports from New Zealand represent for our agri-culture in the EEC, we must also bear these things inmind and must assume that New Zealand will notfind it all that difficult to dispose of its agriculturalproduction elsewhere.

The document before us deals with a trade agreementwith a third country. Every sensible trade agreementmust include two elements - a comprehensive list ofimports and of exports. A look at the figures for NewZealand imports over a number of years - I don'tknow for what reason the years shown in the tablewere selected - shows that 53 Yo of New Zealand'simports in l96l came from the European Communityor from countries which today are part of the Nine,but the figure fell to 3l o/o in 1976. In the same

period imports of American goods rose from 9 o/o to25 o/o and it looks as if the emphasis in New Zealandis now on imports from other countries, which leads

to an unbalanced pattern of trade unless exports are

adiusted at the same time, or unless we for our partadjust imports of New Zealand produce in an attemptto restore the balance.

In conclusion, I should like to say something whicheveryone in this Assembly, including Mrs Dunwoody,is aware of, which is that European farmers think itrather wasteful for us to be importing from third coun-tries goods which we ourselves produce in quantitiesgreater than we can consume and which we then have

to store for long periods, at considerable expense, andthen, in order to be rid of them we have from time to

time to sell them to other third countries at a substan-tial loss. On behaif of my group, I must therefore say

that I cannot vote for this report.


Mr Gundelach, Vice-President of tbe Contnrission.

- (DK) Mr President, I should like to thank LordCastle for a remarkable report and Mrs Dunwoody forher energetic presentation of the report. There can be

no doubt that in the past there was a very close rela-tionship between New Zealand and the UnitedKingdom and in many areas that relationship is stillevident. There is also a very special relationshipbetween the country I used to live in and will at sometime in the future return to, and New Zealand, in thatfor many years we both had to fight shoulder toshoulder against agricultural protectionism throughoutthe world and against low prices, not least in connec-tion with our butter exports to the United Kingdom.

Mrs Dunwoody is quite right when she says that weand the United Kingdom have a debt to New Zealandfor the many goods we have received from there at

such low prices that they left little room for profit,even for the very efficient New Zealand producers.

Another element which is relevant to this debate buthas not been brought out so far is that, in connectionwith the 'Dublin Agreement' negotiations took placeand not only was a certain level of butter importsguaranteed but similar guarantees were also given forcheese in certain years. This is nothing new, MrsDunwoody, this has been the case until recently andwe subsequently changed to a new system, that of theInternational Trade Organization and its agreements.Not only have we agreed to certain quantities ofbutter and cheese for some years but, especially, butterprices were guaranteed and, particularly last year, weincreased the prices which New Zealand gets for itsproducts, thinking, as did the Council, that these priceincreases were necessary in order to sustain the NewZealand economy and to ensure a fair return for theefficient New Zealand producers.

'We are about to begin new negotiations on prices andthere have been demands for further increases in theprice of the butter which we continue to buy fromNew Zealand under the Dublin Agreement. These are

demands which, I must say, are quite justified, butwhich obviously cause problems for us and, given themilk situation in Europe, the Commission must insistthat there are no increases in prices expressed as unitsof account. Also, if things go as we anticipate, therewill be a marked rapprochement of prices in theCommunity and in New Zealand, and this, I mightadd, is a situation which I wish might be brought outmore forcefully in the internal debate in the UnitedKingdom.


Gundelach

Having said that, I will also stress that I share MrsDunwoody's view that the relationship betweenEurope and New Zealand - and this refers to thefuture and not to the past - transcends mere mutualtrade relations. These are an element in the relation-ship but it goes much further.

New Zealand has stood by Europe in many criticalsituations over a very long period of time. Its cultureis similar to ours, is an offshoot of ours and it is a

region which is very well disposed to us ; these are allfactors which must not be underestimated in an unset-tled world. In my opinion, therefore, however difficultit may be for us to continue importing butter and

cheese from New Zealand, the Community is underan obligation to do so, and it cannot, for the reasons Ihave given, neglect that obligation.

I cannot at present say anything about quantities, thatwill be one of the items to be discussed in detailbetween the Community authorities and the NewZealand Government. There are of course manyfactors to be considered in such discussions. I havealready indicated the link between quantities andprices but there is also the question of relations withthird countries. As regards milk powder sales, we oftenfind ourselves in the position of competitors, ofmarket leaders ; why should we not look at the possi-bility of cooperation, not in order to create a cartel,but to see if cooperation would enable us to avoid a

siruation in which we place a burden on tax payersand on the economy in order to reduce prices forskimmed milk to an unnecessarily low level.

As regards butter, the matter raised by Mr Tolman, thesituation is that in recent years, and without muchdiscussion on policy, we have in fact begun to exportbutter on quite a large scale. As I shall have the occa-sion to say in a future debate on agriculture, we are

now quite a large net exporter not only of dairyproducts generally, but also of butter; in the last twoyears we exported considerably more butter than weimported from New Zealand. This is something thatcould change in the future, for I have often said thatthis is not an export on which one can rely in anylong-term programme, but that is the situation atpresent and has been for the past two years.

It could be argued that, if we no longer imported the100 000 tonnes or more of butter from New Zealand,,we would then have more room for manoeuvre, andthe three, four, five or six hundred thousand tonnesexcess production next year would be reduced by100000 tonnes. In terms of the quantities involved,that would not solve our butter problem and no oneshould be under any illusion about that. But theproblem in New Zealand would remain; because ofthe structure of the country's economy and for geogra-phical reasons there are limits to the other economicactivities which can be developed there. New productsare of course being produced and new markets found

for existing products but there are limits to what canbe done and the international milk market is verylimited, especially the butter market.

If New Zealand found outlets on this very restrictedworld market for the quantities which it cannot sell inEurope we should then not be able to sell our excessproduction on the world market. \7e would beundercut by New Zealand, which would sell at a

considerable loss ; we would enioy a slight relief butneither side would really have solved its basicproblem. The situation is therefore more complicated.Butter exports should be continued after the periodfor which figures were agreed in Dublin. In my view

- and I think this represents the general political atti-tude in Europe - on principle the exports should be

maintained. Quantities, conditions prices and the ques-tion of cooperation on the world market can beagreed in due course, approved by the Council anddiscussed in this Parliament when we reach the nuts-and-bolts stage.

In order to bring this stage a step nearer, I shall bevisiting New Zealand in the forthcoming l0 days, a

visit which it might be said is not of such great impor-tance, but it is the first time that an AgriculturalCommissioner of the European Communities hasgone to New Zealand to study conditions there and todiscuss the problems which are dealt with in thisreport. I feel therefore that it is perhaps important tostress that we in the Commission look on our relation-ship with New Zealand as something other andgreater than an advantageous, useful, necessary, reci-procal trade relationship. It is a necessary relationshipbetween two closely-related peoples in which therecan be no doubt that we, as the larger of the twoparties, have a responsibility to ensure that the posi-tion of New Zealand is reasonably satisfactory.

As I said previously, it is obvious that we cannotsimply throw our markets open to butter and cheese,we have to take into account the very difficult situa-tion of our own milk market. !7e have to ask ourdairy producers to make certain sacrifices and it is forthat reason that I am so cautious where the size ofNew Zealand imports is concerned, because I cannotimagine that we can continue, inside the Community,to follow the dairy policy which is necessary in thelong term without also looking for certain sacrificeson the part of New Zealand. But such sacrifices mustbe seen in the context which I have iust described.

As regards sheep meat, I should like to make it quiteclear that the proposals which the Commission hasplaced before the Council and Parliament do notinclude increases of any kind in tax or duties onimports of sheep meat from third countries - whichmainly means New Zealand. We are and shall remainnet importers of sheep meat so there will continue tobe New Zealand exports to Europe. Ifle have not sugg-ested that any additional obstacles be placed in the


Gundelach

way of these exports. The reason for the concern feltin New Zealand is that free trade in sheep meat inEurope, which is a necessary consequence of theTreaty and which has been confirmed by the Court of

Justice, may lead to an increase in the price of sheepmeat, not because of action by the Community or newintervention measures but because of market condi-tions, and that such an increase would lead to a reduc-tion in consumption and consequently to a fall inNew Zealand exports. I cannot agree with the implica-tions inherent in this line of thinking because wehave to accept market conditions and the free move-ment of sheep meat within the Community. In anycase, I do not see that the risk is so great. l'he freemarket in sheep meat has indeed led to some increasein prices and to a narrowing of price differentials -price levels are lower in England and higher in France

- but there has been no fall in consumption, whichwill continue to rise.

So, while I foresee difficult negotiations where dairyproducts like butter and cheese are concerned, negotia-tions which must be conducted in a positive manner,I do not visualise any great difficulty over sheep meat.However, I must again emphasize to this Assemblythat there are economic considerations of which wemust take account in these negotiations. New Zealandis a good customer of ours and has granted us signifi-cant tariff concessions in international trade negotia-tions. If our sales to them are not as great as those ofthe United States, the reason may be that we are notnow so competitive ; it is not because of any anti-European discrimination. On the contrary, as I havesaid, we have received significant tariff concessions intariff agreements so there are also good commercialreasons why we should not be tight-fisted in the forth-coming negotiations with New Zealand and I shall tryto avoid being so.


Mns Dunwoody, deputy rapporteur. - Mr President,I should like to thank Mr Gundelach for his reply. Imay say that I congratulate him on going to NewZealand; I wish that some of us were going with him,and I hope that he will enjoy his stay there, I am sureit is a tremendous advantage that any Commissionerof the Community should be able to go and see someof the problems that are undoubtedly facing NewZealand in the agricultural sector.

I had not really intended to comment on some of theproblems of, for example, the milk-powder products,but he himself raised this subiect, and I would like tosay that when we talk about forming a cartel because

otherwise they compete with us on the world market,New Zealand might have cause to say that it happensto be the other way round; that because of internalCommuniry policies we actually have a lot of skim-med-milk powder that we do not know what to do

with and we then pay massive subsidies, very much atthe cost of the taxpayer, to other countries to take themilk powder off our hands. In so subsidizing thoseexports we actually create extremely unfair competi-tion for New Zealand, I think indeed if I were a

member of the New Zealand Government, I shouldbe thinking very seriously about pointing out to theCommunity that, if it continues to use artificial meansof subsidizing its agricultural exports, I should belooking for some very considerable compensationbecause of the damage that was being done to myworld markets. It really is not good enough for us as a

Community to tell the New Zealanders to cut downtheir exports to the Community and then to competewith them by unfair subsidies on the export market.That is in effect what is actually happening.

As to Mr Nyborg, I can say to him quite cheerfully, iflife were as simple as looking for complete bilateralbalance of trade between countries, then Britain wouldhave very little to do with Denmark, because the nega-tive balance of trade between my country and his inagricultural produce is causing considerable unemploy-ment, not only amongst our bacon-producers, but also

amongst slaughterhouses and those people who gettheir money from the pig market. It is indeed the veryconsiderable difficulties that we are experiencing withDanish imports that are contributing largely to unem-ployment in that field. So let him not think that anynation has the right to demand a simple balance oftrade. In a world trading situation you say to your part-ners, we will sell you what we are best able to produce,and we hope that you will buy an equal amount. Itreally is not realistic to expect to be able to say to theNew Zealanders, when you import you must onlyimport from those people who are actually damagingyour dairy exports by limiting the amounts that youcan export to them and putting levies on the produceat the point of entry.

This brings me to my final point. The New Zealan-ders have made and are continuing to make consider-able sacrifices. The consumer, both in Great Britainand elsewhere in the Communiry, would much preferto have cheaper dairy produce available to him in a

way which enabled him to benefit from the surplusesthat exist in the Community. The Communiry longago took a conscious decision that the way to main-tain producers' incomes was to use a price mechanismwhich in fact meant automatic discrimination againstcountries outside the EEC, like New Zealand, that are

capable of exporting their dairy produce efficiently.'S7e cannot now ignore our responsibiliry to them. !7ecannot now pretend that we can expect them to makeeven greater sacrifices in order to try and protect whatis manifestly an unworkable system. The problems inthe Community dairy sector, as the Commissionerwell knows, and as he has said himself with aston-ishing honesty, are not capable of solution bydisposing of the very tiny quota that New Zealand get


Dunwoody

its dairy produce. They are far more fundamental, theyare far more deep-seated, they will, in my very firmbelief - and I may say this as someone who maynever speak in this Chamber again - eventually blowthe Communify apart unless some very radicalchanges take place. I believe that that is the fact thatwe must hang on to. Ire cannot penalize a nationbecause they are good at producing things which wewant to buy and expect them to remain our tradingpartners for long.

I commend this report to the Parliament because, as Isaid before, it is extremely moderate. It does not sayin quite the open way that it should, that NewZealand in fact has been more than generous in thesacifices that she has made for us. I only hope that,when the time comes, we shall be as responsible, as

farseeing and as helpful to them as they have been tous,

President. - I call Mr Tolman.

Mr Tolman. - (NL) Mr President, I had not origi-nally intended to speak again in this debate, but Ireally cannot let Mrs Dunwoody's remarks go unans-wered. I did hint that, despite putting my name to thereport, my interpretation was somewhat different fromhers. Now, though, I feeel I must make a few addi-tional remarks. I cannot go along with suggestions tothe effect that countries like New Zealand have had tomake considerable sacrifices. Things have merely deve-loped along certain lines. The United Kingdom took a

conscious decision to join the European Community.Although the decision is still giving rise to controv-ersy here and there, the fact of the matter is that thedecision was taken and the British must now beprepared to accept the consequences. After all, certainconsequences are inevitable, and they will, in the longterm be of a far-reachinS nature in the case of theUK's relations with New Zealand. That is the firstpoint I wanted to make.

My second point is addressed to the Member of theCommission. I listened to what he had to say withgreat care, and he himself said that his words wouldbe carefully chosen. He indicated that he too attachedgreat importance to good relations with New Zealand,and that he would be paying a visit to New Zealand. Ishould like to look at this forthcoming visit in connec-tion with another visit, the one that was made to Thai-land. I do not want to go back too far into the past.Instead of talking about old established relations, Ishould like to talk about new relations. Just take a

look at the situation of a country like New Zealand,which we are told has had to make considerable sacri-fices, with Thailand, one of the poorest countries inthe world. The fact that, as a result of the CommonAgricultural Policy, Thailand is forced to export, forinstance, less tapioca to the Community, is something

which - and I should like to make rhis pointextremely forcefully on behalf of my group - we arealso very concerned about.

SThen it comes to questions of imports and exports,and the Common Agricultural Policy, we should notsimply look to old-established relations. Ifle must takea balanced view of things. Of course, we must take theinterests of New Zealand fully into account, but thesame goes for those other countries which are in a

more difficult position than New Zealand. That wasjust a point I wanted to make ar the end of thisdebate, Mr President.


The motion for a resolution and the amendmentswhich have been tabled will be put to rhe vote at rhebeginning of tomorrow's sitting.


12. Agenda

President. - As there are still 17 items on theagenda, we are bound to need an evening sitting. !7eshall suspend the sitting at 8 p.m. and it will beresumed at 9 p.m.

May I ask the Members who are down to speak on theremaining items to be brief.

13. Seminar beld by tbe Committee onAgriculture at Ecbternach - Reoiew of tbe

co tnnl on a gri cu I t ura I p o I ic1,

President. - The next irem is the joint debate on

- the report (Doc. 128179), drawn up by Mr Caillavet onbehalf of the Committee on Agriculture, on theconclusions to be drawn from the seminar held bythe Committee on Agriculture at Echternach ;

- the motion for a resolution (Doc. 155179), tabled byMr Fellermaier and Mr Pisani on behalf of theSocialist Group, on the review of the common agricul-tural policy.

I call Mr Caillavet.

Mr Caillavet, rapporteur. - (F)Mr President, in thismatter I represent the committee not in my capaciryas chairman but as rapporteur. At the seminar atEchternach we collected various materials as the resultof our joint observations and tried to draw up a list ofpoints upon which we agreed or disagreed ; then, onthe basis of a draft report, the Committee on Agricul-ture - under my chairmanship - debated all theproposals which had been worked out. Amendmentswere tabled and votes were taken, some by a largemalority, others however with significant dissentingminorities ; we thought that we cught to include thoseamendments which were rejected in a minority reportincorporated in our report.

Sitting of Thursday, l0 May 1979 2tt

Caillavet

This is iust to give some idea of the scope of ourcollective consideration of these matters. Today I amto give you the maiority opinion of our committee ona very detailed report which has been distributed toyou and which, as it deals mainly with agriculture andCommunity agricultural policy, deserves a few briefremarks now.

It was felt that there was a need to reorganize thecommon agricultural policy. \(hy ? Because there arestill serious imbalances - as Mr Gundelach hasadmitted - in certain sectors, and because the situa-tion is rather difficult from the income point of viewfor farmers producing certain kinds of produce. Andof course we also have to guarantee reasonable pricesfor consumers as a whole.

The Committee on Agriculture therefore recognizesthe positive role played by the common agriculturalpolicy and notes that many barriers to free intra-Community-trade have been eliminated and thatthere has been an increase in efficiency, to the benefitof both producers and consumers. Consequently it ismy duty to say in this report that we must respect thefundamental principles of the Community agriculturalpolicy, namely the unity of the market, the commonprices and the Community preferences.

Nevertheless the Committee regretted that the CAPhas not always resulted in balanced development andthat sometimes it has failed to achieve all the socialobiectives it was designed to achieve. All in all, whatwas the final result of our discussions at Echternach ?

Firstly, that regional income disparities have widened.!7e saw that the standard of living of some was risingfaster than that of others, and that the large-scalefarmers were getting richer faster, whereas the smallerfamily farms had been somewhat neglected. !7e alsosaw that some producs from the south of Europe,unlike certain staple products from the north, did notenioy price guarantees.

Consequently, there was a large majority in theCommittee on Agriculture who, looking at thingsfrom the point of view of regional solidarity, consid-ered that price guarantees should be granted to Medi-terranean products - particularly fruit, vegetables andwine - similar to those applied in northern Europefor the principle cereal, milk and meat products. Andwe noted that price policy alone was not enough toensure an equitable distribution of agriculturalincomes and a balance between supply and demand.Meanwhile, the accumulation of surplus stocks -which is something we were talking about just now -is proving financially ruinous and is dangerouslyundermining the Community agricultural policy.

We therefore naturally agreed that the CAP should bepart of an overall Community policy - and in thiswe have followed Mr Dewulfs recommendations -consisting of a commercial strategy basld on produc-

tion targets, since it is not enough to be self-suffi-cient: in order that Europe's agricultural potentialmay be fully realized, we must turn our attentionsconsciously towards exports. Here again, we thoughthat importing substitute products caused the creationof surpluses. !7e took the example of manioc -which Mr Gundelach is well acquainted with after hisrecent visit to Thailand - which is providing seriouscompetition for feed-grains, particularly barley, andconsequently accounts for a significant proportion oftotal refunds.

This being the case, we have been obliged to makecertain remarks which are taken up in the report. Andwhy have we made these remarks, Mr Gundelach ?

Precisely because the CAP is mainly based on pricepoliry, and 64 % of the EAGGF appropriations areused, as is well known, to guarantee prices. Now theeffect of the intervention mechanisms has been, as wehave seen, to encourage producers to increase produc-tion in order to maintain their level of income. This issomething we have discussed with you, MrGundelach. The fact is that most of us fear that theco-responsibility levy on milk only tends to increasethe production of milk, as the producers hope to beable to compensate for having to pay this charge byincreasing their income.

It was therefore apparent that regional safeguards forrural planning called for the development of the food-processing industry. Consequently we readily acceptedthat agricultural aid should be put on a differentfooting and made indlpendent of the level of produc-tion: either there should be price support or thereshould be quota arrangements.

However, as a natural corollary of this new policy,producers must of course adapt their productionmethods to the obiectives, i. e. to the needs of theinternal market. One principle was accepted - and Iwould draw your attention to this Mr Gundelach :

rather than incurring extremely high costs for storingsurplus productsf we ought to support farmer'sincomes. Let me explain : the fact is that theCommittee thinks that, rather than continuing tofollow a policy of storage, we ought to look closely ata system of subsidies to the incomes for products -products for which, for example, the degree of self-suf-ficiency within the Communiry is low, or else ofwhich consumption is limited because prices are toohigh, or alternatively for products for which demandis likely to increase, while at the same time we shouldalso be encouraging certain products which do notexist within the Communiry at present; we thoughtparticularly of soya beans and long-grained rice. Herewe have courses of action of which you are well aware.

In a word, ladies and gentlemen, we think that theagricultural policy, as a factor in economic and socialequilibrium, should be reviewed along the lines I have

iust briefly indicated.


Caillavet

Now for my second main point: we considered by a

large maioriry that structural policy should be drawnup and developed in order to eliminate the existingexcessive disparities between the different regions. \7eare aiming at something both audacious and realistic.On this point we are agreed that the financialresources of the EAGGF Guidance Section should be

increased. Here again, I shall be quite specific : thisfinancing should partly take over from the efforts youare making on guarantees, at the risk of 'overloadingthe ship', that is to say, having recourse to new taxes.

But we consider that the Guidance Section of theEAGGF is the 'Cinderella' of the agricultural policy,and that we can only tackle some of the difficultiesconfronting us by modifying the structures. Some ofmy colleagues have postulated the creation of a Euro-pean Rural Fund and they think that this fund shouldconsist of the EAGGF Guidance Section, the Regional-Fund and the Social Fund together. But whatevermeans we decide upon, ladies and gentlemen, weconsider that it is more than ever indispensible toharmonize agricultural policy by coordinated planningat Community level. One of the members of thecommittee remarked, rightly, that Communityprojects could or ought, as the case may be, to befinanced to the extent of 60,70,80, or 85 % by theCommunity, since they were of benefit to the Commu-nity as a whole. These are the main remarks I wantedto make on this second point. Nevertheless, I amobliged, Mr Gundelach to make two remarks aproposthe reinforcement of the EAGGF Guarantee Section.The majoriry opinion in our committee is that thestructural policy to which we are committed shouldnot, needless to say, aggravate surpluses or treat anyparticular type of farming more favourably thanothers. And this agricultural policy even presupposes,in our opinion, a new form of land policy : it is vitalthat there should be more flexibility with regard tothe acquisition of land, because land is a tool, andthose who work on the land should be fully enabledto acquire it. For this reason we also thought that, ifwe are to prevent the flight from the land and keepthe best people on it, we ought to encourage purelyvoluntary producer groups, without which it will beextremely difficult to carry out any harmonization,and also encourage the development of food-pro-cessing industries, not iust in peripheral areas but alsoin production regions, so as to produce an altnostimmediate creation of new wealth for the workforceand to develop as far as possible a genuine division oflabour. At the same time this agricultural innovationshould be accompanied by harmonization of nationalor Community investment. Let me take a simpleexample: what conclusion did we come to aboutsugar ? Firstly we decided that we were in surplus.Now this is the case in spite of the fact that, a fewyears ago, there was a shortage which led the Commis-sion, and then the Council to make investments inisoglucose. So isoglucose is now competing with tradi-tional sugar. But at the same time, under the Lom6

agreements, we have entered into certain undertakingswith regard to the ACP states, and so we are obligedto import surplus sugar from these states. If this wereall we were doing wrong, it is possible that we mayreach some kind of equilibrium. But at the same time,in order to help our home industries, we have soldfactories on a turnkey basis to Kenya, to Cameroonand to Morocco. Henceforward, starting perhaps in1980, we shall also have to allow for some sugarproduction coming from these regions, which willcomplicate further the task to which you haveaddressed yourselves. This being the case, we feelthere must be a Community policy on investments inorder to avoid the various inconsistencies I have justmentioned.

I should also like to remind you briefly that ourCommittee has proposed a policy with regard to thedeveloping countries and the industrialized countries.

As far as the developing countries are concerned, wethought that the potential of the Community ought tobe fully exploited, particularly at the level of agricul-tural production, in order to remedy as far as possiblethe shortage of food which afflics, regrettably, toomany people in the world today. I would hope thatthis will be our chance to reopen the North-SouthDialogue and perhaps restructure the ACP agree-ments ; it is in fact quite obvious that the enlargementof the Community and consequent arrival of newareas of production which will compete with those wealready have will raise new problems for the wholeeconomic and trade structure of the Community.

As regards the industrialized countries, we were struckby one figure: though the Community alone accountsf.or 42 o/o of world trade, it is still very dependent oninternational trade. It therefore seemed to us, onceagain, obvious that we ought to have a cohesiveCommunity trade policy, particularly with regard tothe United States, a country with huge markets ! Inthe argument put forward in support of our report, weare not afraid to denounce American protectionism.One figure alone speaks volumes : in 1977 agriculturalimports from the United States amounted to5 920 000 000 EUA whereas Community exportscame to little more that I 553 000 000 EUA. lUhat ismore, this American protectionism has been aggra-vated by the weakness of the dollar. This being thecase, we know that new negotiations will take placewithin GATT, and we in the Committee on Agricul-ture considered that it was not reasonable that soya, inparticular, would be zero-rated in the Communitythereby ieopardizing a genuine equilibrium in whichyou have as great an interest as ourselves and which isnevertheless still far from perfect.

By the same token, we were of the opinion that, forlack of a cohesive overall Community trade policy, wecould not cope with the current rate of impors and


Caillavet

yet would have to put up with more, particularly inthe field of vegetable fats, since margarine iscompeting against both milk and butter.

It was at that stage that our Committee decided moreor less unanimously that it was a matter of urgency tomodify this policy profoundly, because the refundswhich we are obliged to grant when we import soya orvegetable fats and proteins from outside the Commu-nity are bound to weigh upon the budget. This, ladiesand gentlemen, is what we considered to be the heartof the matter.

In my report I have also drawn attention to a numberof points relating to procedure which ought to beintroduced. In particular, we should like to I ave theright to listen to minority reports and to refuse to giveyou our opinion when you do not give us time tothink matters over; we should even like the right tohalt the decision-making process in those cases wherewe had not enough time for due reflection and, ifneed be, to take matters to the Court of Justice if theproper consultation procedure had not been respected.In a word, we do not wish to provide the Commissionwith an alibi, nor for that matter, the Council, nor dowe wish to act simply as the foil of these rwo institu-tions. Ve want a continuous dialogue and democraticdiscussion with the Parliament that is to be elected onl0 June. I think I can say, without sticking my neckout, that I shall once more take my seat in thisAssembly after those elections. Once the Parliamenthas been elected by universal suffrage, the Commis-sion, like the Council of Ministers, will be obliged totake note of what the elected representatives of thecountries that make up this Community have to say.

Such is, Mr President, the import of the conclusionswhich it was my duty to put to you on behalf of thecommittee which I have the honour to chair.


Mr Pisani. - (F) Apart from the monetary disorder,whose adverse effects on the Community's agriculturalequilibrium can never be emphasized enough, a

number of new factors have arisen since the CommonAgricultural Policy was conceived. This will be thefirst point I shall deal with in my speech. In the face

of these factors the CAP has, for reasons which I shallgo into in my second point, appeared to be relativelyinflexible. My third point will be an attempt todescribe the prospects of and the methods forupdating the CAP.

Many things have in fact changed since 1951. Then,the Community had problems with its supply of basicfoodsfuffs, whereas now most of these foodstuffs are insurplus. In agriculture, the number of workers andnumber of holdings might have appeared, and indeeddid appear, to exceed requirements, while on top ofthat the Community's industrial development was

creating a demand for labour which industry couldemploy satisfactorily. Since then, we have been facedwith unemployment, and every agricultural workerwho leaves the land is a potential unemployed personmoving to the town.

Thirdly, we are now witnessing the energy shortage inthe Community and the difficulty which the Commu-nity has in producing its own raw materials, with theresult that, of all the continents threatened by thepresent crisis, Europe is perhaps the most seriouslythreatened. And yet - and I shall be as concise as

possible - the CAP has remained more or less whatit always was. It would be interesting to see how littleeffect the Commission's proposals have had as a resultof procedures becoming more and more inflexible,the unanimity rule being improperly invoked, theparalysis which has gradually extended its grip andthe increasingly nationalist attitude of the variousgovernments. While the world was changing and theCommunity was changing, the Common AgriculturalPolicy was incapable of adapting itself to change.!7hat we must ask ourselves is whether the time has

come to rethink the whole thing, and if so with whataims and by what methods.

I think that one of the first aims which the Commu-nity must set itself is incontestably to progress furtherthan it has done and to devise other policies besidesthe Common Agricultural Policy, which is subject toattack because it stands alone. Let us make no mistakeabout it, the financial burden on the Community andits budget resulting from the CAP is in itself an argu-ment both against the Community and against theCAP. Everything must be done to avoid any increasein the cost of the CAP, since any such increase woulddetract from the Community's credibility in certaincountries.

Secondly, within the agricultural budget, the cost ofthe market organizations takes up so many appropria-tions that it is difficult to launch any other projects.This being so, it is essential for us to see our way toestablishing a different balance within this expendi-ture incurred on intervention on products and inter-vention on production systems.

Let us now turn to an analysis of the mechanismswhich might be adopted with regard to products. If Itouch very briefly on a number of points, it is becauseI basically agree with what Mr Caillavet has iust saidand with what I have read in his report, even if thereare a few points on which I do not share his view.!7hat are the main elements in the organization ofmarkets which we might arrange differently in future ?

Firstly, I think it is absurd to want to keep the samesystem of guarantees for all products, and the Caillavetreport puts this very well indeed. But I shall go a littlefurther by explaining our idea in greater detail.


Pisani

First of all there are world market products which are

in practically unlimited demand ; these are mainlycereals, sugar and oleaginous plants. It is absolutelyessential for us to promote increased production ofthese items, since the world needs them and there willbe millions starving by the end of the century. Butthere must also be a price system with progressionsand absorption taxes to allow for production costs andto ensure that the cost price to the Community of thelast hundredweight collected is as near as possible tothe world price. If we adopted this rule, we would nolonger be showing favouritism towards the largeregions and large holdings and would be takingaccount of the population role played by agriculture,as I mentioned a moment ago when speaking aboutemployment.

There is a second category which includes processedproducts, with the possible exception of butter. Theseprocessed products have increasingly become productsprocessed from imported animal feedingBtuffs, and ifthe progression and absorption tax rules I mentioneda moment ago were applied to most of them, theindustrial concentration which has hitherto beenpromoted would be slowed down to allow for theobiective needs of the Community with regard both totrade balance and to population.

As for the remaining products - i.e. products such as

wine, fruit and vegetables and possibly butter - themarket for them is not world-wide, and thus anysurplus is a virtually insoluble problem. 'We mustdevise a guarantee system to make sure that supply is

geared to demand by penalizing structural surpluses.But this can only be done if a satisfactory level ofincome has already been established for farmersproducing quantities adapted to actual requirements.

I should now like to end by saying a few words on theprocedure. First of all I must stress how important it is

and must be to step up research considerably on agri-culture and on the finding of new substitute products,and this is why I just stressed our energy shortfall.Agriculture must from now on be considered as a

potential source of certain types of energy and ofcertain raw materials which the Community needs. Iam afraid there is not enough time for me to go into a

whole range of positive suggestions on this matter.I7ith regard to the procedure, I think that, althoughthe method of tackling the problem aspect by aspect,budget by budget and problem by problem enables us

to cope with emergencies, it does not enable us toredefine agriculture. I think that the Communitymust, in a conference similar to that held at Stresa,allow itself a period for creative reflection to enable itto devise a new agricultural policy bearing all the hall-marks of the first, but adapted to present conditions.The idea is not at all to question the basic principlesof the CAP, but only to challenge the way it is putinto practice and to adapt it to a changing world by

marking sure that the machinery which is set upenables it to adapt without at the same time runningthe risk of major difficulties and excessive tensions.This is the purpose of the motion for a resolution wehave tabled, which follows on from the Caillavetreport in both the thinking behind it and the proce-dure it proposes.

(Applaus)



- Mr President, I am grateful to Mr Caillavet for theinitiative taken by the Committee on Agriculture, andfor his report. I am also grateful to Mr Fellermaier andMr Pisani for their contribution. I would like to try toanswer them, not by going through the resolutions indetail , but bearing in mind the poins raised in thetwo papers.

This Parliament, the Parliament of Europe, is about toface a most exciting challenge. Voters in the forth-coming elections will expect their representatives toplay an important part in policy-making. But anyenlargement of Parliament's role will require effortand vision on the part of Parliament itself. It will, inparticular, have to weld itself into a truly Europeaninstitution, and develop procedures to present itsviews in the most effective way.

This initiative by the Committee on Agriculture mayprove an important element in meeting this chal-lenge. Anyone who, like me, wants the Parliament toenlarge its role will welcome it.

I have always held to the view that, even before directelections, this Parliament merits the fullest considera-tion. As you know, Mr President, I have gone to theCommittee on Agriculture as often as was necessary toexplain and defend important policy initiatives,whether for the short or the longer term. I havesought to establish procedures so that my staff and thecommittee could cooperate closely. I am ready toprovide further help. I would be quite prepared, forexample, to make my personal staff and myself avail-able to give evidence to anybody the Parliamentwould wish to appoint, and naturally to theCommittee on Agriculture. It is essential that Parlia-ment should be able to gather views on particularquestions as widely as possible. Only in this way canit be sure that it is representing a truly European viewand not the views of particular Member States or espe-cially well organized groups.

I take very fully the point made by Mr Pisani, that oneof the things that have changed in this Communityover the last few years is that the national element,which will always be there and always has been there,has got the upper hand. If the newly-elected Parlia-ment only wishes to be a reflection of party strife ornational conflicts, then it will miss the boat. If,however, it can counteract the nationalism in the


Gundelach

Council, it will create an important role for itself inthe decision-making of this Community in the future.It is here, in this Parliament, that changes in our poli-cies should be worked out, rather than in more formalconferences - not that I am necessarily against thelatter, for we can obtain useful advice from outsidepeople. In the end those who carry the politicalresponsibility must also be seen to carry it ; they mustnot push it on to someone else.

I am convinced, as is the committee, that this develop-ment must be the prerequisite to other role it putsforward. To speak, for example, of refusing to give an

opinion in order to block the passage of a proposalsounds reasonable ; but it is only reasonable if this is

done in a truly European interest. Such heavy gunsshould only be used when fully justified: if not, thepower that the Parliament has will diminish ratherthan grow; people will think that you are trouble-makers instead of responsible people, and that wouldbe a tragedy. My reaction to this part of the report is

therefore clear-cut. !ile must develop the role of theParliament as a truly European institution. I amalready taking steps to ensure close cooperationbetween my services and the Committee on Agricul-ture ; I am ready to go as far as necessary. The Parlia-ment has a powerful armoury, but it should only use itin the defence of its wholly European interests.

On other points in the committee's motion, my reac-tion is more ambivalent. It advances the idea, forexample, that Parliament should be represented atmeetings of the Council's Special AgriculturalCommittee, which is a matter for the Council ; or thatit should be associated with international negotiations.These may be controversial ideas. My feeling here, andit is only a feeling at this stage, is that there is little tobe gained by increasing the overlap between the insti-tution in this way. !7e may all want greater efficiencyand greater accountabiliry in Community affairs ; thatmeans greater democratic control of the executive, butit is by no means certain that this can be gained by an

increased overlap between the institutions.

Another certainly controversial point raised by thecommittee concerns the appointment o{ Commis-sioners, the committee proposing that the Parliamentshould be given a say. Here again my reaction is thatthis goes a long way beyond matters of agriculturalpolicy. My advice at this stage is : Do not overload theboat. Perhaps it is better to concentrate first on deve-loping Parliament as a truly European institution. Butthat is not to say - and this is a personal view, evenif a Commissioner should not have a personal view, orat least should not express it, but perhaps on thisphilosophical matter I may be permitted to express apersonal view - that this would not eventually be theright solution.

The forthcoming election will fill this Chamber withMPs directly responsible to their electorate for

Community, as opposed to national, affairs. Many ofthe Members with whom I have worked closely overthe last six or seven years will not be coming back. Isay to them now that I am grateful for the work wehave been able to do together, and to those who docome back, that they will face the most enormoustask. I wish them success: or rather, I wish us success.

The future role of the Committee on Agriculture andthe Parliament is, however, only one part of thepresent motions for resolutions. The rest concerns thefuture shape of the common agricultural policy andthe necessiry for change. Here again, there are pointsof agreement and disagreement between us. Perhaps Ican pick out some of the more important ones.

One thing, I would like to make clear right away,because it is evidently clear to the author of neithermotion, is that the common agricultural policy as aninstitution is not in danger, because it is a funda-mental element of European construction and itcannot be taken away. It is indispensable for equitybetween the constituent parts of the Community, it isnecessary for free trade in the industry and for a

number of other things ; it is a permanent feature - a

foundationstone of the Community.

Secondly, you point in particular, Mr Pisani, tochanging circumstances inside and outside theCommunity and you say the common agriculturalpolicy has not changed. There I disagree. It has

changed: not enough but it is changing right herebefore your very eyes, yet adapting itself to the newrealities inside and outside the Community. It isdoing so in the one democratic and evolution^ty waywhich befits a democratic Europe. Revolutionaryspasms are not what we are seeking ; a continuedprocess of evolution adapting to change, is what wewant.

The committee quite rightly highlights the problemof widening disparities between farm incomes in richand poor regions. The structural measures of 1972were insufficient to tackle the problem. It then goes

on to say that the way to tackle the income problemof producers in the Mediterranean regions is to streng-then existing guarantees for fruit, vegetables and wine.

Ifle have been through this argument before, when wediscussed the action we are taking to help Mediterra-nean regions. This package was supported in thisChamber : it represents a major initiative, and isworking damned well. For the first time, resources are

being pumped into a poorer area in coordinatedfashion not as a hand-out, but as an investment infarming, in processing and in marketing. The wholeidea is to bring about the conditions in whichproducers can gain a bigger share of an expandingmarket. Market expansion is, after all, the only key toa secure future.


Gundelach

I am absolutely convinced - and elsewhere in thereport this approach is applauded - that the way totackle regional income problems is through regionalpackages, not iust through market support. If theseregions are ever to achieve an economic transforma-tion, they require a transfer of resources of a size andof an immediacy that could never be gained throughhigher prices. The Mediterranean package symbolizesthe creation of a new and powerful instrument for thecommon agricultural policy. One of the first jobs ofthe elected Parliament will be to discuss the nextapplication of this instrument - the new Commis-sion's structural proposal, which constitutes a clearchange of direction in the CAP, often sought in thisHouse, though less popular with the authorities ofbetter-to-do areas of the Community - an attitude wemust iointly get them to change. There are somepeople, fortunately, however, not in this Chamber,who regard regional aids as a discrimination againstthe better-off regions. There are even some who claimthat they go against the spirit of the Treaty. My view isthat this is rubbish. Community solidariry demandsthat we take these measures, and the Community can

only live by solidarity.

!7hen one sets this regional approach to agriculturalpoverry alongside the changes we have put forward tostrengthen the 1972 directives and make them moreflexible, and the scheme of aids for less favoured areas,

it is clear that structural policy is developing strongly.The lessons of the past are being embodied in thepolicy of the future. Chief among these is that poorerfarmers do not benefit from price increases : theyneed special help in the form of maior transfers ofresources. Better price guarantees and higher pricesfor fruit, vegetables and wine may look good, but theyare not really the answer.

The development of structural policy does not,however, mean that the agricultural price policy ceases

to be crucial. It has, and must go on havinS, a keyrole. It is central to the achievement of balancebetween supply and demand on agricultural markets.Market forces have not disappeared, and cannot bemade to disappear by words. It is of essential impor-tance for taking into account the legitimate interestsof consumers as well as producers. Furthermore, it isgiven a key role in agricultural policy in the Trearyitself.

In holding to this view, I thought I could count onthe support of the Committee on Agriculture and ofthis Parliament: of the Committee on Agriculture,because it wants to stand by the principles of theunity of the market and common prices, of financialsolidarity and of Community preference, and an effec-tive agricultural prices and markets policy is essentialif these principles are to be protected ; of Parliament,because its report on this year's agricultural price prop-osal urged that price policy be given back its key role

in the organization of markets. I say 'thought', becausein this motion by the chairman of the Committee onAgriculture, the committee puts its faith in short,medium and long-term production targets as a way ofpreventing structural surpluses. It also calls for a short,medium and long-term commercial strategy, butperhaps we can come to that in a minute.

Here I do not think that the committee gives suffi-cient credit for developments over the last two orthree years. It gives the impression that the Commis-sion is stumbling blindly along the road it has

followed in the past; that it is content to suwive todayand gives no thought to tomorrow. This view is notquite in accordance with fact.

One of the attractions of production plans is that theycontain forecasts. But the Commission is already fore-casting for the short, medium and long term. Look atour price proposals for the last two years, and you willsee forecasts for each year up to 1985. Look at lastSeptember's milk document. I7e generate other fore-casts for market management, for negotiations withininternational bodies and so on. Such forecasts are

essential for all policy-making. At the same time,however, one must retain a sense of proportion andreality. !7e have to admit that these forecasts cannever be precisely correct. They can only indicateprobabilities, and this is the truer the further onelooks into the future. Last year's forecasts for cerealsand milk understated the eventual outcome. Wecannot forecast the weather: we cannot forecast theevolution of national currencies amongst odrselvesand in other places in the world. Consequently wemust be cautious. No one possesses the sort of fore-casts that are necessary for really viable productionsplans. But my obiections to this idea - that is,'plans',not forecasts or maybe even targets - go further andare based on several other factors. I am suspicious ofthem and feel it is all too easy for production targetsto turn into quotas. Production targets mean planning,and I believe that many of our present problems arecaused by the fact that we already over-interfere in theagricultural economy. More interference would beinevitable, since production targets are meaninglesss ifthere are no controls to back them up, as opposed toeconomic and social policies, which are adjusted inthe light of, among other things, forecasts.

My fundamental obiection is that this line of approachconcentrates exclusively on the supply side of ourmarkets. It leads to quarrels about taking land out ofagriculture, quarrels which do not amount to anythinguseful as long as demand is not being fully exploited.

The committee also infers that we lack a commercialstrategy for agriculture, and that this plays a part inthe build-up of surpluses. All I ask the Parliament todo on this question is to look at the evidence - thestatistics. Last year the Community was a net exporterof a whole range of milk products : butter, cheese,


Gundelach

skimmed-milk powder, and whole milk. The Commu-nity was a net exporter of sugar. !7e were exporters ofwine. These exports did not just happen : they werethe result of a careful and yet vigorous commercialstrategy. It is true that this strategy is not writtendown and published in advance. But you must acceptthat this is impossible if our markering is to be effi-cient. Take cereals: we export when world marketprices are high and hold back when they are low so asto make the best possible use of taxpayers' money.!7orld markets are competitive. If we were toannounce today that we were selling 200 000 tonnesof cereals in a month's time or in a year's t;'-.re, priceswould fall and our export refunds would need to bebigger.

No, we must approach these markets in a businesslikeway and make sure that we get the best possible valuefor taxpaper's money. The figures show that is whatwe are doing regularly in the milk and sugar sectors,and for a whole host of other products : wine, barley,other cereals, eggs, ham, chickenmeat and so on. Infact we are only consistent net importers of some feedgrains, including soya, and of beef to a limited extent.The big surplus which the United States has with theCommunity in agriculture, to which the chairman ofthe Committee on Agriculture quite correctly drewattention, is largely due to the increasing imports offeedingstuffs from the United States, in particularsoya, which constitutes one of the most seriousproblems of equilibrium in the common agriculturalpolicy. The increase in surpluses in the dairy field isnaturally not a haphazard phenomenon, it is anincrease in production which is brought about by thefact that economic circumstances are on the whole -not in every region, but on the whole - too favou-rable.

Do not tell me that milk production or any other lineof production goes up when prices go down and thatproduction becomes less attractive, or even causeslosses. The economic reality is the opposite. Milkproduction has increased because it has becomeeconomically too attractive. One of the reasons it hasbecome too attractive is that milk can be produced onthe basic of soya, and soya has become too cheap -among other things because the dollar has fallen -and we shall never come to a solution of our problemsof equilibrium in the markets before we can makegood the error which was committed by the oldCommunity of the Six in regard to the treary rightsthey gave, among others, to the United States for theimport of soya.

It was with a view to being able to look upon interna-tional trade in agriculture, not just from a legal pointof view and subiect to the rules of GATT, but in a

broader and more systematic way that I suggested, inthe multilateral trade negotiations, the creation of a

proper forum for this purpose and finally obtained the

agreement of our trading partners on this proposal,though with greater difficulty than that of theMember States. This will lead to the creation of a

forum which will enable us at long last to tackle suchproblems as the conflicting demands of our tradingpartners to keep our doors open for increased importsof fodder while at the same time lowering our animalproduction in order to preserve their traditionalmarkets. One obviously cannot do both things at thesame time. A different balance has to be found. There-fore the great importance of these multilateral tradenegotiations. They were all right as far as mutualconcessions were concerned. !7e gave some cheese toNew Zealand but we got more cheese out of it fromthe United States, so we shall to some extent beamending the trade imbalance with that country. !7egot other cheese concessions in other places as well as

other agricultural concessions.'!7e did pretty well. Butthat is not the important point. The important thingis that for the first time in the life of the common agri-cultural policy we have moved the international discus-sions away from trench warfare into a situation where,although criticism persists, we can collaborate. As Iam sure you will agree and as Mr Pisani pointed at, wemust face the fact that the world will be short of food:not of butter but of grain and a number of othercommodities. Our task is to be sufficiently flexible tobring about a production pattern which secures thecontinued employment of our resources, includingour manpower, but nonetheless enables us to avoidthe excessive use of economic means for the produc-tion of goods for which there is no market other thanthe intervention store. That constitutes an indefensibleloss. This does not mean that it is indefensible to paymoney to agriculture.

I agree with Mr Pisani that it causes problems in someof our constituencies if expenditure is too high andthat we must watch it. But I put the counter argumentthat if the rype of Community agriculture we wanr isone which is to a large extent centred on the so-calledfamily sized farm which does not lead to a dramaticexodus of farmers from the land to join the ranks ofthe unemployed in the already difficult urbandistricts, this is going to cost money. I would also liketo put it to you that if we did not use the money forthe maintenance of an effective agriculture on thebasis of family-sized farms, and adopted an industrialagricultural policy, which would be possible andwould make us iust as efficient in certain productionareas as the most efficient producers in the world, weshould have a further two or three million unem-ployed without any chance of employment in thefuture according to the current economic forecasts.The social charges also in terms of budgetary charges,would be almost as heavy.

I think therefore that one can reasonably and with a

good conscience defend a costly agricultural policyprovided one is not forced, as is unfortunately the situ-


Gundelach

ation at the moment, to defend an agricultural budgetwhich involves many hundreds of millions of units ofaccount spent on the buying and storing of goods likemilk and milk products. There are not many others.Sugar is the only other possible instance. The winelakes do not really exist. The stocks of wine at the endof the year are mostly commercial stocks. It is milkthat causes the problem. Neither I nor this Parliamentcan justify the expenditure of hundreds of millions ofunits of account to the public. It is the taxpayer whohas to pay for the transfer of funds to agriculture, andyou are asking for seven more transfers. You are evenasking for income support policies, which, I agree,

have been implemented in certain instances on condi-tion they are kept within reasonable limits andconfined to certain specific regions for specificpurposes. Otherwise the cost would be far too high.But if we keep the cost within limits which we canexplain, then we may still be able to satisfy thetaxpayer.

But if the abuses which are taking place in some

sectors, in particular in the milk sector, continue, thenit will become increasingly difficult and in the endimpossible to sell this to the tax-payer. Therefore,instead of saying change the policy - we are in theprocess of doing so - we should attempt to find thepolitical will to carry out what we have alreadyproposed and for which we have already secured agood measure of support in this Parliament.

Returning to the report for a moment, I am worried,not so much about the attack on the United States butby a certain inconsistency on one page where it says

that we are not in favour of using in agriculture theconcept of division of labour. !flell, I am in favour ofit, subject to the specific supports and safeguardswhich we are discussing. And if one is, then one canattack the United States for being too protectionist incertain areas. If one rejects the concept of the divisionof labour oneself, one cannot very well criticizesomeone else for doing the same thing. I do not likethis inconsistency, because it makes it difficult for us

in our relations with other parts of the world which, as

I said, have adopted a more positive attitude than inthe past.

I think the greatest change which has to be broughtabout is to realize the need for greater flexibilitywithin the common agricultural policy. !7hen there isa structural problem in one region, we should try tosolve that structural problem in that region withoutpassing a directive applicable to every other region ofthe Communiry. If there is a commodity problemwhich can better be solved in one specific waybecause it is different from all other commodities, weshould not be deterred by the argument that becausewe are not doing that for any other products weshould not do it here.

Flexibiliry is needed to t"k. into account the socialand income needs of the farmers to the extent neces-

sary to avoid an exodus from the land, but it must notlead to an intolerable increase in consumer prices bycausing inflation, or affect the level of consumption.

For example, the aids we have introduced for somevegetables in our Mediterranean policy have broughtabout a higher revenue for the farmers and betterprices to the consumers at less cost to the taxpayerthat the traditional way. The same applies to olive oil.This is basically what we are trying to do with thecoresponsibility system for milk. l7ithout that systemwe shall not have the political means of solving theone problem which must be solved in the commonagricultural policy if we are to retain credibility in theeyes of the electors. I sometimes feel lonely indefending the budget of the common aSriculturalpolicy, since this House and the Council make manydemands, but when it comes to calculating thebudget, I usually confront the public alone. I amlooking forward to a directly-elected parliament whichwill have to share that responsibility with me, andtake the consequences of having that responsibiliry.

14. Limitation of speaking tirne

President. - It was decided on 12 February 1979that when necessary the President could limitspeaking time after 7 p.^.Speaking time will there-fore be limited to five minutes.

15. Seminar held by tbe Cornmittee onAgiculture at Ecbtemacb - Reoieu of tbe

cornrnon agicultural policy (resumption)

President. - The next item is the resumption of thejoint debate on the Caillavet report (Doc. 128179) andthe Fellermaier and Pisani motion for a resolution(Doc. 155/79).

I call Mr Hoffmann to speak on behalf of the SocialistGroup.

Mr Hoffma (D) I shall try to finish in fiveminutes. I am sorry that on the last day but one wehave a slight disagreement, but I feel that limits onspeaking time are called for in view of the longevening before us. Mr President, I should like first ofall to thank the chairman of our committee warmlyfor the work he has put into this long report. I thinkit is the first time in this Parliament that a report hasdevoted as much space even to minority opinions as

this report by Mr Caillavet. I thank him and feel surethat the deliberations in committee were verycorrectly and very fairly conducted throughout.


Hoffmann

I must briefly raise a point of order by asking whythere are still amendments tabled to this report. Asspokesman for the Socialist Group, I should just liketo state that the whole group supports Mr Pisani'smotion for a resolution. There would not really be anypoint in having a detailed discussion now if we couldbe sure that in tomorrow's voting each group's polit-ical opinion on amendments would also be clear cut.At the momenl however, this does not seem to be thecase, and I hope that tomorrow some clarification willbe forthcoming.

If I pick on individual points in the report, it is notwith the intention of making a blanket condemnationof it. I would stress that it contains very many aspectson which we completely agree and which give a verythorough summary of agricultural problems. ThereforeI should just like to take up very briefly a few pointsto show you that the directly elected Parliament willobviously have to pursue these points further becausethere are disagreements among us on them.

Firstly, the report demands the same or similar guaran-tees for the southern European regions as for thenorthern European countries. It is natural that thesouthern European countries should claim this. Iappreciate that they have a right to receive at least thesame amount of financial aid as the northern Euro-pean countries. But I say at the same time that thiscannot be done simply by extending the price systemwhich we have today to those regions. I feel thiswould be a dangerous step because, as a result of theaccession of new countries such as Greece, Spain andPortugal, the extension would be too cumbersome andin the wrong direction. I think that the directions indi-cated in structural sectors mean a better chance forthe southern European countries as well, i.e. I do notdisagree with prioriry for the south; I am only sayingthat it should not result only in rhe extension of thisprice system.

I shall touch only briefly on a second point, since ithas already been dealt with. It concerns the questionas to whether surpluses are the result of imports or areproduced in the Community ? The answer has alreadybeen given ; they are partly produced in the Commu-nity and are naturally reinforced by other producewhich we must import.

The third point is referred to in paragraph 13 of thereport, which states that, to the extent that the pricepolicy is used primarily to maintain the level ofincomes, producers are compelled to step up theiroutput at all costs in order to maintain their earnings.This applies to one specific sector, namely that ofsmall farms, which are, as it were, barely managing tosurvive. But it does not apply at all to farms whereearnings are particularly good, and therefore a cleardistinction must naturally be made on these points.

I would say that whoever looks at it only from hisangle is automatically induced to produce for interven-tion. But I know that I must differentiate herebetween small and large producers.

The fourth point concerns something which simplymust be pointed out again. Paragraph 14 refers toexcessive taxing of producers. This cannot be leftunchanged. In many cases it is not true since farmers

- for example in my country - are even consider-ably undertaxed. Taxation must therefore be adjusted.

As for the next point, paragraph l4b states thatfarmers are burdened by high capital expenditure.This is also correct, but only for particular small farmswhich have got into financial difficulties through over-mechanization.

This no longer applies at all to large-scale industrialfarming concerns since they have a completelydifferent cost structure as well as a completelydifferent profit structure.

The next point concerns paragraph 17, which statesthat price freezes etc. are not effective. You canexpress general agreement or disagreement with this,but I can only say that while in the case of productsin surplus a cautious price policy, which may alsoinvolve price freezing, may be perfectly sensible, noone in this House would say that we should have anoverall price freeze at all costs, and that is not what weare asking for here.

A further point concerns the section on structuralpolicy, where it is stated in paragraph 5 that everyholding must have identical chances of development.I feel that this should at least be explained, since itmust not be understood on the basis of the presentsituation. If you take holdings as they are today, ofcourse you must give special help to economicallyweak ones and not spread everything nicely over allthe others. I feel that this must be mentioned. I wouldjust add that Mr Caillavet was not responsible for theunclear wording of the points I am raising ; theircontradictory nature was rather the outcome of thediscussions in committee. It does not mean that theywere contradictory in the same way in the originaldraft.

The next point, which seems to me the most in:por-tant, concerns a contradiction in paragraph 45, wherereference is made to the dangerous concepts of freetrade and the myth of an international division oflabour. This paragraph is in stark contradiction towhat is contained in the report later - and this timecorrectly - in paragraphs 52 to 51, which state accu-rately, well and correctly what role we have to play inrelation to the Third 'S7orld, bur this is diametricallyopposed to what is meant in paragraph 46 bydangerous concepts of free trade and the myth of anew division of labour.


Hoffmann

Mr President, I think that my five minutes are almostup, so iust let me end by saying one thing. I think theway in which Mr Gundelach put forward his views

once again was perfectly right, and on behalf of theSocialist Group I support his view of a cautious pricepolicy. But I point out to him emphatically that parti-cularly in questions concerning consumers theCommittee on Agriculture must also be allowed toplay a far more important role in the decision-makingprocess of this Parliament. Agricultural policy must gohand in hand with food policy and consumer policy,and only then will we have a uniform approach.Anything else would, in my view, favour one-sidedinterest and surely that cannot be what we are aimingat.

Since time is so short, I shall end by supporting whatMr Pisani said. Since this is probably the last speechwhich I have the honour of making in this House, Ithank the Commissioner personally for his lairapproach to this problem and I thank Mr Caillavet forthe fair way in which he discussed it with us ; at thesame time I should not like to forget the Members ofthe committee, who in my view contributed greatly toensuring that we got on together sensibly and welland at the same time that an excellent piece of workwas produced.

On such occasions hardly any mention is ever made

of the people behind the scenes, and so I should liketo thank the interpreters and all the other colleagues

and hope that this work, which has reached an impor-tant intermediate stage, can be carried on successfully

by the new Parliament.

President. - I call Mr Tolman to speak on behalf ofthe Christian-Democratic Group (EPP).

Mr Tolman. - (NL) Mr President, first of all Ishould like to offer Mr Caillavet my warmest congratu-lations on the considerable amount of work he has

put into this report as chairman of the Committee on

Agriculture.

My Group is of the opinion that Echternach could be

a new beginning and could set the pattern for an

annual reappraisal. This meeting was attended by twoMinisters of Agriculture. I should like to exPress thehope that it will become customary for us to be able

to have regular discussions, in some such framework,with the Ministers of Agriculture of the various

Member States.

A further thread running through today's debate is

that the agricultural policy costs money. This meansin particular that there is a need to convince thetaxpayer of the use and importance of agriculture.Time does not permit me to say much about this. It is

above all, of course, because of the massive stocks thatthe agricultural policy costs money. On balance, I take

the view - as I said at the seminar - that if therewas a shortage instead of surpluses then the policy we

should have to follow would be much more expensive.'$7e must have guarantees, we must have security. 250

million people in Europe have to be fed every day.

Food supplies cannot be left to the vagaries of theworld market. I think we should be giving rathermore serious thought to this.

Thirdly, my Group is of the opinion that we need topursue a more aggressive structural policy in agricul-ture. Of course, it is not possible to dissociate pricepolicy from structural policy or aice uersa.'both are ofgreat importance, but at the present time I should liketo concentrate on structural policy, without lookingprimarily at the costs that involves. In my opinionthere is still an appalling amount of room for improve-ment in the field of working conditions in the Euro-pean Community. There are enormous differencesbetween rich and poor. There are healthy, prosperousagricultural holdings and very poor areas, and agricul-tural policy must therefofe concentrate above all onstructural improvements.

!fle must not base this policy on -.-rrroth sizedholdings but on healthy family holdings, and we shallalso have to try and ensure, as far as possible via a

Community policy or in certain respects via nationalagricultural policy as well, that above all the big indus-trialists do not gain a hold, or not so much of a hold,on agricultural production.

My fourth point is that all this unavoidably involvesus in questions of global policy. There is continuingcontroversy about imports of raw materials andexports of our products. I am thinking here in parti-cular of the Lom6 countries, which deserve our parti-cular attention in matters concerning imports of rawmaterials and any possible restrictions. 'S7hat are thedangers facing these countries here ?

It is one of the difficult points about agriculturalpolicy that if we want to make provision in all areas

- thinking of today's debate, mention has been madeof New Zealand, Thailand, the Third !florld, theLom6 countries - Europe must also be prepared tobear the consequences. The burden ois-d-o-is theThird \7orld and that of maintaining a balancebetween imports and exports cannot be shoulderedone-sidedly by the European farmer. I have theimpression that at the moment that is still too oftenthe case.

I should like to address my last remark to mycolleagues on the Socialist benches with regard to therequest for urgent procedure. I found it surprising,and indeed deplorable, for this request to be made atthis point, now that we have before us this importantCaillavet report and the Howell report, which dealswith fundamental agriculural questions.


Tolman

It is impossible to deal thoroughly with fundamentalquestions of agricultural policy by means of a shortdebate under urgent procedure. Perhaps this is anoutflanking manoeuvre. !7hen the Socialists shouldhave been present at the important discussions we hadin Brussels on price policy, they were not there. Onthat occasion they left the room. And, now that thereis no need, now that it actually upsets the smoothorder of things, they have put their oar in. Perhaps, MrPresident, this is therefore an outflanking manoeuvre.I can make no further comment on this since thespokesmen who made the request for urgent proce-dure, Mr Pisani, is not in the Chamber. !7e shall natur-ally, however, be talking about this tomorrow, whenwe shall have to consider how to vote on rll this.

President. - I call Mr Corrie to speak on behalf ofthe European Conservative Group.

Mr Corrie. - Mr President, might I firstly congratu-late Mr Caillavet on his very excellent report : itbrings a breath of fresh air into this Chamber, becausewe have at long last started to look at the wider hori-zons of the Common Agricultural Policy.

I think the reason for the success of the seminar inEchternach was that we took time off to have anin-depth study of a specific problem. In committee wenever really have that opportunity : we have far toomany other things to do. I believe it is an excellentway to conduct our business and I hope an examplefor the future.

I think the second reason for the success of thatseminar was the amount of honest speaking that wasdone by Members from all parties. No holds werebarred ; Members from different countries got a betterunderstanding of each others' problems, and there wasa lot of cross-party agreement at the end of ourmeeting.

Looking at the Echternach proposals, I can agree withsomething of what was said on behalf of my groupbut not all, and Mr Gundelach has in fact emphasizedsome of these points. Of course, we have to take a

fresh look at the CAP and its operation. I have alwayshoped to hear the Commissioner shift his emphasis ofdirection before I left this Parliament, and tonight,perhaps, we have noticed a slight shift of emphasis inthe way he is going.

I think we have to look at the whole agriculturalsystem in a global way. There are a few basic pointsthat we must work from. I still believe that we musrreverse the trend of producing surpluses and thentrying to get rid of them. We must see agriculture, as Isaid, globally and not fragmented, with each sectiontrying to outdo the others. But we must do thiswithout removing people from their farms, as MrGundelach said, and I still believe, having listened tohis speech, that the only answer is direct incomesubsidies for smaller farmers paid out of the funds

used for intervention buying, in the hope that thisfund will go down as less is bought into intervention.It is pointless to go on, again as the Commissionersaid, producing an article that we cannot sell on theopen market ; but I do hope that Mr Gundelach is notsuggesting we clamp down on efficient farms bypricing soya out of the market. Intervention pricesshould not encourage production. Reassessment istherefore required. The original CAP suited the Six,but it is totally distorted by the extra three members-that came in, because we simply have not yet got a

common agricultural policy. Some of the proposalsfrom the Commission are, of course, excellent. Onehas to accept that the greater the support to the agri-cultural industry, the greater the production becauseof greater efficiency. Now, I am not suggesting thatthere should be a cut-back: I am suggesting thereshould be a better use of funds.

An interesting aside to the development schemes inBritain is that machinery dealers' yards are blockedsolid with second-hand machinery which they simplycannot sell because grants are only paid on new equip-ment, and price-levels are now so high on second-hand equipment that many small farmers cannotafford to buy either the new equipment or the higher-priced second-hand stuff. I wonder if the Commissionhave had any thoughts about giving grants on second-hand tractors and implements. It is a sector thatshould be looked at and I would ask him to do so:there is no tax-relief for the smaller farmer, becausehe has not bought the new machine, and also nogrant, because he has not bought the new machine. Sothe big farmer gets all the advantages and the smallfarmer is getting none.

I am pleased too to hear what Mr Gundelach said onregional policy, because I believe that to improve thesituation further we should emphasize regional policy.'$(e recognize, after all, that some types of agricultureare better suited to some regions than to others : cattleand sheep in the hills, dairy farming in the grass-growing areas, cereals in the drier areas. I believe, too,a system of differentiated prices for the same productcould be paid in different regions, so rhat one gets rheemphasis on the right product in the right region.And of course, we need to improve our transportinfrastructure so that these products can be movedfrom region to region. Above all, we must get a morepractical approach to the CAP and get away from thepolitical - with a small 'p', Mr President - decisionsthat are being taken at the moment.

The Echternach seminar has, I hope, made a majorcontribution to the reconsideration of the CAP thatmust take place, and I hope this impetus will becarried forward in the new Parliament. I too wouldthank Mr Caillavet, on behalf of my group, for havingchaired the Committee on Agriculture so well.



Mr Christensen. - (DK) Mr President, I do notintend to deal with the motion for a resolution tabledby Mr Fellermaier and Mr Pisani, since in my honest

opinion it is completely devoid of any substan-ce, but Idb wish to address myself to Mr Caillavet's report

which, as both Commissioner Gundelach and espe-

cially the spokesman for the Socialist Group have

pointed out, is a scandalous collection of inconsisten-cies.

In the first place, there are references to surPlus stocks

and the breakdown of the price suPPort system and

both these major problems are dealt with quiteadequately in the report. It is only regrettable that itdoes not draw the proper conclusions but, instead,

wishes to extend this bankrupt price policy to otherareas. It argues that southern countries, like those inthe north, should be covered by this bankrupt price

support policy. There is even talk of widening itsscope, applying it on a world scale by means of GATTand similar arrangements and having world-wideguaranteed minimum prices for agricultural produce,

there would even be world-wide produce agreements

for corn, beef and veal, dairy Products, vegetable oiland feedstuffs. Thus, in other words, it is concluded orobserved that the price support features of the policyapplied so far have generally been a failure but theintention nonetheless is to extend that policy to thesouthern regions of the Community.

However, this is not the only illogical feature of the

report. Commissioner Gundelach and the Socialist

spokesman also at one moment thunder against

American protectionism in agriculture and, in the

next breath refer to the myth of the internationaldivison of labour and similar reactionary Protectionistclaptrap. So this report also lacks consistency from thecommercial policy point of view.

Obviously, the solution is to abandon the existingpolicy, but this report refuses to consider such an even-

tuality. I think Mr Gundelach at one point did say

something important, to the effect that the mistakewas perhaps that we over-interfere in the agriculturaleconomy. I believe that that indeed is the root of theproblem. I think we should move away from pricesupport measures which, as is also pointed out in thereport, result in overproduction because, if prices are

fixed too low, then the farmers produce more once

they are guaranteed minimum prices, and if theycontinue to produce in large quantities the incomegoes up accordingly. On the other hand, if prices are

fixed at a high level, that again is an incitement to goon producing. It is therefore no solution to extendthis policy within agriculture or to any othereconomic activity in the Community. Some questionsare left unanswered. In paragraph 14 a) there are refer-ences to excessive taxation of capital equipment.!7hat kind of nonsense is that ?

Iflhat does it refer to ? In the same paragraph there isa reference to taxation creating problems for transfers

from one generation to another. \ilhat kind of taxa-

tion of capital equipment creates problems for trans-

fers from one generation to another ? No answer isprovided. Paragraph 26 mentions a Community landpolicy. \fhat Community land policy ? There is noanswer to this question either.

Thus, this report leaves a long string of unanswered

questions while its inconsistencies scream to highheaven. The only place where there is a hint of liber-alism - and here, it must be admitted, the text is

clear - is in paragraph 54, which exPresses a liberal

attitude towards the developing countries. This is

commendable and it is only right that mentionshould be made of those occasions when we findevidence of a progressive and friendly attitude to othercountries, in this instance countries and trading areas

outside the European Communities.

In conclusion, Mr President, I should like to say that Itake the strongest excePtion to the idea of increased

power for this Parliament or for other EEC institu-tions such as this report suggests and to which MrGundelach a.lso referred when he said he was infavour of increased powers for Parliament. It is unfor-tunate that I should find myself in opposition to thisidea because I am in favour of the national right ofself-determination, but I also feel that the agriculturalpolicy which has been implemented until now is a

most eloquent argument against increasing Parlia-ment's authority in this area, and I am thinking here

both of this report and of the report from Mr Ligioswhich we considered during the previous sitting. I willtherefore conclude, Mr President, by saying that Icannot support this report and that I must vote

against both this report and the report from Mr Ligioswhich we dealt with in the previous sitting. I can

therefore not support this report nor the motion for a

resolution from Mr Pisani and Mr Fellermaier'


The motion for a resolution and the amendmentswhich have been tabled will be put to the vote at thebeginning of tomorrow's sitting.


The sitting will now be suspended until 9 p.m'


Qhe sitting was tuspended at 8 p.m. and resumed ate P.m)

IN THE CHAIR: MR HOLST

Vice-President



16. Regulation on tbe ntarket in uine

President. - The next item is the debate on thereport (Doc. 871791 by Mr Pisoni on behalf of theCommittee on Agriculture on the

proposal from the Commission to the Council for a resu-lation amending Regulation (EEC) No 816170 layingdown additional provisions for the common organizationof the market in wine and Regulation (EEC) No 817/70laying down special provisions relating to qualiry wineproduced in specified regions

I have no speakers listed. The motion for a resolutionwill be put to the vote, togerher with the amendmentstabled, at the beginning of tomorrow's sitting. Thedebate is closed.

17. Calculation of monetary contpenratorj^clmounts in tbe wine sector

President. - The next item is the debate on thereport (Doc. 79179) by Mr Hansen on behalf of theCommittee on Agriculture on the

proposal from the Commission to the Council for a regu-lation amending Regulation (EEC) No 970171 wirhregard to the calculation of monetary compensatoryamounts in the wine sector.

I call Mr Hughes.

Mr Hughes, deputy rdpporteur. - Mr President, Iwish to move it formally with no further comment.

President. - I have no more speakers listed. Themotion for a resolution will be put to the vote as itstands at the beginning of tomorrow's sitting.


18. Regulation on isoglucose

President. - The nexr item is the debate on thereport (Doc. 182179) by Mr Tolman on behalf of theCommittee on Agriculture on the

proposal from the Commissron to the Council for a regu-lation amending Regulation (EEC) No ttttlTT layingdown common provisions for isoglucose

Mr Tolman, rapporteur. - (NL) Mr President, inview of the importance of the subject, I think that a

few comments need to be appended to this report.Some time ago, a Community regulation was adoptedon isoglucose. The purpose was to create equal condi-tions of competition for sugar and isoglucose. It nowappears from a judgment by the Court of Justice thatthis regulation is invalid, which means that a modifiedtemporary arrangement is needed pending the adop-tion of a permanent scheme from 30 June 1980. Inmy report I therefore give a short summary of thistemporary measure. The intention is to establishproduction quotas for each manufacturer on a similar

basis to those applying to sugar producers. Thisinvolves introducing of basic quotas for each manufac-turer's output, the reference period for this being theperiod from I November to 28 February or, in certaincircumstances, a different period.

A new element in the Commission's proposal is thatthe Council can increase the basic quota by .maximum of l0 %. Furthermore, isoglucose producedin excess of the maximum quota cannot be offered onthe Community market but must be exported on theworld market. There is also to be a production levy onthe so-called B production of isoglucose, which issimilar to the production levy in the sugar sector.

Finally, the Commission makes a strong appeal to theMember States to eliminate discrimination with regardto the use of isoglucose by means of financialmeasures applying to saccharose and isoglucose.

I should just like to comment very briefly on thediscussions that took place in the Committee on Agri-culture. !7e all agree that a coherent Communitypolicy had to come, and secondly we were very muchaware that this measure was only to apply for a shorttime, which is why I should expressly like to make itclear that the same standrds do not apply for futurepolicy. !7e are thus in favour of the Commission prop-osal, but we would make two suggestions which reflecta different approach. The Committee on Agriculturerejects the fixing of maximum quotas in addition tothe basic quota. I think this is quite right. There is noreason whatever to establish a B quota, and it seems tome that the powers that be in Brussels have probablymade a mistake here. I can well imagine that forsugar-beet producers a B quota is important in view ofthe fluctuations that can arise in natural production,but for this industrial product that is clearly not thecase. It is possible to produce precise quantities, andtherefore a B quota is an unnatural device. TheCommittee on Agriculture was thus unanimous inrejecting it. Finally, the Commission proposes to raisethe basic quota by l0 %. I do not think that is neces-sary, it may perhaps strengthen the starting positionof the isoglucose manufactuers, but ou. conierr, -and that is the central point in this report - is as faras possible to create equal conditions.


Mr Gundelach, Vice-President of tbe Comntission.

- (DK) Mr President, I wish to do everythingpossible to expedite matters so I shall take this oppor-tunity of thanking Mr Tolman for his report and atthe same time thanking all subsequent speakers sothat I shall not have to repeat myself each time. Ishall speak only when it is necessary for there areproposals before us which in all obiectiviry strike meas unacceptable.


Gundelach

In the matter we are considering the Committee onAgriculture approved the Commission's proposal butwith two qualifications, one relating to the addition ofa B-quota to the A-quota for isoglucose and the otherrelating to the l0 % levy.

Mr President, in drafting this proposal the Commis-sion was not free to do what it thought would be polit-ically and economically advisable given that there isnothing to be made out of the manufacture of isoglu-

cose unless there is a scheme for sugar which guaran-

tees a higher level of prices than would be the case

without such a scheme. The production of isoglucose

depends therefore on the existence of a scheme forsugar. However, such considerations could not serve as

the basis for the proposed scheme which we were

required to put forward, and which is to last only for a

transitional period of approximately one year, since

the Commission in the autumn is to submit a new

proposal for a new sugar scheme for the forthcomingilvs-year period, when a specific solution will have to

be found for the isoglucose problem. !(e had to find a

substitute for the previous scheme which the Court of

Justice found to be illegal in a ruling, the terms ofwhich stated quite clearly why and also how the situa-

tion must be rectified in the short term. As a result

this new scheme for isoglucose must be based on the

sanie principles as those applied to sugar. !7e there-

fore pioposed quotas, a proposal which was accePted,

but we wanted a change in the amount of the levy.

As regards the establishment of quotas, the iudgmentof the Court requires us to apply the same principlesas those which we applied when we drew up the

quota system for sugar beet, i. e' an A and B-quotabased on the results of a previous period. The A-quotais based on production in the previous period but itcannot be kept static in relation to what it was in the

previous couple of years since sugar production wouldnot have been dealt with in this way when the new

arrangements for sugar were introduced in the

Community in the early 70's. It is quite clear from thelaw that there must be room for some increase inproduction. The figures involved are in fact quitesmall, they amount to something corresponding tonot more than 2 weeks' normal exports. However, we

have to add a B-quota in order to comply with the

ruling of the Court concerning provision for expan-sion and to provide some kind of compensation forthe effect which the illegal levy may have had onproduction in the preceding one and a half to twoyears. If we do not make this change in the quotas we

shall find that 14 days after the implementation of thescheme the Court will once again rule against us. Thatis a situation which I naturally cannot accept.

As regards the levy, it is quite clear that the Court has

rejected the l0 UA. The levy we ProPose is to allintents and purposes that laid down by the decision of

the Court. Changes in this area would be possible

only during a radical reorganisation of the entire sugar

market, which is to be carried out this autumn orwinter. Given the circumstances, we have really no

choice in the matter but to adopt the proposal we

have submitted which, as I have said does not rePre-

sent the political and economic aspirations of the

Commission but is the result of legal necessity.



19. llilk sector

The next item is the joint debate on :

- report by Mr Howell on behalf of the Committee onAgriculture on the measures to be taken to improvethe situation in the milk sector;

- the report by Mr Nielsen on behalf of the Committeeon Agriculture on the proposal from the Commissionto the Council for a regulation on investment aid forthe marketing and processing of milk products.

I call Mr Corrie.

Mr Corrie, deputy rapporreur. - Mr President" I was

asked by Mr Howell to refer this document back tothe committee, but as only the rapPorteur himself or

the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture can do

that I will merely introduce it in a very few words.

Mr Howell, as you know, has fought a lone battle to

persuade us that quotas are the answer to milk outPut.I for one do not believe that he is right, but he does

feel that, if the present remedies do not work, we shallbe forced in that direction anyway. Perhaps he is rightin this ; the Commissioner would probably agree. Ifeel that would be disastrous for the large, efficientfarms in the dairy industry and would be the death-knell of smaller farmers. His report is a minority one

and has been much changed from its original drafting'However, I would simply move it formally and leave

this House to vote on it when it comes forwardtomorrow.

President. - I call Mr Brondlund Nielsen.

Mr Brsndlund Nielsen, rapporteur. - (DK) Ishould like to make a couple of brief remarks aboutthe report which I have produced. It is to be hopedthat our eloquence here on the subiect of food produc-tion will be as useful as if we had stayed at home onthis fine evening and planted potatoes and thus actu-ally produced food. But what we are concerned withhere is the Commission's proposal, which aims toprovide a basis for the cessation of all national aid forthe processing and marketing of milk products, and itgoes without saying that, as rapporteur for theCommittee, I am very glad to lend my support to this


Brsndlund Nielsen

proposal from the Commission. It is a well knownfact that the problems which have beset the Commu-nity's otherwise very successful agricultural policy aredue to a considerable degree to the failure to rundown national support systems sufficiently and thusallow the Common Market to function properly. Themonetary effect of the implementation of the EMSand of its associated agreements represents a furtherstep, even if only a short one, in the direction of thatproper functioning. Therefore, we must hope that wecan now take this extra step and dismantle nationalsupport systems. I shall not press the various argu-ments put forward by our Committee but merely urgeyou to support this motion for a resolution a.d I hopethat it will lead to the suspension of national supportsystems.


Mr Gundelsch, Vice-President of tbe Commission.

- (DK) Mr President, with reference to Mr Howell'sreport I should just like to say that I think that MrHowell's solitary struggle has served the very usefulpurpose of demonstrating to us what theconsequences will be if we do not in time - and thatmeans now - take the necessary steps to limit milkproduction. lIhen I speak of limiting milk produc-tion, I do not mean the actual production but produc-tion generally. The actual production should prefer-ably be maintained for it will enable us to sell at morereasonable prices in the future and so increaseconsumption.

Mr Howell's ideas on quotas would only mean thatthe Council, after wrangling for months, would eventu-ally set a quota that was too high, for that is the onlypoint the Council could agree upon. Once agreementhad been reached on quotas it would then be impos-sible to make any change in them and, since theywould be fixed at too high a level, constant overpro-duction would be guaranteed. And once you havequotas, it will then be argued that we can increaseprices in order to improve farmers' incomes and thefarmer will no longer have any interest in increasinghis productivity because he will have his quota andwill be getting a guranteed price, so he will not needto do anything more. !7e would have an overproduc-tion far beyond what we have today and we would be

moving towards a wrong use of resources which Ithink would sound the death kenell of any sensibleagricultural policy.

However, it is to Mr Howell's credit that he points outwhat will become of a sensible agricultural policy ifwe do not apply sensible economic measures in time.If we fail to do so, then we are heading for completelyuncharted territory.

I am very grateful to Mr Nielsen for his kind supportof our proposal to reduce the investment of publicfunds in a sector of overproduction. I fully agree with

him that certain national aids must be brought undercontrol but we must not overlook the need to placelimits on EEC aids to some sectors of overproduction,whether they are intended to improve the conditionsof farmers, or to help develop new products orimprove marketing arrangements. In any case, some-thing must be done to restrict the use of EEC fundsfor it is indefensible that public funds should be usedto support a sector with such a high level of overpro-duction.

President. - I have no more speakers listed. Themotions for resolutions will be put to the vote,together with the amendments tabled, at the begin-ning of tomorrow's sitting.


20. Fisberies and fisb farming


- the report (Doc. 116179) by Mr Corrie on behalf ofthe Committee on Agriculture, on measures to beadopted for the development of fish farmingwithin the Community;

- the report (Doc. 130/79) by Mr Lemp on behalf ofthe Committee on Agriculture on the proposalsfrom the Commission to the Council for

I a regulation allocating catch quotas between MemberStates for vessels fishing in Faroese waters;

II a regulation allocating certain catch quotas betweenMember States for vessels fishing in the Norwegianexclusive economic zone ;

III a regulation allocating catch quotas between MemberStates for vessels fishing in Swedish waters;

IV a regulation laying down for the period I January to3l December 1979 certain measures for the conserva-tion and management of fishery resources applicableto vessels registered in the Faroe Isles;

V a regulation laying down certain measures for theconservation and management of fishery resourcesapplicable to vessels flying the flag of Spain for theperiod I January to 3l Decembet 1979.

I call Mr Corrie.

Mr Corrie, rapporteur. - Mr President, might I say

two words on the Lemp report before I start ? Mygroup certainly does support that report. During thelast part-session, we asked the Commission why onearth Norway had suddenly closed its grounds, havingopened them up to Community fishermen; I wonderif any progress has been made along that particularline.

I hope that the brevity of my remarks on my ownreport will not detract from its importance and thebackground work that has gone into it. This report onfish farming is a major attempt to put the marine andfreshwater industry on the Community map. A greatdeal of work has gone into it, both on the practical


Corrie

aspects of studying fish-farming and meeting fisheryexperts in this field, and also on reading papers on thesubject.

I have looked at fish-farming in Italy ; in Venice theyhave specifically developed the golden-headed breamand promoted the commercial development ofmussels. As far as bream are concerned, they are shut-ting off large sea lochs and putting the young fish outto grow there. I have looked at salmon-farming inScotland, where they strip the adult fish, grow theyoung salmon in fresh water and then transfer themto cages in sea lochs. I think that it is in this area thatthere is tremendous potential, in the maritime periph-eral regions where we have sm,all crofts and smallfarmers that could boost their income by developingfish-farming, buying the salmon from the large

concerns, putting them into cages in their own areas

of sea and thus supplementing their income.

The biggest development, of course, has been inbrown trout, which is now a viable commercial busi-ness throughout the European Communiry. I have

looked at units throughout Europe ; much research isgoing on, and there is a great need for coordinationand cooperation in research within the Community.Much, too, in the growth of brown trout could be

learned from Israel, where I went and studied fish-farming, both on the question of disease problemsand feeding management. Much experimental work isalso being done with species such as turbot and sole,using hot water from power-stations to improve watertemperatures, thereby getting better growth-rates.

I have looked, too, at oyster cultivation outside theCommuniry. It will not be long before we can buyoysters and chips, instead of fish and chips - thatgreat British delicacy. Thus progress is being made inbringing luxury foods within the reach of all.

All this is a step in the right direction. I would thankthe Commission for the work that they have done inthis field up to now; much is still to be done, and onecan only ask the Commission to create the rightatmosphere so that it can continue. Fish-farming canonly be complementary to the fishing industry, but itsreal potential must be in the maritime peripheralregions of the Community, where unemployment is atits worst. It is the sons of fishermen, rather than fish-ermen themselves, who will join this industry.

!7hat I have tried to do in this report is to highlightsome of the problems within fish-farming, and theareas that I feel could be supported by the Commis-sion. If the industry is going to expand, some helpmust be given to the development of equipment andto meeting the cost of capital equipment for fish-farming. The biggest problem facing the industry is,

of course, disease. I am sure the Commissioner is wellaware of all these problems. A great deal of help couldbe given to the industry through coordination by

some body within the Comrhunity for the purpose ofassisting in the research work or compiling a registerof diseases, the way they are transmitted and the avail-able cures for them. At the present time various insti-tutes and bodies have solved numerous problems, butit is all being done behind closed doors; I wonderwhat the Commission could do to encourage theCommunity to start coordinating this work.

Fish-farming could be the new growth industry forEurope. It is a source of high protein food. It couldgenerate employment in underdeveloped regions, bydevelopment both on land and at sea - where there jare unpolluted waters. The potential areas for develop-ment should be protected in some way as pollutionround our coasts increases. It could build up an enter-prise where one could exploit the expertise on bothequipment and feed. This could be particularlyhelpful in Lom6 Convention countries and third coun-tries of the world that need protein. I have gone as farin this report as actually suggesting to the Commis-sion articles that might be studied, and I sincerelyhope that this report can be used as a basis for fish-farming in the Community in future years.

President. - I call Mr Hughes.

Mr Hughes, deputl rapporteur. - M"y I, acting onbehalf of Mr Lemp, recommend to the House bothhis Document 130179 and the series of amendments Ito 9 adopted last night unanimously in theCommittee on Agriculture, which, I might say, are

consequent upon the visit of the fisheries sub-com-mittee to Hull and have the whole-hearted, unani-mous support of the Committee on Agriculture. Onthe substance of Mr Lemp's report I have no diffi-culty. I must, however, draw the attention of theHouse to the difficulry with which we are alwaysbeing faced - and I understand why in this particularcase more than in many others - whereby we have

one part of a package at one part-session and another,complementary part at a later part-session. !7hat weare involved in is the second half of an agreedpackage, one part of which we did in March, the otherpart of which we are doing now. It is inevitable, butwe must regret it and hope that our successors in thedirectly-elected Parliament manage their affairs andtheir relations with Council and Commission ratherbetter.

One last word. I should like, on behalf of my group,to express our enthusiastic and whole-herated endorse-ment of the Corrie report. It is my only sadness that itis half-past nine at night, and we cannot debate itwith the thoroughness that the subject deserves; but ithas my total support, and my group's.

President. - I call Mr Kavanagh to present theopinion of the Committee on Regional Policy,Regional Planning and Transport.


Mr Kavanagh, draftsrnan of an opinion - Mr Presi-dent, I would like to congratulate Mr Corrie too onhis report, and to say it is a piry we have nor had it ina normal part-session. This being the last one, every-thing seems to be a little rushed.

Fishing as presently practised is becoming obsoletebecause of pollution of the sea and over-fishing.Certain species of fish have been reduced almost tothe point of extinction. Should this trend continue,the Community will have to consider alternative foodsources. One possibility for consideration is fish-farming. Up to now, fish-farming in the EEC has hada very limited commercial value. The stocking andrestocking of rivers and lakes has, as its main objec-tive, recreational or tourist interest. The nutritionalr6le of this operation is almost non-existent, or at thevery best a very secondary one. Some crustaceousspecies such as oysters and mussels have beencommercially farmed, but as far as fish is concerned,trout now represents the only commercial supply. Acombination of expensive equipment and a very highcost of feeding means that only the more expensivevarieties of fish are found profitable. Salmon, trout,turbot and eels are the most attractive possibilities. Ibelieve that plaice-farming in Great Britain has beenabandoned because of the cost.

Marine fish-farming, where the real expansion cantake place, requires unpolluted water, the right temper-ature, and tidal conditions must fall within certainlimits. These limitations give marine fish-farming itspeculiar regional interest. Suitable locations such as

the !7est of Scotland, Italy, Ireland and, for the future,Spain, come immediately to mind as areas for develop-ment.

!7ith the limited time at my disposal, there is no needfor me to add more than one basic point to the moredetailed comments, as I have said, made by Mr Corriein his speech and his report. I would conclude bysummarizing the more important points in myopinion. The first is that marine fish-farming is a verycostly operation. Secondly, it is still in its infancy, andwill require extensive research for its development.Thirdly, the Commission will have to make fundsavailable (a) for research and development, includingresearch into the problems of fish diseases, (b) for deve-loping the new skills and training which would berequired, and (c) to fish-farming projects in the coun-tries I have mentioned above.

The Committee on Regional Policy, Regional Plan-ning and Transport believes that marine fish-farmingis potentially of considerable importance for the deve-lopment of certain less-favoured maritime regions ofthe Community, and that the Community shouldcontinue to cooperate with and encourage nationalefforts to foster it as a commercially viable industry.


Mr Gundelach, Vice-President of tbe Comnissiotl

- (DK) Mr President, I am fully in agreement withMr Corrie's report, it is true that fish farming is in itsinfancy, but it is an industry or an economic activirywhich has a grear future ahead of it. I hope that thereason for this will not be that our seas are completelypolluted, as the last speaker suggested, without founda-tion, but we must ask and expect the authorities,including Community authorities, which areconcerned with environmental problems, to take ener-getic action to prevent pollution of our seas.

Even if they do so, even if by conservation over a

period of years we can again provide a healthy basisfor our fishing industry, there will still be aneconomic argument in favour of fish farming, espe-cially for certain species, and this could relieve consid-erably the serious problems which affect fishing andwhich will be with us for many years yet. There aremany problems to be overcome, some of themeconomic, new equipment and new plant must beprovided. Research will need to be done into themany problems of disease, financial assistance willhave to be made available and the Communiry iswilling to provide that assistance. At present we aremaking serious efforts to coordinate the scientificwork in the European body which is responsible forcooperation in fish biology and technology and weexpect those efforts to produce results. I7e alsointend, and here the Commission can take its owndecisions, to use a fairly significant proportion of thestructural funds which are still restricted. The fundsavailable to us for fisheries are 5 million UA approvedlast year and 15 million UA this year earmarked forthe financing of two or three fish farming plants ; theaim is to breathe life into this industry, establish someexperimental units, to be able to show what can bedone, how best the teething problems can be solvedand thus to prepare the way towards the more routinedevelopment of private fish farms. I can also tell MrCorrie that the work will be carried out energeticallyand the views, material and advice which are includedin Mr Corrie's report are particularly useful in thiscOntext.

As regards Mr Lemp's report, all I have to say is that itis quite natural that Parliament should want the infor-mation it receives on a given problem to be as

comprehensive as possible. In this case the informa-tion related to agreements with third countries, bothagreements concerning our fishing in their waters andagreements concerning their fishing in ours. If theinformation was not complete on this occasion, it wasdue to the deplorable tendency evident in the Councilwhen one of the members wishes to make acceptanceof an agreement conditional on approval of somethingelse which has nothing to do with the agreement.


Gundelach

If, as I hope will be the case, we have a comprehen-sive fisheries policy before the end of this year, such a

situation will of course no longer arise and Parlia-ment's wishes, which I share, will be fulfilled; it willbe possible to consider simultaneously both theexternal and internal implications of the situation fora given year. I am very pleased that the Committee'sreport emphasizes the importance of having thefishery agreements we have concluded with Norwayand Sweden signed as quickly as possible. What is atstake is not merely cooperation on fisheries but thewider issue of the general climate of cooperationbetween the two countries in question and theCommunity. I am therefore very glad that emphasishas been placed on the importance of signing theseagreements without delay and I hope that the Councilwill at long last act on this recommendation.

President. - I have no more speakers listed. Themotions for resolutions will be put to the vote,together with the amendments tabled, at the begin-ning of tomorrow's sitting.


21. Enzootic leukosis among cattle

- Neroous diseases in pigs


- the report (Doc. 105/79) by Mr Hughes on behalf ofthe Committee on Agriculture on the proposal fromthe Commission to the Council for a directiveamending Directive 641432|EEC in respect ofenzootic leukosis among cattle ;

- tlre motion for a resolution (Doc. 76/79) table by MrHughes on behal( of the Committee on Agricultureon the urgent need for eradication measures tocontrol nervous diseases in pigs.

I call Mr Hughes.

Mr Hughes, rapporteur. - This would not be the

occasion, Mr President, to speak at length in thisdebate. But I think even so that to be treat it lightlywould to do this Community a disservice. These fwodiseases, enzootic bovine leukosis and Aujeszky'sdisease, are showing a disturbing increase throughoutthe Communiry, and there are areas where Commu-nity action supplemented by effective national actioncan be most effective. Therefore the plea contained inthese documents, that we do not pretend that thesediseases will go away, but that we recognize the needfor a much more active policy, is a very real one, and Iregret deeply that one of the last actions of recentLabour Government in the United Kingdom was torefuse to embark upon an eradication scheme forAujeszky's disease in the United Kingdom. Butwhether or not any of these are zoonotic and canaffect man is beside the point. The damage they do tosome of the highest quality breeding stock of cattleand of pigs throughout the Community is very serious

indeed, and it is in this veterinary arca that I hope theCommuniry will make the most rapid advances. There-fore I recommend these two documents to the Houseas indicating this Parliament's desire to see theCommission and its specialist veterinary committeesmaintain vigilant pressure on national governments so

that the trade in animals and the health of everyanimal in the Community are improved as the yearsgo on.


Mr Gundelach, Vice-President of tbe Commission,

- (DK) Mr President, I shall be brief, not because Iwish in any way to belittle the importance of the twodiseases referred to or of many others which will bedealt with by Parliament in coming months. I shallnot go into details, I share the view expressed by MrHughes and I am glad that the report has beenpresented. It has become clear to me, since I tookover my present responsibilities, that not enough was

being done in relation to disease prevention. It is notjust a commercial problem, it is not merely a questionof removing technical barriers to trade, the problemlies with veterinary regulations and it is also a publichealth matter. '$(ie have therefore prepared an overallprogramme for the eradication of animal diseases andwe have been supported by Parliament and have hadreasonable backing in the Council and at present,with the help of extra grants, we are in the process ofsetting up for the first time a real veterinary depart-ment in the Commission, which, in cooperation withnational experts, can work much more effectively inthe two areas referred to and in many others whichwill be submitted for Parliament's consideration in thenext few months. I think that that is something whichshould be of great interest to the general public andshould relieve public concern about the purity of itsfood.

President. - I have no more speakers listed. Thetwo motions for resolutions will be put to the vote as

they stand at the beginning of tomorrow's sitting.


22. Point of order

President. - I call Mr Hughes on a point of order.

Mr Hughes. - Mr President, looking round theHouse, I see that I am the last remaining vice-chairman of the outgoing Committee on Agriculture.Could I, for the convenience of the House, formallymove, while reserving my own private position andthat of my group on the vote tomorrow, items No114: Mr Br6g6gdre report on the Perustitza and Erze-govina varieties of tobacco: No ll5: Mr Brugger'sreport on the protection of animals during interna-tional transport; No I l5: Mr Ligios' report on special


Hughes

measures to improve production and marketing otCommunity citrus fruit: No 117: Mr Hansen's reporton a regulation amending the Regulation regardingthe financing of the oil production register; No l18:Mr Fri.ih's report on laying down aids to hopproducers for the 1978 marketing year, and No 71 :

Mr Albertini's report concerning forestry policy in theEuropean Community ?

These were all passed without any difficulty in theCommittee on Agriculture. I would be happy, as vice-chairman, to answer any points, and no doubt MrGundelach would make any necessary comments.Could I group them together and formally move themfor the vote tomorrow morning ?

23. Regulation on tbe Perustitza andEmegouina uarieties of raw tobacco

President. - The next item is the debate on thereport (Doc. 85179) by Mr Br6g6gdre on behalf of theCommittee on Agriculture on the

proposals from the Commission to the Council for a regu-lation laying down special measures in the raw tobaccosector in respect of the Perustitza and Erzegovina varie-ties.

I have no speakers listed. The motion for a resolutionwill be put to the vote as it stands at the beginning oftomorrow's sitting.The debate is closed.

24. Directiae on the protection ofanimals during international transport

President. - The next item is the debate on thereport (Doc. 129179) by Mr Brugger on behalf of theCommittee on Agriculture on the

proposal from the Commission to the Council for a direc-tive establishing measures for the implementation ofDirective 77l489|EEC on the protection of animalsduring international transport.

I have no speakers listed. The motion for a resolutionwill be put to the vote as it stands at the beginning oftomorrow's sitting.

25. Regulation on Communitl citrus fruitPresident. - The next item is the debate on thereport (Doc. 183179) by Mr Ligios on behalf of theCommittee on Agriculture on the

proposal from the Commission to the Council for a regu-lation amending Regulation (EEC) No 2511169 layingdown special measures to improve production andmarketing of Community citrus fruit.


26. Regulation on tbe oil production register

President. -

The next item is the debate on thereport (Doc 180179) by Mr Hansen on behalf of theCommittee on Agriculture on the

proposal from thc Commission to the Council (Docll3l79) for a regulation amending Regulation (EEC) No154175 as regards the financing of the oil productionregister.

I call Mr Nielsen.

Mr Brsndlund Nielsen. - (DK) Mr President, Imerely wish to say that, in proposing the two amend-ments to the report, my purpose was to provide a basisfor improved statistics.'!7e have often had discussionson the types of market organization referred to hereand there are said to be some general problems inconnection with the agricultural statistics in thecountry most affected by the market organization inquestion ; my amendments are intended to make thenecessary improvements in the relevant statistics andI can therefore recommend the adoption of theseproposals.


Mr Gundelach, Vice-President of he Commission, -(DK) Mr President, I have no comments to make onthe report as such nor, for my own part, have Ianything to say in reply to Mr Brsndlund Nielsen'sgeneral remarks. However, with regard to amendmentNo 2 recommending that a particular body be

employed to do statistical work, I do have somethingto say.

This is an idea which we ourselves examined, weconsidered the question carefully and came to theconclusion that the body in question was an agricul-tural rather than a statistical body and, therefore, wedo not think that it can be employed in connectionwith the statistical data required for the operations weare considering. This is not a question of principle, MrPresident, but a purely technical one. I must thereforeexpress my reserve on this point for technical reasons.

President. - I have no more speakers listed. Themotion for a resolution will be put to the vote,together with the amendments tabled, at the begin-ning of tomorrow's sitting.


27. Regulation on aids to hop producers

President. - The next item is the debate on thereport (Doc. l8l/79) by Mr Frth on behalf of theCommittee on Agriculture on the

proposal from the Commission to the Council for a regu-lation laying down aids to hop producers for the 1978marketing year.


President

I have no speakers listed. The motion for a resolutionwill be put to the vote as it stands at the bginning oftomorrow's sitting.


28. Communication on forestry poliEin the Communitl

President. - The next item is the debate on thereport (Doc. l84l9n by Mr Albertini on behalf of theCommittee on Agriculture on the communicationfrom the Commission to the Council concerning fore-stry policy in the European Community.



29. Actiuities of fkheries auxiliary aessels

President. - The next item is the debate on thereport (Doc. l0ll79) by Mr Kavanagh on behalf of theCommittee on Social Affairs, Employment and Educa-

tion on the coordination at Community level of theactivities of fisheries auxiliary vessels.

I call Mr Kavanagh.

Mr Kavanagh, rapporteur. - Mr President, I intendto be very brief on this indeed, but in deference toone gentlemen who is in the public gallery I wouldlike to move with a very short statement. In theCommunity of the Nine some 150 000 persons are

employed in fishing - that is, excluding those whowork ashore. Of these, 55 000 are employed indeep-sea fishing in the Atlantic and the northernwaters - a fishing area covering more than fourmillion square kilometres, or three times the area ofthe Community. As a rule, fishing voyages are lengthyand the crews'working conditions differ from those ofvirtually every other occupation in that the everyday

technical, medical and logistic support which is

always available for everyone ashore at very shortnotice does not, of course, exist for the fishermen.

The objective of this Parliamentary initiative is, there-fore, to improve the facilities for assistance - that is,

to put fishermen on a more equal footing with otheroccupations.

It is true, of course, that crews are not entirely withoutassistance, because 15 fishery auxiliary vessels are

stationed in the main fishing-grounds to provide thismedical, technical and logistic support and also toensure that weather reports are broadcast. Thesevsssels are, however, not permanently stationed in thefishing grounds.

My report calls on the Commission to begin prepara-tion of an overall social policy for the fishery sectorcovering such matters as safety on board ship, and at

sea, and notes that the Community is required, underArticle 9 ol Regulation 101176, laying down a

common structural policy for the fishing industry, totake measures to contribute to the improvement, instep with technical progress, of the standard and condi-tions of living of the population which depends onfishing for its livelihood. The report also requests theCommission to submit proposals by May 1979 f.or theprogressive improvemenl intensification and expan-sion of the system of auxiliary vessels for the sea

fishing industry and urges that in the 1980 budgetmoney should be provided for this purpose and also

for the vocational training for fishermen in theMember States.

Finally, I would like to request the Commission toaim ultimately for the overall coordination of existingservices and institutions in the Member States thatrender assistance at sea to merchant and passengervessels and pleasure craft with a view to achieving thehighest possible level of safety at sea.

President. - I call Mr Geurtsen to speak on behalfof the Liberal and Democratic Group.

Mr Geurtsen. - (NL) Mr President, as Mr Kavanaghfelt obliged to speak on his report after all in defer-ence to one gentleman in the public gallery, the veryleast I can do is to speak on the subject as well, seeingthat the gentleman in the gallery is a compatriot ofmine.

The fact that he has been sitting up there for twelvehours waiting for this debate shows how much he isconcerned about the subject. I should like that to be

placed on the record, because I believe that to be oneof the most gratifying thingp that can happen in anysociety.

I shall be brief, because Mr Kavanagh has discussedthis subject in great detail in his report and has

pointed out where improvements can be made to thepresent situation. His report is an outstanding piece ofwork, one which builds on the initiative taken a yearago by my honourable friend Mr Berkhouwer, whosemotion for a resolution called for the extended andimproved use of fisheries auxiliary vessels.

Mr Berkhouwer's work showed that the level ofmedical care and technical, meteorological and logis-tical assistance to the Community's fishing industrywas inadequate. In this respect, the fishing industrylags far behind other land-based industries. I ampleased to say that no blame attaches to the effortsthat have been made so far, culminating in the auxil-iary and hospital vessels which are now in service.


Geurtsen

Iftile I am on this point, I feel I must make specialmention of the work of the Dutch hospital ship 'DeHoop', a private enterprise which is now, thanks togovernment subsidies, doing an important job of workfor those in the fishing industry. Unfortunately, this isnot enough. More needs to be done both quantita-tively and qualitatively. This is evident from the factthat fishing vessels are involved in 20 o/o of all acci-dents in Community waters. Anyone who keeps hiseyes and ears open will have realized the urgent needfor the Community's fisheries policy to be supportedby a Community policy providing social assistance

and health care for the 150 000 workers in the fishingindustry. I hope that the Commission will take thisreport's recommendations to heart - naturally afterconsulting those directly affected - and will makerapid progress towards working out this supportingpolicy.



- (DK) Mr President, since a 200-mile EEC fishinglimit has been established as a result of a number ofcoordinated national decisions, the EEC clearly has

assumed certain responsibilities for conditions in thisfishing area. Evidence of this can be seen not only inthe discussion at Communiry level about catch quotasand conservation measures, but also in the furtheraction taken to provide support for certain countriesto assist them in surveillance to ensure compliancewith the regulations. The action taken is not as far-re-aching as we wanted during our negotiations here butthe steps taken show quite conclusively that a degreeof responsibility has been acknowledged. Since that isthe case, we also have a responsibility to ensure that a

rescue service, medical assistance and certain socialsecurity services are provided in this fishing area. Thisis not the case at present, so certain Communitymeasures must be taken, not to solve all the problems,but, by coordinating Community support, to help inensuring that progress is made along the right lines.Therefore, the Commission is fully in sympathy withthe views expressed by the rapporteur and I can assure

Parliament that, in our view, the most acceptable solu-tion would be for a body under the aegis of theCommission to undertake the necessary coordinationof the further work which remains to be done. Inconclusion, I would add that the necessary proposalsfor the initiation of that work have been submittedand they will ensure that the required appropriationsare included in the 1980 budget.


The debate is closed. , .

30. D.eaelopnrent and training in rural life

President. - The next item is the motion for a reso-lution (Doc. 177179) tabled by Mr Caillavet on behalfof the Committee on Agriculture on development andtraining for farming and rural life.

I call Mr Hughes.

Mr Hughes, deputl rapporteur. - Mr President, Iwish on behalf of my colleague, Mr Caillavet, formallyto move this motion for a resolution to the House.


Mr Gundelach, Vice-President of tbe Contmission.

- (DK) I should like to say, as I have already doneon a previous occasion, that I go along with the viewsput forward in this motion for a resolution. In myview, this is a field where aid is called for and I amnow in the fortunate situation of having reached agree-

ment with the budgetary authorities to rectify what Isee as a mistake whereby aid was reduced to 50 000u.a. It is now to be brought back to 150 000 u.a. peryear.



31. Regulation on the crecttion of a EuropeanAgenq for Cooperation

President. - The next item is the debate on thereport (Doc. aal79) by Mr Sandri on behalf of theCommittee on Development and Cooperation on the

proposal trom the Commission to the Council for a regu-lation relating to the creation of a European Agency forCooperation (EAC).

I call Mr Sandri.

Mr Sandri, rapporteur. - (I) Mr President, wediscussed this question at length in committee andreached unanimous agreement ; the representatives ofthe Commission of the European Communities have

assured us of its full support for the proposals we putforward ; and, finally, we obtained the agreement ofthe Committee on Budgets. I would therefore referyou to the report, in the hope that tomorrow ourmotion for a resolution will be approved, thusproviding a final solution to this delicate problem,which affecs hundreds of employees of the futureEuropean Agency for Cooperation.

President. - I call Mr Giolitti.


Mr Giolitti, Member of tbe Comnission. - (I) MrPresident, on behalf of the Commission I should liketo thank the members of the two committees, andparticularly the rapporteurs, Mr Sandri and Mr Aigner,for taking a positive attitude, after discussions we had,towards the principle of the creation of an agencyunder Community law with the task of recruiting,transferring and managing the staff of the delegationsand technical cooperation staff working in the frame-work of the Lom6 Convention or other overall cooper-ation agreements. The Commission, after studying thevarious aspects of the problem, has reached the conclu-sion that only a decentralized body under its supervi-sion can flexibly and effectively manage overseas staff,whose living and working conditions differ signifi-cantly from those of Europe-based Commission offi-cials.

In addition, the Commission will take account of theconcern expressed by Members of Parliament aboutthe conditions applicable to the staff of the Agency, as

envisaged by Article 17 of the proposal, and moreparticularly about guarantees of promotion, pensionrights and social insurance. With this in mind, theCommission is willing to give careful study to the newwording of Article 17 and the amendment to the'Conditions of employment of other servants of theCommunities' proposed by the two parliamentarycommittees.

At all events, the Commission undertakes to makeevery effort to ensure that the constructive proposalsof the staff are acted upon.



32. Cornrnunication on working conditions

President. - The next item is the debate on thereport (Doc. llll79) by Mr Nyborg on behalf of theCommittee on Development and Cooperation on the

communication from the Commission to the Council ondevelopment cooperation and the observance oI certaininternational standards governing working conditions.

I call Mr Nyborg.

Mr Nyborg, rapl)orteur. - (DK) Mr President, thepurpose of this motion from the Commission is toprevent what can probably reasonably be described as

unreasonably long working hours in underdevelopedcountries. It applies both to Lom6 Treaty countriesand to other countries with which the Communityhas trading relations. What is wanted is a reduction inworking hours to a maximum of 48 hours per week

without any reduction in pay. It would be a stepforward in the social field if this could be achievedsince, in many countries, there is a 70-hour workingweek. Another aim is to take steps to prevent the useand abuse of child labour, but this refers only toindustry and excludes the employment of members ofthe family in artisanal and agricultural undertakings.The Commission is of the opinion that the ILOwould be willing to assist in the task of overseeingcompliance with these regulations. It is also the viewof the Commission that it would be possible to havesuch regulations on working conditions implementedin the relevant underdeveloped countries since, if theywere not observed, the countries in question could bedeprived of any rights they had acquired under thespecial system of preferences. Thus, the basic aim issocial progress in those underdeveloped countrieswith which the Community has relations and, if I amto express faithfully the attitude of the Committee onDevelopment and Cooperation, I must say that itrecommends acceptance of the Commission's motion.However, there is one small qualification, which isthat I personally cannot support the motion and, withyour permission, Mr President, I shall presently bespeaking on behalf of my group.

President. - I call Mr Albers to present the opinionof the Committee on Social Affairs, Employment andEducation.

Mr Albers, deputy draftsman of an opinion. - (NL)Mr President, as regards this important Commissionproposal, I should like to hear what the rapporteurthinks of the admendments tabled by Lord Murray onbehalf of the Committee on Social Affairs. Over thelast few days, we have heard a lot about the employ-ment situation in the European Community andabout the still growing army of unemployed. There isnow a trend in industry to move out of the EuropeanCommunity to countries with low wage levels andpoor working conditions. As part and parcel of thenegotiations on development cooperation, it mustsurely be possible to make specific demands andspecify a certain level of working conditions in thedeveloping countries. I realize that, strictly speaking,in the light of our policy on development this soundsvery patronizing. I am also very much against - andthis point was made in the Committee on SocialAffairs - equating development cooperation with thedistribution or lending of money with the aim ofgetting more back later, an attitude which one comesacross in certain political circles.

But if our aim is to support the labour movement inthe developing countries and to encourage the processwhich started in Western European sociery sixty toseventy years ago, we must put some real effort into


Albers

this. I think Lord Murray's amendments are on theright lines. They expose the Commission's proposalsas fairly modest measures, and call on the Commis-sion to go much further and be much more forcefulon this point, without, however, interfering with thestandard of living of the people in the countriesconcerned. Because we shall not have much chancetomorrow when the vote is taken to go into this ques-tion in more detail, and will only then hear whetherthe rapporteur is for or against these amendments, Ishould be grateful if he would state his position now.


Mr Christensen. - (DK) Mr President, i have onseveral occasions pointed out that this motion shouldnot be applied in a protectionist fashion. However,reading between the lines, it seems that the motioncould be used in such a way if, or when, it is imple-mented. I think that what Mr Albers has just said

makes it clear that protectionist tendencies will be

ready to take advantage of it once it is adopted. Iwould also draw attention specifically to paragraph 20

of Section VI of the explanatory statement, Coopera-tion between the EEC and the ILO, which states

pretty clearly that the ILO will have nothing to dowith this matter. Of course there is no doubt that incertain countries there are abuses of which we cannotapprove under any circumstances but it is up to inter-national opinion as expressed, for example, by suprana-tional bodies such as UNO or the ILO to exert themoral pressure required to put an end to abuses, it is

not a matter for trade reprisals or threats of reduced

cooperation. I must therefore dissociate myself fromthis motion.

President. - I call Mr Nyborg on behalf of theGroup of European Progressive Democrats.

Mr Nyborg. - (DK) Mr President, I should first ofall like to say to Mr Albers that I cannot support theproposed amendments. I cannot support them eitheras rapporteur or as spokesman for my own group, forthey go much further than the motion put forward bythe Commission.

The fact that the Commission did not go as far as

these amendments do is evidence of its cautiousapproach; it realizes that it is, venturing out intodangerous waters, over quicksands where it would be

hazardous to go aground. I should now like to say a

few words on behalf of the Group of EuropeanProgressive Democrats and on my own behalf, since Iam in the awkward situation - fortunately this does

not often happen to me - that I must recommendrejection of my own report. I am, indeed, extremelyuneasy about the conten6 of the Commission'smotion, it is an attempt to impose something on thepeople of the underdevelopcd countries we are coope-

rating with. It is a contradiction of the principle ofequality which we have until now observed in ourcooperation with underdeveloped countries. In manyplaces the choice is not between working 48 hours or70 hours, the choice is rather berween working 70

hours or dying of hunger and in many cases it couldbe argued that a distortion of competition wouldresult, because, if we apply such regulations in onecountry and if they are not applied in a neighbouringcountry, we thereby impose on the first country priceincreases not suffered by the second, in other wordswe are then involved in a distortion of competitionwhich can quite easily lead to a high level of unem-ployment in the area which we are supposedly tryingto help. It could cost thousands of jobs and increaseunemployment. It cannot be our intention to followthat path.

As Mr Christensen rightly observed, it smells very bad,it is a back-door method of practising protectionism,we want to protect our industries by this form ofprotectionism so that we can avoid what is known as

'social dumping'and in that way we will be better ableto compete with the underdeveloped countries we atesupposed to be helping.

I will limit myself to these few comments which, Ithink, sum up the position and I will therefore, onbehalf of my group, recommend rejection of thisreport.


Mr Giolitti. - (I) Mr President, I should like tobegin by thanking on behalf of the Commission thetwo rapporteurs and Parliament as a whole for the atti-tude adopted in the motion for a resolution towardsthe guidelines submitted by the Commission.

I should like to make some comments and explainsome points of detail. The Commission thought itnecessary for the Community's development coopera-tion policy to enter a new phase, in which it wouldpursue at one and the same time the aims ofeconomic and social progress in the developing coun-tries. Bearing in mind the economic and social diffi-culties which the Community countries are goingthrough, the Commission thinks that its guidelineswill strengthen the support of the economic andsocial forces of the Community for an open develop-ment cooperation policy. Thus, the trade preferenceswhich the Community grants to developing countrieswill be reserved for those countries which seek toachieve a minimum of social progress at the same

time as economic growth.

In this connection I wish to stress that the EuropeanConfederation of Trade Unions, the All African TradeUnion Federation, the International Confederation ofFree Trade Union and the !(orld Confederation of


Giolitti

Labour have all given their unreserved support to theCommission proposals on behalf of the workers inindustrialized and developing countries throughoutthe world represented by these organizations. I alsowish to mention the support given by the Economicand Social Committee of the Communiry. Turning tothe opinion of the Committee on Social AffairsEmployment and Education, paragraph 2 of theconclusions requires clarification by the Commission.Although the Commission agrees with Parliament'sview that the four standards chosen represent an accep-table minimum at present, I must nonetheless remindyou that the Commission favoured the idea of a

progressive clause which, if incorporated in tradeagreements with developing countries, would make itpossible in future gradually to extend these minimumstandards to otler conditions of work, such as tradeunion freedom, the right of collective bargaining etc.

On this same point, Mrs Squarcialupi tabled anamendment, approved by very large majority of theCommittee on Social Affairs, Employment and Educa-tion, in which Parliament expresses dissatisfaction thatthe protection of female workers during pregnancyand motherhood was not also considered, and calls formeasures to this effect to be taken as soon as possible.The Commission has always sought to safeguard andpromote women's rights in society and at the work-place, and I must therefore agree with Mrs Squarcia-lupi, for two reasons. Firstly, the Commission inchoosing the minimum standards, gave prioriry tothose directly affecting the individual. Secondly, thiscould have a considerable impact on the social andhuman role of women as envisaged in the developingcountries.

Paragraph 4 of the opinion points out the dangerwhich would be involved in exempting small-scaleundertakings and agricultural undertakings producingexclusively for the local market from the need toconform to the minimum standard establishing l4years as the minimum age for employment. I wouldpoint out that this exception is expressly envisaged inConvention No 138 of the International LabourOrganization, relating to the minimum age foremployment. This means that the Commission couldnot, in any case be more strict than the standards ofthe International Labour Organization - standards ofwhich we took account as an indisputable and undis-puted frame of reference.

!7ith regard to the motion for a resolution tabled bythe Committee on Development and Cooperation, Ithink the time has come to give prioriry to the socialaspects of development in Third !7orld countries so

as to reduce the considerable disparities which existbetween the various developing countries in terms ofdistribution of income and resources. There is nodoubt that the Commission guidelines are a step in

this direction and will accelerate existing trends. More-over, I think that the representatives of trade unionsand employers' organizations in the developing coun-tries should be involved in the choice of standardsand the supervision of their application in accordancewith Parliament's explicit demand. On paragraph 4 ofthe motion for a resolution, I wish to inform Parlia-ment that the Council of Ministers agreed on 8 Maythat a statement be made on its behalf and an explana-tion be given to the ACP ministers during the negotia-tions, i.e. before 24 and 25 May, informing them rhat,when measures arising from the standards are taken inrespect of the developing countries in general, theywill also be applicable to the ACP countries, giventhat there can be no discrimination among developingcountries in this field.

May I point out that this Council decision is in linewith the Commission's initial aim which follows threebasic criteria - application to all developing coun-tries without exception, unilateral decisions by theCommission in respect of countries benefiting fromthe generalized preferences scheme, and informing ofACP countries without negotiation or preliminaryagreement with those countries, since Article l0 ofthe present Lom6 Convention allows for the adoptionof criteria relating to respect for the chosen standards,in relation to the possible application of the safeguardclause.

Consequently, I wish to suggest that paragraph 4 ofthe motion for a resolution be redrafted in thefollowing terms:

Parliament congratulates the Council on at lastaccepting the Commission proposal.

!7ith regard to the amendments tabled by LordMurray of Gravesend, I accept amendments Nos l, 3and 5 which strengthen and clarify the Commissionproposals. !7ith regard to the other amendments, Iwould remind Lord Murray of Gravesend that I havealready given at least a partial reply to them in thefirst part of this speech.

The principle introduced in amendment No 2 isacceptable, but applies only to the countries to whichthe Communiry grants privileges or preferences intrade. For this principle to apply generally theCommission would have to draw up a new proposal totake account of the proposed amendment.

Amendment No 4 takes up only a part of the chosenminimum standard and omits the other part, 'whichdo not employ paid workers on a regular basis'. Forundertakings to be exempted from this standard, theymust satisfy two requirements - that they produceonly for the local market and that they do not employpaid workers on a regular basis. Consequently, if theamendment were accepted, the exemption wouldapply only to family undertakings for which, in anycase, supervision would be impossible in practice.


Giolitti

Finally, I find amendment No 5 acceptable, except forthe last part, which states that the Commission propo-sals must not develop into a convert form of protec-tionism against countries which are at Presentflooding the Community with cheap goods. I shouldlike to point out that this flooding of the Communitymarket to the advantage of third countries must be

ascribed to the comparative advantages arising fromwage levels, taxation and social securiry contributionlevels, regulations on health protection for workers atthe workplace, etc. However, the fact is that theminimum standards chosen by the Commission donot cover these fields.

Finally, I wish to thank Parliament for the construc-tive way in which it has approached the study of thisproblem and for the support it will give the Commis-sion by approving - as I hope it will - the motionfor a resolution put before it.


Mr Nyborg, raPPorteur. - (DK) I have very little toadd. To the Commission I would say that its package

is very attractive and is done up with very niceribbons. However, I must be allowed to emphasize

that the underlying implications of the Commission'sargument, when it suggests that the ILO is willing toact as a control body for the Communiry, do not tallywith the truth. The ILO has not so far given any suchundertaking, as Mr Cheysson had to admit at themeeting of the committee in Rome.

President. - I have no more speakers listed. Themotion for a resolution will be put to the vote,

together with the amendments tabled, at the begin-ning of tomorrow's sitting.


33. EuroPean Youtb Forurn

President. - The next item is the debate on thereport (Doc. l5ll79) by Mr Caro on behalf of theCommittee on Social Affairs, Employment and Educa-

tion on the activities of the European Youth Forum.

I call Mr Caro.

Mr Caro, rapporteur. - (F) Mr President, theCommittee on Social Affairs, Employment and Educa-

tion has, as you know, been looking into proposals

relating to the European Youth Forum for some time.

It has taken quite a while for this report to be

presented to this House because of the difficultiesencountered in setting up the various bodies, whichwas inevitably something of a problem given that thisis an entirely new departure.

As it is getting late, I shall keep my remarks to theminimum required on a question of this importance.

I shall try to tell you - or remind you - briefly whatthe Forum is by describing the central elements of itswork, the resources it has access to and its wish towork as closely as possible with the Commission andwith this House.

First of all, let me explain that the idea of this Forumoriginated at the meeting of the Heads of State andGovernment in The Hague in 1969. The idea was

taken up again in 1976 with the support of the Euro-pean Parliament, and in June 1978 the organizationwas formally set up and its statutes adopted. The Euro-pean Youth Forum is composed of a general assemblywith the usual executive organs, and is based on theprinciple of equal status for national committees and

international non-governmental youth organizations.It is worth noting that the international youth organi-zations can only be accepted as members of theForum if they have active national branches in morethan half of the Member States of the EuropeanCommunity. The European Coordination Bureau ofInternational Non-Governmental Youth Organiza-tions and the Council of European National YouthCommittee have been admitted as consultativemembers of the Forum.

I should like to draw your attention to the excellentrelations which have been established right from theword go with the institutions of the Council ofEurope, and in particular the European Youth Founda-tion and the European Youth Centre.

Having dealt with the organizational problem, theEuropean Parliament was then faced with that of thefinancing of the Forum. This problem was - as youknow - solved in the 1979 budget, when it was clearthat the funds required to set up this organizationconceded the figure approved by the Council. TheCouncil had cut the original draft appropriation of350500 EUA to 275000 EUA, but an amendmentsubmitted by Parliament succeeded in reinstating theoriginal amount. This considerable increase was dueto the substantially greater requirement involved inthe Forum's actually starting work, and in particularthe establishment of a four-men full-time Secretariatand its premises in Brussels.

Turning to the considerable problem of workingconditions and the resources that can be made avail-able to the Forum, I think we should avoid overdrama-tizing the situation. Any organization going throughits initial growth phase is bound to have substantialrequirement which cannot perhaps always be satisfiedimmediately and automatically. Nonetheless, it is vitalfor this original organization that consideration be

given to establishing relations between the Forum'sexecutive organs and the Commission and Parliament,so as to enable the Forum to enjoy optimum workingconditions in which to put across its point of view;


Caro

these include the right of initiative, the right tomutual consultation and, of course, an assurance thatthe Forum will not be 'forgotten' in the day-to-daywork of the Community institutions.

An exchange of letters which took place berween theForum and Mr Jenkins raised some doubts on thepart of the organizers and the executive officers of theForum, in that the President of the Commissionaccepted the principle of establishing closer relationsbetween the Forum and the Commission without,however, being willing to give any immediate assur-ance or guarantees on the point of mutual consulta-tions nor, especially, on the Forum's right of initiative.

It is interesting to note that, in line with the resolu-tion on the second Community programme designedto encourage exchanges of young workers within theCommunity

- point 8 of which said that the Euro-

pean Youth Forum's opinion to a meeting to examinethe practical problems of implementing this secondprogramme. This decision was taken only a few daysago, which goes to show that the commitmentsentered into by the President of the Commissionshould be regarded as a precedent and should satisfythe Forum's officers. This was one of the points whichreceived most attention from the committee, becausewe believe that this useful organization will only beable to play an effective role if close relations are main-tained between it and the Commission.

Having established what resources are available to theForum, what possibilities are open to it and whatsupport it will receive, there remains the basic ques-tion of what contribution the Forum will actually beable to make. Will it be a consultative organization orwill it be active in its own right ? That is the point thecommittee really wanted to clear up before reportingback to this House.

The Forum has drawn up an extremely interestingprogramme of work, based on an internal structurewhich includes permanent commissions required bothto implement and improve the existing programme.Let me go over the main points in my report, so that Ican show you how important this programme is.

Firstly, the Forum intends to contribute to the polit-ical development of the European Communities andto take an interest in the democntizatron of the insti-tutions, new forms of economic growth and, of course,the Lom6 Convention. In the second main chapter onthe Forum's programme of work, we have alsobrought out the question of the social position ofyoung workers, concentrating on the campaign againstyouth unemployment, a strategy for access to employ-ment, the rights of young people in the undertaking,improving living conditions for young workers and, ofcourse, the problem of young migrant workers.

Finally, we noted with interest the Forum's plannedwork in the educational and cultural field, especially

in relation to the problems of the transition fromschool to work and of intra-mural and extra-muraleducation.

So now we have an organization of, we hope a newtype, which looks set fair to make great progress. TheEuropean Youth Forum was created to act as a polit-ical platform for the youth organizarions ois-d-uis theinstitutions of the European Community, and also torepresent most of the large international youth organi-zations covering the whole political, philosophical andreligious sprectrum, along with the national youthcommittees of the Member States, and of the non-Member States an observer capacity.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, at a time whenwe are about to hold direct elections to the EuropeanParliament, the creation of the European activities.Forum gives us a fine opportunity to show how impor-tant young people are in the Community's activities.The European Youth Forum is not a new bureaucraticdepartment, nor a committee of experts nor even asort of Ministry of Youth. !7hat we are doing in fact iscreating an organized structure for young people andrun by young people. That is the new element.

The European man-in-the-street has for a long timebeen wondering about the future of Europe. He real-izes that we are building a new Europe, but the oppor-tuniry he will have in a few days' time to vote for theEuropean Parliament will bring this home to himeven more clearly.

!7hat our young people are wondering is whetherEurope will mean anything more to them. I think thebest way of replying to this question is to build thekind of society those young people can take an activepart in. And the best way of doing this is to give themthe means of helping themselves, with the backing ofthe institutions provided for in the Treaty of Rome.That is why the Committee on Social Affairs, Employ-ment and Education and the Christian-DemocraticGroup, on whose behalf I am also speaking, think thatthis House would be well advised to adopt the motionfor a resolution contained in my report.

President. - I call Mr Albers to speak on behalf ofthe Socialist Group.

Mr Albers. - (NL) Mr President, on behalf of myGroup I should fust like to add a few words to theexcellent speech we have just heard from Mr Caro. Ishould like to congratulate him most sincerely on hisreport. He has rightly cut no corners in investigatingprecisely what kind of movement the European YouthForum is. I go along with him in thinking that theEuropean Youth Forum can in the future be regardedas a genuine partner for the Community institutions,and I believe that to be important. 'We must notforget that, of the 5 million unemployed we are always


Albers

talking about,40 7o are younger than 25. These youngpeople are in a difficult situation, and this will remainan enormous problem for many years to come.Because of this, I believe that the exchange of viewfacilitated by this kind of organization could be veryvaluable. This organization also seeks to integrateyoung people into the European Community, and thisis something we must encourage. Parliament thoughtit necessary to make more money available f.or 1979,and we now have to ask ourselves whether theCommission, too, is aware of the value of the Euro-pean Youth Forum and whether this will be reflectedin the 1980 budget ? The rapporteur has asked thisHouse to support his motion for a resolut'on, and Ican assure you that the Socialist Group will be givingits wholehearted support to this motion for a resolu-tion at the vote tomorrow.

President. - I call Mr Gioliui.

Mr Giolitti, tuIember of the Commission. - (I) MrPresident, I wish to thank the rapporteur, Mr Caro onbehalf of the Commission. The Commission fullyagrees with the content and conclusions of his report.I would mention that, in a letter of 19 June 1978, thePresident of the Commission had already expressedhis satisfaction, on behalf of the Commission, at theestablishment of the European Youth Forum. TheCommission is prepared to start a dialogue onproblems concerning young people and their organiza-tions. It will try to ensure that its relevant departmentsestablish close working relations with the Forum so as

to provide it with adequate information on progressmade in Community measures. To facilitate contacts,the Commission has already entrusted relations withthe Forum to the Social Partners Office of the Sec-retariat-General I can assure you that these relationshave already developed most satisfactorily.

President. - I have no more speakers listed. Themotion for a resolution will be put to the vote as itstands at the beginning of tomorrow's sitting.The debate is closed.

34. Regulation on oun resources

President. - The next item is the debate on thereport (Doc. 167179) by Mr Notenboom on behalf ofthe Committee on Budgets on the

proposal from the Commission to the Council for a regu-lation on the measures to be taken in the event of irregu-larities affecting the own resources referred to in the deci-sion of 21 April 1970 and the organization of an informa-tion system for the Commission in this field.


35. Regulation on imports of adult boaineanimals frorn Yugoslauia

President. - The next item is the debate on thereport (Doc. 174179) by Mr Martinelli on behalf of the

Committee on External Economic Relations on the

proposal from the Commission to the Council for a regu-lation extending Regulation (EEC) No 2862177concerning agricultural levies on imports of certarn adultbovine animals and beef from Yugoslavia.



36. Agenda for next sitting

President. - The next sitting will be held tomorrow,

Friday, I I May 1979 at 9 a.m. with the followingagenda :


- Voting time

10.30 a.m.: Vote on draft supplementary budget No 2

- Motion for a resolution on the Sabata trial

- l7alker-Smith report on the appointment of a

Community ombudsman

- Shaw report on limited liabiliry companies

- Shaw report on the transfer of appropriations from1978 to 1979

- Sandri report on the trade agreement with Uruguay

- Baas report on the EEC-ASEAN commercial andeconomic relations

- Kaspereit report on table grapes from Cyprus

- Corrie report on Communiry peripheral coastalregions

- Schyns report on the transport of passengers andgoods by road

- Fuchs report on inland waterways

- Jrng report on EEC-COMECON relations in mari-time shipping

- Brown report on plastic materials

- Lamberts report on edible caseins and caseinates

- Bethell report on ionizing radiation

- Jahn report on environmental carcinogens

- Van der Gun report on contacts between Communiqcrtizens

- Nod report on the qualiry of foodstuffs (withou.debate)

- Lamberts report on lresh poultry meat (withoutdebate)

- Pisoni report on social security schemes

- Oral question without debate to the Commission onthe teaching of languages in the Community

End of sitting:

- Voting time


Qhe sitting was closed at 10.45 p.rn)


ANNEX

Questions ubicb could not be answered during Question Tirne, witb written Ansuers

Question No 7, b1 Lord St }swald

Subject: lmport of wool textiles from State-trading countries

Does the Commission intend to introduce some funher controls upon the import of wool textilesfrom State-trading countries at present resulting in unfair competition iniurious to the Community'swool textile trade, including that of the United Kingdom ?

Ansuer

The Commission draws the honourable Member's attention to the fact that imports of these productsare currently subiect to the following conditions :

l. Imports from Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland and Romania are covered by textiles agreements whichhave been initialled and are de facto being applied between the Community and these countries.Apart from quantitative restrictions, these agreements also provide for protective measures and

price clauses which may be implemented, if required, by the Community.

2. In the case of other State-trading countries, imports are subject to the unilateral import arrange-

ments established in accordance with the Council Decision of 2l December 1978 (published inOfficial Journal L 50 of 12 March 1979) based on Council Decision 75l2l0lEEC of 27 March1975. This decision provides for the introduction of protective measures in the event ol serious

disruption caused by imports from State-tradinS countries. In addition, in most Member States

imports are subiect to the granting of an import licence.

3. In the event of injurious effects as a result of unfair competition in the form of dumping, Regula-tion (EEC) No 459/68 may be invoked. This may be done by the Community textiles industry as

well as by the Member States.

It is the view of the Commission that at the moment these provisions are adequate to cope with thedifficulties referred to by the honourable Member should they arise.

Question No 9, b1 Mrs Ewing

Subiect : Mining of uranium

!7hat is the policy of the Commission on the mining of uranium in the territories of the MemberStates and is it aware of the strong local opposition to this activiry, particularly in the Orkney Islandsof Scotland ?

Ansuer

It is the policy of the Communiry to reduce dependence on imported energy supplies, and the use ofnuclear energy therefore requires an evaluation of the uranium potential of the Community. TheCommission has used its powers under the Euratom Treaty to support a programme of uraniumexploration to evaluate this potential, and has recently presented a progress report.

The Commission has not proposed uranium mining in the Orkneys. It is not known what potentialthere may be for uranium in the Orkney Islands, and the proposal from the South of Scotland Electri-city Board which the Commission originally supported was simply designed to provide thisinformation.


Question No 12, by lllr Herbert

Subject : Irish meat canning industry

What measures does the Commission intend to take to alleviate the critical situation of the Irishmeat canning industry brought about by MCA anomalies ?

Answer

The Commission has a commitment to the Irish Government to find a solution to this problem. Wehave investigated several technical solutions which have failed (owing either to the hostility of otherMember States, to negative replies of the Irish themselves or to legal and juridical impossibilities).We are still searching for a solution.

Question No 13, by Mr Noi

Subject: The free movement of electrical equipment designed for use within certain voltage limits

Is the Commission aware that Council Directive No 73l23lEEC on the free movement of electricalequipment designed for use within certain voltage limits has not yet been fully implemented, and inparticular that the procedure provided for in Article 9 thereof has not been observed ?

Answer

The Commission is aware that there are still a number of problems in connection with the applica-tion of this directive in the Member States.

Unlike the majoriry of Community directives designed to eliminate technical barriers to trade, thisdirective does not prescribe the technical standards with which the products in question mustcomply in order to be placed in free circulation. It states the safety requirements in general termsand refers to technical standards laid down according to specific procedures by standardizationbodies, as evidence of the equipment's conformity with safety requirements.

The Commission has been able to ensure that the Member States incorporate the provisions of thedirective in their national legislation, but not without applying, in the case of some Member States,

the procedure provided for under Article 159 of the Treaty, which in some cases has not yet beencompleted because the incorporation of the directive in national legislation has proved to be incon-sistent.

Difficulties have also arisen with regard to the implementation of technical standards harmonized bythe standardization bodies and their recognition as evidence of conformiry at national level.

These difficulties were discussed with government experts from the Member States and representa-ti.res of the standardization bodies at a meeting organized by the Commission at the beginning oflast March. In the view of the Commission, this meeting served to dispel certain doubts and differ-ences of opinion, and also to clarify the scope ol certain provisions of the directive, especiallyArticle 9.

The Commission has so far been informed by several Member States of cases whereby the placing onthe market of electrical equipment has been prohibited without any obiections being raised by otherMember States.

On the other hand, a national industrial federation has informed the Commission of cenain factswhich, in the view of the federation, are the result of incorrect application of Article 9 by a MemberState. The information supplied is being studied by the Commission's departments, particularly theLegal Service.


Questiott No 16, by lllr A4cDonald

Subject: Regional Fund and tourism

'!flould the Commission say to what extent Regional Fund appropriations have been made availableto help tourism proiects, and does the Commission consider it desirable to extend the use of theseappropriations for profects of this nature ?

Answer

l. From 1975 to 1979 (first tranche) the Commission financed 184 investmenr proiecrs relatingspecifically to the tourist sector. Of these, 123 related to infrastructure equipment favouring theintroduction of tourist activities and 6l projects related to direct tourist industry ventures (ineffect, tourist accommodation). These 184 proiects covered investments totalling 189 million EUAand involved a contribution from the Fund of 32.45 million EUA. The disribution of the projectsby Member States is as follows :

Member State

GermanyFranceItalyLuxembourgUnited Kingdom

Total

Number of assisted Total investmentprojects (million EUA)

42 48.9633 5l'0055 59.t92 9.15

52 20.74

Fund allocation(million EUA)

10-047-79

r0.501.03

2.99

184 18904 32.45

2. In addition to these specifically tourist projects, the Regional Fund also financed 4 infrastructureproiects in the United Kingdom - representing investments totalling 5'75 million EUA andFund aid of I million EUA - which served to develop both tourist and industrial activiries.

3. The Commission considers that of their very nature, tourist ventures can make an effective conhi-bution to the development of certain disadvantaged regions and has, to date, given favourableconsideration to all projecs in this sector which have been presented to it. The Regional FundCommittee has, moreover, on a number of occasions launched discussions on the question oftourist investments, thus indicating the interest which it has in these projects. In the circum-stances, the Commission considers it desirable that the Member States should in the futurePresent a large number of investments in the tourist sector, since it is only to the extent that theMember States themselves contribute to development of tourist proiects that the Commission canparticipate in financing these investments.

Sitting of Friday, ll May 1979 241

SITTING OF FRIDAY, 17 MAY 7979

Contents

24s

245

245

245

245

l.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Approual of tbc minutes

Documents receiaed

Petitions

Procedure without rePort .

Votes .

- Schnridt (Doc. 135/79): Protecting tbe

interests of members and others insoci4tds ononlrnes:

Procedural motion : Mr Stetter; illrBertrand

- Castle report (Doc. 107/79): Economicand trade relations betu,een the EECand New Zealand:

Amendment to paragra|b S . . .', .

Amendment to pardgrdpb 7 . '


- Caillauet report (Doc. 128/79): Seminarbeld by tbe Comrnittee on Agriculturectt Ecbternach Reaiew ,f tbeconnron agricultural poliE :

Amendnent to pardgra|b 5:hIr Nielsen, deputy rapporteur

Amendment to poragrapb 9:lllr Nielsen

Arnendment to paragrapb 13:

lllr Nielsen

Amendment to paragraph 14:

lllr Nielsen

Arnendment to paragrapb l7 :lllr Nielsen

Amendment to paragralrb 25:

lWr NielsenAmendment to pardgraqh 41 :

lWr Nielsen

Amendment to paragralrh 46:lllr Nielsen

Amendment to title of Section II andlraragraph 62:

lVr Nielsen 247

Amendnrent after subparagrapb (a) ofparagraph 63:

ll,I.r Nielsen 247

Atnendment to subparagrapb Q ofparagrapb 63:

lllr Nielsen 248

Amendment to Paragrapb 65:

Mr Nielsen 248

Explanation of oote:.fu{r Nielsen 248

Adoption of the resolution , 248

- Fellermaier and Pisani motion for aresolution (Doc. 15)/79): Reaiew o.f tbecommon agricultural poliE :

Adoption of tbe resolution . 248

- Pisoni report (Doc. 87/79): Regulationon the narhet in wine :

Amendment to the sole paragrapb . . . 249

Adoption of tbe resolution 249

- Hansen report (Doc. 79/79): Calcula'tion of ilICAs in tbe wine sector :


- Tolman report (Doc. 182/79): Regula'tion on isoglucose:

Procedural motion : hlr Htrgltcs; MrGiolitti, hletnber of tbe Comnitsion

Rejection of tbc motion

249

249

- Howell report (Doc. 115/79): Sinrdtionin the milh, sector:

Amendnent to paragnrflt I 249

Ancndmcnts to lr.trdgr.tfb I . . . . . 249

Adoption o.f tbc ruoltttion 249

- Niclscn rcport (Doc. 127/79) :

tularketing and procts-ting o.l' nilkproduds :

Ado[ttion o.f. tbt rcrolutiort 249

- Lrnlt rQort (Doc. 130/79): Fisl.tt'rit.t :

245

245

246

246

246

246

246

245

247

247

247

247


Amendments after tbe sixtb indent oftbe preamble :

tVr Hugbes, deputy rapporteur

Amendments after paragrdpb 11

Adoption of the resolution .

- Corcie report (Doc. 116/79): Fisb-farming:Adoption of tbe resolution .

- Hugbes report (Doc. 105/79): Enzooticleukosis a* , cattle :

A' ,tberesolution

- Hughes report (Doc. 75/79): Neraousdiseases in pigs:Adoption of tbe resolution .

- Brdgdgire report (Doc. 85/79): Regula-tion on tbe Perustitza and Erzegoainaoarieties of rau tobacco:


- Brugger report (Doc. 129/79): Directiaeon tbe protection of animals duringinternational transport :

Explanation of aote :.fuIrs DunwoodlAdoption of the resolution .

- Ligios report (Doc. 183/79): Regulationon Community citrus fruit:Adoption of tbe resolution .

- Hansen report (Doc. 180/79): Regula-tion on tbe oil-production register:

Amendment after tbe fiftb indentAmendment before tbe sole paragrapbAdoption of tbe resolution .

- Friib report (Doc. 181/79): Regulationon aids to bop-producers:


- Albertini report (Doc. 184/79): Commu-nication on forestry poliE in tbeCommuniry:Adoption of tbe resolution

- Kauanagb report (Doc. 101/79): Actiui-ties of fisberies auxiliary uessels:


- Caillaoet motion for a resolution (Doc.177/79): Deoelopment and training forrural life :Adoption of tbe resolution .

- Sandri report (Doc. 44/79): Regulation0n tbe creation of a European Coopera-tion AgenE:Adoption of tbe resolution .

- Nyborg report (Doc. 111/79): Communi-cation on u;orhing conditions :

Amendment before paragrapb I :lVr Nyborg, rapporteurAmendrnent to paragrapb 2 . . . .

Amendment to paragrapb 3 . . . . .

Amendnrents after paragrapb 3

Explanation of aote: Alr Nyborg


- Caro report (Doc, 151/79) : EuropeanYoutb Forunt:


- Notenboom report (Doc. 157/79): Regu-lation on own resources:


- hlartinelli report (Doc. 174/79): Regu-lation on imports of adult bouineanimals from Yugoslauia :


Trial of lllr J. Sabata - llotion for a reso-lution by lWr Glinne on bebalf of tbeSocialist Group (Doc. 168/79)

,fulr Glinne, autbor of the motion

tVr Giolitti, .tVember of tbe Commission;-fuIr Sandri, on bebalf of the Comnrunistand Allies Group

Appointment ,f a CommunityOmbudsman Report b1 Sir DerekWalh,er-Smitb on bebalf of tbe LegalAffairs Comrnittee (Doc. 29/79):

Sir Derek lYalker-Smit b, rapport eur

251

250

250

250

251

251

25t

252

252

252

252

2s2

252

252

252

252

252

253

253

2s3

253

253

254

254

259

259

25r

251

251

7.

8. Draft supplementary budget No 2 for 1979(aote) . 255

Adoption of tbe budget 256

9. Appointment ,f aOmbudsman (contd)

Communitl

.fuIr Broeksz, on bebalf of tbe SocialistGroup; .fuIr de Gaal Fortman, on bebalf ofthe Cbristian-Democratic Group (EPP);-fuIr Riuierez, on bebalf of tbe Group ofEuropean Progressiue Democrats ; llrNyborg; Sir Dereh, lYalker-Smitb ; .llrJakobsen ; Mr Giolitti, .fuIember of theCommission 256

Directio-e on tbe auditing of accounts oflimited liability companies - Report b1'

Mr Sbaut on bebalf of tbe Legal AffairsCommittee (Doc. I 73/79)

.fuIr Sbaw, ropporteur

hlr Broeksz, on behalf of tbe SocialistGroup ; -fuIr de Gaay Fortman, on bebalf ofthe Cbristian-Demooatic Group (EPP);Mr Sieglerscbmidt ; Mr Giolitti, hlember oftbe Commission; Lord Ardutick; tVr Shaut 262

10.


19.I l. Carry-ouer of appropriations front the 1978to tbe 1979 financial Jear - Report byhIr Sbaw on behalf of the Contntittec onBudgets (Doc. 165/79):lllr Sbaw, rapporteur

lllr Giolitti, llentber of the Conrnrission

Reneual of tbe trade agreement withUruguay - Report by Mr Sandri onbebalf of the Contntittee on ExternalEconomic Relations (Doc. 75/79):

Mr Giolitti, fuIember of tbe Contmission

EEC-ASEAN trade and economic relations

- Report b1 frIr Baas on bebalf of tbeCommittee on External Economic Rela-tions (Doc. 77/79):

lllr Jung, deputy rapporteurlVr Giolitti, Menber of the Commission

Regulation on table-grapes frotn Clprus -Report by tuIr Kaspereit on bebalf of theCommittee on Extemal Economic Rela-tions (Doc. 131/79)

Peripheral coastal regions of tbe Commu-nitl - Report witbout debate, by hlrCorrie on bebalf of tbe Cornnrittee onRegional Policy, Regional Planning andTransport (Doc. I 13/79)

Transport of passengers and goods by road

- Report by .tulr Scbyns on behalf of theComrnittee on Regional PoliE, RegionalPlanning and Transport (Doc. 678/78).ill r S chyn s, rapp o rt e urhf.r Seefeld, on bebalf of the SocialistGroup i tuIr Jung on bebalf of tbe Liberaland Democratic Group; Mr Albers ; hIrGiolitti, hlember of tbe Cornrnission; .fuIr

Scbyns

Improaing tbe situation in tbe inland-uctterraals sector - Report b1 lllr Fucbson behalf of tbe Committee on RegionalPolicy, Regional Planning and Trantport(Doc. 146/79):

Directiue on plastic ntaterials - Report b1,

lllr Brown on bebalf of the Connittee ontbe Enuironntent, Pttblic Health andConsuner Protection (Doc. 23/79)

fuIr Lanberts, deputl' ra,pporteur 273

,fuIr Shaw, o,t bebalf of the EtroficanConseraatiue Group; Mr Nlborg, on behalf'of the Group of European ProgressiueDemocrats; ^fuIr Giolitti, lVember of theContrnission 274

Directiue on edible caseins and c.ueincttct

- Report by Mr Lanberts on bebdl.f o.ftbe Comnittee on tbe Enuironntent, PublicHealtb and Consunter Protection (Doc,83/7e)

lllr Lantberts, rapporteur 275

Directiue on protection againrt ionizingradiation - Report by Lord Betbell onbebalf of tbe Cotnnrittee on tbe Ene'iron-ment, Public Healtb and Consumer Protec-tion (Doc. 78/79) . 276

Enuironmental carcinogens - Report b1.tuIr Jabn on bebalf of tbe Connittee ontbe Enuironment, Public Healtb andConsunter Protectiott (Doc. 99/79)

Mr Jabn, rapporteilr 276

llr Njtborg, on bebalf of tbe GroQ o.fEuropean Progressiae Democrats ; MrLamberts 1 Mr Giolitti, ll[ember of tbeCornntission 277

Promotion. of contacts betueen the citizensof tbe Contntuniry - Report, u'itboutdebate, by hlr Van der Gun on bchal.f o.ftbe Connittee on Social Affairs, Emplol,-,nent and Education (Doc. 1a9/79) 278

Decisiotr on tbe qualitl and nutritit'caalue of food - Report, uitbout debate, b1Mr Noi on bebalf of tbe Cornnittee on tbeEnuironnent, Public Healtb andConsumer Protectiott (Doc. 89/79) 279

Directiue on fresb poultry-meat - Report,witbout debate, b1 Mr Lamberts o,t bebalfof tbe Cotnrnittee on the Enaironntent,Publk Healtb and Consutrter Protection(Doc. 85/79) 279

Regulations ott social security - Report,without debote, b1 llr Pisoni on bebalf o-f

the Comnittee on Social Affairs, EnQloy-ne,rt and Education (Doc. 148/79) 279

Oral question witbout debate: Teaching oflanguages in tbe Cornmunity (Doc. 159/79)

lWrs Squarcialupi, author of tbe question 279

lVr Giolitti, lllember of tbe Commission 280

263

263

12.

13.

14.

21.

22.15.

263 20.

264

264

264

265

266

264

264

t6.

23.

24.17.

tVr Scbynq deputy rapporteur 269

lWr Jung on bebalf of the Liberal andDemocratic Group:,fu[r Albers 270Proceduralmotion:Mr Nlborg . . . 272

Mr Giolitti,.lVember of tbe Commission 272

18. EEC-COIVECON relations in tbe field ofmaritime sbipping - Report by lllr Jungon behalf of tbe Committee on RegionalPolicy, Regional Planning and Transport(Doc.51/79)

Mr Jung rapporteur . . 272

hlr Nyborg, on bebalf of tbe Group ofEuropean Progressiae Demotats ; Mr Gio-litti, lllember of tbe Commission 273

25.

26.

27.


28. Votes

- Glinne motion for a resolution (Doc.168/79): Trial of lIr J. SabataAdoption of tbe resolution . 281

- lYalher-Smitb report (Doc. 29/79):Appointment of aOmbudsman:

Community


- Sbaw report (Doc. 173/79): Directiu otttbe auditing of occounts of limitedliability companies :

Amendments to the proposal for a direc-tioe .

Amendment to Article 2 . . .

Amendment to Article 4:tllr Sbaw, raPporteur

Amendment to Article 5:illr SbauAmendment to Article 11 :

lVr Shaw

Consideration of the motion for a reso-

lution:Amendment to paragraph 3:^fuIr Sbaw


- Sbaw report (Doc. 15)/79): Carry-ouerof appropriations from tbe 1978 to tbe1979 financial lear:Adoption of tbe resolution .

- Sandri report (Doc. 75/79): Renewal oftbe trade agreement witb Uruguay:Adoption of tbe resolution .

- Baas report (Doc. 77/79): EEC-ASEANtrade and economic relations :


- Kaspereit report (Doc. 131/79): Regula-tion on table-grapes from Clprus:Adoption of tbe resolution ,

- Corie report (Doc. 113/79): Peripberalcoastal regions of tbe Communitl :


- Schyns report (Doc. 578/78): Transportof passengers and goods by road:Amendment to pardgraph IAmendrnent to paragrdph 7 . .


- Fucbs report (Doc. 145/79): Improuing

tbe situatiott in tbe inlantl-u'rrteru'rr.1'ssector:

Antendnrent to pdragrdph 18 283


- Jurg report (Doc. 5l/79): EEC-COIIECON relations in tbe .field o.f

ntaritine shipping :Adoption of tbe resolution 283

- Broun report (Doc.23/79): Directire onplastic materials :

Anrendntent to par.tgrdpb 2 :

Mr Lamberts, deltu t1' raltpo rtc tt rAmendnent to paragrapb 3 . . . . . .

Amendment to paragraph 4

Amendment to paragrapb tAmendment to paragraph 6 . .

Amendnent to paragraph 7

Amendment after paragrapb 7

Adoption of tbe resoltttion

- Lantberts report (Doc.83/79): Dircctit'ton edible caseins dnd ca.scinatcs :

Adoption of the resolution 284

- Betbell report (Doc. 78/79): Dircctit'ton protection ctgdinst ionizing ralit-tion :


- Jahn report (Doc. 99/79): Enriron-ntental carcinogens:

Adoption of the resolution

- Van der Gun report (Doc. 149/79):Promotion of contacts betruecn tbccitizens of the Comnrrtnitl, :

Adoption of the re-tolutiort

- Noi report (Doc. 89/79): Deci-sion onthe quality and nutritit'e ultc o.f

food :Adoption of the resolutiott

- Larnberts report (Doc. 86/79): Directit'con fresh poultry-mectt :Adoption of tbe resolution

- Pisoni report (Doc. 148/79): Regula-tions on social security:Adoption of the resolutiott 284

Adjournment of tbe sessiorr 284

Approaal of tbe minutes :

hlr Nlborg 284

281

28r

281

281

281

281

283

283

283

283

283

283

284

284

284

284

284

281

282

282

282

282

282

282

282282

282

284

284

29.

30.

Sitting of Friday, 11 May 1979 245


Vice-President

(Tbe sitting opened at 9 a.m)


l. Approoal of the minutes

President. - The minutes of proceedings of yester-day's sitting have been distributed.

Are there any comments ?

The minutes of proceedings are approved.

2. Documents receiaed

President. - I have received

(a) from the Council, the draft supplementary budget No2 of the European Communities for the 1979 finan-cial year, drawn up by the Council (Doc. 186179lrev.).

This document has been referred to the Committeeon Budgets;

(b) from the Commission, a proposal for the transfer olappropriations between chapters within Section III(Commission) of the general budget of the EuropeanCommunities for the 1979 financial year (Doc.t87 l7e).

This document has been referred to the Committeeon Budgets.

Since this is a matter of non-compulsory expenditure,I have, pursuant to the provisions of the FinancialRegulation, consulted the Council on Parliament'sbehalf.

3. Petitions

President. - I have received from Mr TheodorosPetrakis a petition concerning a complaint against theFederal Republic of Germany on rhe violation ofhuman rights.

This petition has been entered under No 2179 in theregister provided for in Rule a8 Q) of the Rules ofProcedure and, pursuant to paragraph 3 of that samerule, referred to the Committee on the Rules of Proce-dure and Petitions.

4. Procedure witbout report

President. - [ 6nnsunced on Monday the titles ofthose proposals by the Commission to the Council towhich it was proposed to apply the procedure uithoutreport laid down in Rule 27A of the Rules of Proce-dure. Since no Member has asked leave to speak andno amendments have been tabled to them, I declarethese proposals to be approved by the European Parlia-ment.

5. Votes

President. - The next item is the vote on thosemotions for resolutions on which the debate is closed.

!7e begin with the Scbmidt report (Doc. 136/79) :Directiae on protecting the interests of members andotbers in soci4tds anonlmes.

I call Mr Stetter on a point of order.

Mr Stetter. - (DK) Mr President, under Rule 33 ofthe Rules of Procedure I wish to request, on behalf of10 Members, that you establish whether there is aquorum for the vote on Amendment No 25, tabled byMr Schmidt on behalf of the Socialist Group and MrCaro on behalf of the Christian-Democratic Group.


Mr Bertrend. - (NL) The honourable Member hasinvoked Rule 33 and says that the request has beentabled in writing on behalf of ten Members. How canit be established that this is so ?

President. - \fill the ten Members supporting MrStetter's request please show ?

The request is valid.

I note that there is not a quorum of 55 Members.Pursuant to Rule 33 (3) of the Rules of Procedure, thisvote is accordingly placed on the agenda of the nextsitting.

President. - !7e proceed to the motion for a resolu-tion contained in the Castle report (Doc. 107/79):Economic and trade relations between tbe EEC andNew Zealand.

I put the preamble and paragraphs I to 5 to the vote.


On paragraph 5, I have Amendment No l, tabled byLord Castle and rewording this paragraph as follows :

6. Recalls the undertaking given in the Dublin Declara-tion that urgent attention would be given to the situa-tion arising from the fact that the special provisionsfor cheese imports would not be retained after 3lDecember 1977,with special reference to the resultantproblems for New Zealand, and notes that a .tolutionis to be found in tbe ntultilateral GATT franeu,ork ;

I put Amendment No I to the vote.



President

On paragraph 7, I have Amendment No 2, tabled byLord Castle and rewording this paragraph as follows:

7. Hopes that the international agreement on dairyproducts, reached within the multilateral GAfi frame-work, will help to find appropriate solutions for New7*aland dairy exports;





I pu! thus amended, the motion for a resolution as a

whole to the vote.


President. - S7e proceed to the motion for a resolu-tion contained in the Caillaoet report (Doc. 128/79):Seminar beld by tbe Committee on Agiculture atEcbtcrnach - Reaiew of tbe common agriculturalpolicy.



On paragraph 5, I have Amendment No l, tabled byMr Hoffmann and Mr \7illi Miiller and rewording thisparagraph as follows :

5. Invites the Community authorities therefore to givecloser attention to agricultural and structural problemsemerging in the southern regions of the Community;

!7hat is the rapporteur's view ?

Mr Brsndlund Nielsen, deputy raPPorteur. - (DK)Mr President, on behalf of the rapporteur I ask theHouse to reiect this amendment. The rapporteur is

most anxious that this amendment should not be

adopted.





On paragraph 9, I have Amendment No 2, tabled byMr Hoffmann and Mr !7illi Miiller and rewording thisparagraph as follows :

9. Points out that certain surpluses are further increasedby the importing of substitute products ;

Iflhat is the rapporteur's view ?

Mr Brsndlund Nielsen, deputy raPporteur. - (DK)The rapporteur leaves it to Parliament to decide. He is

neither for nor against this amendment.





I put the first part of paragraph 13 to the vote.

The first part of paragraph 13 is adopted.

On paragraph 13 (a), I have Amendment No 3, tabledby Mr Hoffmann and Mr !7illi Mtiller and rewordingthis text as follows :

13 (a) tempted producers into stepping up their outputat all costs in order to increase or maintain theirearnings ;


Mr Brsndlund Nielsen, deputy rapporteur. - (DK)The rapporteur has no strong views on this amend-ment either.



I put subparagraphs (b) and (c) to the vote.

Subparagarphs (b) and (c) of paragraph l3 are adopted.

On paragraph 14, I have Amendment No 4, tabled byMr Hoffmann and Mr !flilli Miiller and rewording thisparagraph as follows :

14. Notes furthermore that the high capital expenditureresulting from excessive mechanization is frequentlya serious problem for small agricultural holdings inview of their inherently low rate of capital turnover;

What is the rapporteur's view ?

Mr Brsndlund Nielsen, deputy rapporteur. - (DK)The rapporteur strongly opposes this proposal andcalls for its rejection.



I put paragraphs 15 and 15 to the vote.

Paragraphs 15 and 15 are adopted.

On paragraph 17, I have Amendment No 5, tabled byMr !7illi Miiller and Mr Hoffmann and deleting thisparagraph.

!flhat is the rapporteur's view ?t OJ C l'{0 of 5. 6. 1979.


Mr Brsndlund Nielsen, deputy rapporteur. - (DK)The rapporteur opposes this amendment and recom-mends that it be rejected.






![hat is the rapporteur's view ?

Mr Brsndlund Nielsen, deputy raPporteur. - (DK)The rapporteur opposes this amendment.


Amendment No 6 ii adopted.



On paragraph 41, I have Amendment No 7, tabled byMr \7illi Miiller and Mr Hoffmann and replacing thisparagraph by the following text :

41. Refers to the European Parliament's resolution of l5March 1979 I and again requests that as a matter ofurgency a review be undertaken of national aid

. systems in the'agricultural sector and a plan esta-blished to dismantle these aids ;

N(hat is the rapporteur's view ?

Mr Brsndlund Nielsen, deput1 ra.pporteur. - (DK)The rapporteur opposes this amendment.







Mr Brsndlund Nielsen, deputy raPporteilr. - (DK)The rapporteur opposes this amendment.



I put paragraphs 47 to,5l to the vote.

Paragraphs 47 to 6l ire adopted.

On the heading of Section II.and on paragraph 62, Ihave Amendmenr No 9, tabled by Mr Srilli Mtillerand Mr Hoffmann and rewording these texts as

follows:

II. Reinforcement of the role of the European Parliamentin the formulation of the CAP

lYitbin the Institution

62. Considers that the necessary strengthening of therole of Parliament as a whole in the formulation ofthe CAP must be preceded by an improvement inthe working procedures and functioning of Parlia-ment and its committees;

\(hat is the rapporteur's view ?

Mr Brsndlund Nielsen, deputy rapporteur. - (DK)

The rapporteur is neither for nor against this amend-ment.



I put paragraph 53 (a) to the vote.

Paragraph 53 (a) is adopted.

After subparagraph (a) of paragraph 53, I have Amend-ment No 10, tabled by Mr \7illi Miiller and Mr Hoff-mann and inserting the following new subparagraph :

53 (a) a. the setting up of a permanent working partycomposed of members of the Committee onAgriculture and the Committee on the Environ-ment, Public Health and Consumer Protectionto promote an obiective dialogue betweenfarmers and consumers in the Communiry, tobring about the establishment of an agriculturaland food policy geared to Article 39 of the EECTreary and to discuss the apnual farm priceproposals put forward by the Commission,


Mr Brondlund Nielsen, deputy rapporteur. - (DK)

The rapporteur proposes this amendment and calls forits rejection.

President. -

I put Amendment No l0 to the vote.


I put subparagraphs (b) to (i) of paragraph 63 to thevote.

Subparagraphs P) to (i) are adopted.

On subparagraph (j), I have Ametrdment No ll,tabled by Mr !7illi Mtiller and Mr Hoffmann andrewording this subparagraph as follorys :

53 (,;) a procedure whereby the Commission is givenstrict deadlines for acting on own-initiative propo-sals from Parliament ;

!flhat is the rapporteur's view ?' OJ C 93 ol 9.4. 1979, p. 49.


Mr Brsndlund Nielsen, deputy rapporteur. - (DK)The rapporteur has no strong feelings on this amend-ment.

President. - I put Amendment No I I to the vote.

Amendment No I I is adopted.



On paragraph 65, I have Amendment No 12, tabledby Mr !7illi Miiller and Mr Hoffmann and rewordingthis paragraph as follows :

55. In view of the fact that, when proposals are consid-ered by Parliament, they are concurrently underreview and often substantially amended, without anyparliamentary control, by the groups of nationalexperts and the Commission itself, requests that therappofteurs and/or Members of Parliament should be

permitted to take part, at least as observes, in meet-ings of the CSA and, possibly, those of the expertgroups as well ;


Mr Brsndlund Nielsen, deputl rapporteur. - (DK)The rapporteur's attitude is neutral, and he leaves it toParliament to decide.



I put paragraphs 56 to 7l to the vote.

Paragraphs 66 to 7l are adopted.

I call Mr Nielsen for an explanation of vote.

Mr Brsndlund Nielsen. - (DK) Mr President, tech-nical difficulties prevented me from speakingyesterday on behalf of the Liberal Group, and I shouldtherefore like to give a brief explanation of vote.

Ifle shall vote for this report by Mr Caillavet" but Iwould point out that it is in the nature of a study, andcan be traced back to the seminar held by theCommittee on Agriculture in Echternach.

It must be said, especially in view of the amendmentswe have just adopted, that it is now more like a cata-logue of views than a properly structured proposal forthe Community's future agricultural policy. But thismay be very useful, just as the Committee on Agricul-ture's deliberations on this motion for a resolutionwere useful. One of the directly elected Parliament'smajor tasks will be to help initiate a debate on longer-term guidelines. This is largely how I regard this docu-ment, with its extensive explanatory statement and thespeeches made in the Committee on Agriculture. Forus in the Liberal Group, the fundamentals of thecommon agricultrrral policy, as set out in great detailin the Treary, have for the most part been a great

success. It would be a grave mistake to attempt radicalchanges, and, as I have said before, to do so wouldquite possibly conflict with the Treaties themselves.

I must also refute the talk we frequently hear ofchanging the emphasis of the Community's agricul-tural policy. The aim is to supply Europeanconsumers with plentiful foodstuffs at reasonableprices, and this can only happen if they are producedby farmers whose incomes are reasonale by compar-ison with incomes in other occupations, for otherwiseproduction would gradually cease ; and it can only bemaintained if these farmers have reasonable workingconditions and are spared the physical attrition tradi-tionally associated with the severity of life on the land.Only if these conditions are maintained in the longterm can we ensure that the consumer will have plen-tiful supplies of cheap food. I thus feel that the pricepolicy and the existing system as a whole, the interven-tion system and structural measures to aid the moder-nization and rationalization of farms, are central to thecommon agricultural policy.

I should also like to warn against any sudden halt inthe current modernization of stock farms and dairyfarms in the Communiry. This has been a read

blessing, not only to those who have been saved a lotof hard physical labour, but also because it has

enabled foodstuffs to be produced plentifully and effi-ciently - and therefore cheaply - under hygienicconditions, so that there can be complete confidencein the quality of the product.

I do not wish to add anything further, other than torecommend adoption of the Caillavet report, even as

it now stands amended.

President. - I put, thus amended, the motion for a

resolution as a whole to the vote.


President. - I put to the vote the Fellermaier andPisani motion for a resolution (Doc. 155/79): Reaiewof the common agicultural policy.

As the result of the show of hands is not clear, a freshvote will be taken by sitting and standing.


President. - !7e proceed to the motion for a resolu-tion contained in the Pisoni report (Doc. 87/79): Regu-lation on tbe rnarket in uine.



' OJ C 140 of 5. 6. t979.


President

On the sole paragraph, I have Amendment No l,tabled by Mr Hughes and Mr Hoffmann and replacingthis paragraph by the following :

Approves the Commission's proposal.



I put the sole paragraph to the vote.

The sole paragraph is adopted.



President. - I put to the vote the motion for a reso-lution contained in the Hansen report (Doc. 79/79):Calculation of AICAs in tbe wine sector.


President. - !fle proceed to the motion for a resolu-tion contained in the Tolman report (Doc. 182/29):Regulation in isoglucose.

I call Mr Hughes on a point of order.

Mr Hughes. - Could I ask the representative of theCommission to advise the House as to the legalstanding of this reporr, in the light of the Court'sruling on isoglucose ? I7e may well be voting to askthe Commission to do something that the Court hasalready ruled to be illegal.


Mr Giolitti, Menber of tbe Commission. - (I) | havenothing to add to what was stated yesterday by mycolleague Mr Gundelach.

President. - I put the motion for a resolution to thevote.

The motion is rejected.

President. - !fle proceed to the motion for a resolu-tion contained in the Howell report (Doc. 115/79) :Situation in tbe rnilh sector.



On paragraph l, I have Amendment No l, tabled byMr Howell and rewording this paragraph as follows:

l. Expresses concern regarding the chances of success ofthe course followed by the Commission in its effortsto find a solution to the problems of overproductionin the milk sector, even if the measures taken to datewere to be strengthened;



I put paragraph I to the vote.

Paragraph I is adopted.



On paragraph 8, I have two amendments tabled by MrHowell:

- Amendment No 2, amending the first part of thisparagraph to read as follows:

8. Does not consider that a system of rigid productionquotas based on strict limis on what the individualfarmer is allowed to produce is feasible for the wholeCommunity;

three indents deleted)

- Amendment No 3, amending the second part ofthis paragraph to read as follows :

Urges the Commission, therefore, to reconsider thepresent regulation on producer co-responsibility in thedairy sector;

(subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c) deleted)





I Put paragraph 8 to the vote.






President. - I put to the vote the motion for a reso-lution contained in the Nielsen report (Doc. 127/79):tVarketing and processing of milk products.


' OJ C 140 of 5. 6. 1979.


President. - !7e proceed to the motion for a resolu-tion contained in the Lemp report (Doc. 130/79) :

Fisheries.

I put the first six indents of the preamble to the vote.

The first six indents of the preamble are adopted.

After the sixth indent of the preamble, I have fouramendments tabled by the Committee on Agriculture,each adding a new recital at the end of the preamble :

- Amendment No I :

- having regard to the very serious economic and socialproblems created in certain major fishing regions as aresult of the closing of fishing grounds by the exten-sion of fishing limits by third countries ;

- Amendment No 2:

- having regard to the need to restructure the Commu-niry's fishing-fleet as a result of the loss of fishinggrounds the need to conserve fish stocks and

increases in costs ;

- Amendment No 3:

- having regard to the lack of an adequate Communitypolicy on fisheries education and training;

- Amendment No 4:

- having regard to the report of the Subcommittee onFisheries on a fact-findrng mission to the ports andfisheries educational and training centres on Humber-side (PE 58.025/Ann.);

I call Mr Hughes.

Mr Hughes, deputy rltpporteur. - These four amend-ments and Amendments Nos 5 to 9, which we shallbe reaching later, were adopted unanimously at themeeting of the Corrrnittee on Agriculture earlier thisweek.

President. -









I put paragraphs I to I I to the vote.

Paragraphs I to l1 are adopted.

After paragraph ll, I have five amendments tabled bythe Committee on Agriculture, each of them adding a

new paragraph:

- Amendment No 5:1la. Urges, at the same time, that the Commission show

much greater flexibility in coordinating thedifferent factors of external policy - fisheries,market access, tariff-levels, etc.

- so as to facilitate

improved access to third country fishing grounds ;

- Amendment No 5:A conmon loliq'for fisbenes educ,ttron dnd training

llb. Underlines the drastrc decline in the numbers ofdeep-sea fishing vessels as a result of the extensionof fishing limits by third countries, resulting in a

change in the structure of the Community's fishingfleet, with a greater emphasis on middle-water andinshore vessels ;

- Amendment No 7:1lc. Considers that this restructuring of the Commu-

niry's fishing fleet and the facilitation of the intro-duction of a common fisheries pohcy necessitatethe retraining of f ishermen, so as to coordinateeducational and training resources, develop linksbetween those responsible for training, promoteresearch and exchange of information and establishthe capability to provide speciaLst advice and tech-nical assistance, particularly as part of a wider policyof fisheries development, especially with the Lom6countries ;

- Amendment No 8:I ld. Believes that a Community policy on fisheries

education and training would be best implementedby setting up a network of fisheries training centresin the Member States ;

- Amendment No 9:l1e. Calls on the Commission to finance a feasibiliry

study to investigate the present and future trainingrequirements in each Member State ;


Amendment No 5 is adopteU.'









I put, thus amended, the motion for a resolution as a

whole to the vote.


' OJ C 140 of 5. 6. 1979.

Sitting of Friday, lt May 1979 251

President. - I put to the vote the motion for a reso-Iution contained in the Hugbes report (Doc, 76/79):Neruous diseasei' in pigs.


President. - I put to the vote the motion for a reso-lution contained in the Conie report (Doc. 116/79):Fisb-farning.


President. - I put to the vote the motion for a reso-lution contained in the Hughes report (Doc, 105/79):Enzootic leukosis antong cattle.


some of the agreements that have been reached inother international forums. I shall therefore voteagainst this report, and I hope that anyone who caresabout animals will do likewise.

President. - I put the motion for a resolution to thevote.


President. - I put to the vote the motion for a reso-lution contained in the Ligios report (Doc. 183/29):Regulation on Comrnunitjt citrus fruit.The resolution is adopted. I

President. - \fle now proceed to the motion for aresolution contained in the Hansen report (Doc.180/79): Regulation on the oil-production register.

I put to the vote the first five indents of the preamble.

The first five indents of the preamble are adopted.

After the fifth indent, I have Amendment No l,tabled by Mr Nielsen and adding the followingrecital:

- whereas, having regard to the statistical implicationsof this operation, it is necessary to examine whetherthis system can be used for agricultural statistics ingeneral,



After the preamble and before the sole paragraph, Ihave Amendment No 2, rabled by Mr Nielien andinserting the following new paragraph:

l. Requests that the decentralized facilities used to drawup statistics for the register of olive cultivation also beused to collect statistics and conduct surveys onCommunity agriculture ;



I put the sole paragraph to the vote.

The sole paragraph is adopted.

President. - I put to the vote the motion for a reso-lution contained in the Brdgigire report (Doc.85/79):Regulation on the Perustitza and Erzegoaina aarie-ties of rau tobacco.


President. - !fle proceed to the motion for a resolu-tion contained in the Brugger report (Doc. 129/29):Directiae on tbe protection of animals during interna-tional transport.

I call Mrs Dunwoody for an explanation of vote.

Mrs Dunwoody.- Mr President, this report, I think,is not as exhaustive as it should be. It does seem avery great pity that this Parliament could not organizea public hearing on the whole question of the trans-port of animals. The Royal Society for the Preventionof Cruelty to Animals in Britain has a great deal ofdetailed evidence from very responsible inspectors,which they would like to give in public. I think it isvery sad that this Parliament should be about to adopta report that really is not nearly as far-reaching as OJ C 140 of 5. 6.1979.


President


whole to the vote.


President. - I put to the vote the motion for a reso-

lution contained in the Frilb report (Doc. 181/79):Regulation on aids to bop'producers



lution contained in the Albertini report (Doc.

154/79): Communication on forestry policl in the

Community



lution contained in the Kaoanagb report (Doc.

101/79): Actia^ities of fisberies auxiliary uessels.


,'

President. - I put to the vote the Caillauet notionfor a resolution (Doc. 177/79) : Deuelopment andtraining for rural life.

The resolution is adopted.t

President. - I put to the vote the motion for a reso-lution contained in the Sandri report (Doc. 44/79):Regulation on the creation of a European Coopera'tion Agency.


President. - We proceed to the motion for a resolu-

tion contained in the Nyborg reltort (Doc. 111/79):Communication on worhing conditions'



Before paragraph l, I have Amendment No 1, tabledby Lord Murray of Gravesend and inserting thefollowing new paragraph :

t. Notes with satisfaction that, in this communication,the Commission has complied with the EuropeanParliament's wish that the Community should, withinreasonable limits, tie commercial cooperation torespect for the most fundamental labour standards ;

\flhat is the rapporteur's view ?

Mr Nyborg, rctpporteur. - (DK) I cannot accept thisamendment, nor any of the other amendments.

President. -





On paragraph 2, I have Amendment No 2, tabled byLord Murray of Gravesend and replacing this para-graph with the following text :

2. Is strongly opposed to the limited nature of theCommission's proposal, which deals exclusively withthe observance of minimum labour standards in thedeveloping countries, although discrimination based

on race, sex, national and social origins, together withinhuman working hours and the employment of chil-dren under 14, is a phenomenon encountered in a

large number of the European Communiry's tradingpartners which cannot by any means be classified as

developing countries;




Paragraph 2 is rejected.

On paragraph 3, I have Amendment No 3, tabled byLord Murray of Gravesend and rewording this para-graph as follows :

3. Believes that the four minimum labour standardswhich the Commission has decided on represent anabsolute minimum and that, as experience is gainedregarding the respect of human rights in the countriesconcerned, it should be consrdered whether thegranting of preferences should not be made condi-tional on the observance of other fundamental labourstandards ;



After paragraph 3, I have three amendments tabled byLord Murray of Gravesend, each introducing a newparagraph :

- Amendment No 4:3a. Considers also that the exception made with respect

to the employment of children in small-scale under-takings and agricultural undertakings producing'OJNoo.

Sitting of Friday, l May t9t9 253

President

exclusively for the local market is dangerous in thatthe existence of just such undertakings is olten amaior characteristic of the economies of the deve-loping countries, and also it would be difficult tocheck whether all or some of the goods producedwere not really intended for export;

- Amendment No i:3b. Recommends the Commission to be particularly vigi-

lant in ensuring that the obligation to observe- acertain number of minimum labour standards doesnot develop into economic reprisals against countrieswhich do not share the moral .on..pt, prevailing inthe European Communiry or into i covert forri' ofprotectionism against third countries which are atpresent flooding the Community with cheap goods ;

- Amendment No 5:3c. Is of the opinion that possible sanctions should be

hmited to areas which do not directly affect the satis-faction of the local population's most fundamentalneeds; whereas the sanctions may take the form ofsuspending proiect aid and withdrawing certainexemptions from customs duties and levies, food aidmust not be made conditional on the observance ofcertain fundamental labour standards ;





I put Amendment No 5 to the vore.




I call Mr Nyborg for an explanation of vote.

Mr Nyborg. -

(DK) Mr President, as most of thosepresent today were absent yesterday when we debatedthis matter, I should like to explain my vore ; in brief,what I have said in the report is what the Committeeon Development and Cooperation asked me to say ontheir behalf. That is not to say that I agree wittr theviews it contains, which is why I voted as I did.

President. -

I put, thus amended, the motion for aresolution as a whole to the vote.


President. -

I put to the vote the motion for a reso-lution contained in the.Caro rejtort (Doc. l5t/79):European Youtb Forum.

The resolution is adopted. t

President. - I put to the vote the motion for a reso_lution contained in the Notenboom report (Doc,157/79): Regulation on oun resources.

The resolution is adopted.r

President. - I put to the vote the motion for a reso_lution contained in the ALartinelli report (Doc.17af79).: Regulation on imports of adilt booineanimals from Yugoslaaia.

The resolution is adopted. r

6. Trial of tuIr J. Sabata

President. - The next item is the motion for a reso_lution tabled by Mr Glinne, on behalf of the SocialistGroup, on the trial of Mr J. Sabata (Doc. 16g/79).

I call Mr Glinne.

Mr.Glinne, rapplrteur. - (F) Mr president, themotion for a resolution which I have the honour ofmoving on behalf of my group and, I have no doubt,on behalf of other democrats in this Assembly speaksfor itself. Nevertheless, I should like to read Lut pa.tof a letter sent from Vienna on 22 April of this yearand written by the son of the person concerned:

Dear Friends :

I turn to you for solidarity and support. My father,member of the Czechoslovak Communist parry io. .n"nyyears, member of the Central Committee in 196g andone of those who inspired the .spring of l95g', wasexcluded from this party in 1970 f.oi the sole reason thathe showed

, his disagreement with the occupation of

Czechoslovakia by Soviet troops and the course taken bypolitical developments. ln 1971, he was arrested andsentenced to six-and-a-half years' imprisonment, becausehis.opinions did not correspond to the policy of normali_zation which was the official line. ti was his Marxistconvictions, his profound sense of justice and humanityand his intrinsic honesty that he had to thank for passing

fivg feqrs in prison. On his release rn Decembei 1970,before his sentence was completed, he ioined the move_ment for the respect and defence of human rights inCzechoslovakia, 'Charter 77'. ln Apdl 197g, he 6.."rn.one of its three spokesmen. Being an embarrassment tothe present regime, he was re-arristed in October l97gand sentenced under a false pretext to nine months'imprisonment. Today, a fresh trral, which may wellsentence my father to a further erghteen months' impri_sonment, the remainder of his l97l sentence, which hadbeen suspended, is imminent. My father is seriously ill :

he has survived two heart attacks and is suffering from aspinal complaint and a duodenal ulcer. Any furiher stayin prison may well mean a considerable deierioration inhrs condition. Consequently, I fear for hrs health and forhis life.

OJ C I40 ol 5.6. 1979.


Glinne

That, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, is thepassage I wanted to draw to your attention from theletter written by the son of the accused, Mr Sabata.

I must add, Mr President, that unfortunately thePrague court yesterday sentenced the accused man tothe eighteen months that had been anticipated. It is

nevertheless opportune, relevant and indeed impera-tive on both the human and the political plane thatthe protest submitted to our Parliament be adopted,even though it comes the day after the sentence has

been pronounced.


Mr Giolitti, lllember of tbe Commission. - @ Onbehalf of Commission, I wholeheartedly agree withthe resolution now moved by Mr Glinne.

President. - I call Mr Sandri.

Mr Sandri. - (I) Mr President, since the representa-tives of my group will not be able to participate in thework of the Assembly right to the end of this sitting,may we state straight away that we fully support themotion for a resolution presented by Mr Glinne.


The motion for a resolution, as it is, will be put to thevote at the end of the sitting.


7. Appointment of a Community 0rnbudsman

President. - The next item is the report by SirDerek l7alker-Smith, on behalf of the Legal AffairsCommittee, on the appointment of a Communityombudsman by the European Parliament (Doc.2e/7e).

I call Sir Derek ITalker-Smith.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith, rapporteur. - Mr Presi-dent, because of our crowded agenda I will try to keepmy speech as short as is compatible with what is a

very important subiect. My report, as the House willsee, deals with the appointment of a Communityombudsman by the European Parliament. I say an

ombudsman; perhaps it is more strictly a question ofa parliamentary commissioner. These terms are inpopular language used indiscriminately - certainly inthe United Kingdom - but what I recommend, as

the House will see, is a commissioner with less thanthe full customary powers of an ombudsman, forreasons which I shall explain in a moment.

This report concerns one aspect of the rights of thecitizen, a subject close to the hearts of all parliamentar-ians. It has certainly been close to my heart in all mylong years as parliamentarian and lawyer, and duringthe last six-and-a-half years as a Member of this Parlia-nrent. The report, which I now commend to the

House, is the product of long consideration, deepthought and much concentration. It is a matter aboutwhich, as I say, I have been thinking for many years. Ireferred to it some years ago in this city, indeed, at theClub Kirchberg and later on, also in this city, at theconference of the European Court of Justice.

The proposal was enshrined in a resolution tabled bymy group in the Parliament, which was sent to theLegal Affairs Committee as the committee responsibleand to the Political Affairs Committee and theCommittee on the Rules of Procedure for theiropinion. I am indeed grateful to these committees,and in particular to the draftsmen of the opinions, MrHolst and Mr Rivierez, for their consideration andadvice, and of course for the close interest of, andinformed discussion among, my colleagues in theLegal Affairs Committee, from all of which mythinking has greatly benefited; and also for the helpand work of the secretariat of that committee, towhom I am grateful. As a result, my report comes tothis House without a single dissenting voice, and withonly one abstention, a Member who is not, I think,amon8 those present today.

First, before giving the substance of the report, a shortword as to the concept of the ombudsman, and thecircumstances which have led to its adoption in somecountries of the Community and elsewhere in theworld. The institution of ombudsman has evolved as aresponse to a deep-felt need, a need felt by the ordi-nary citizen, often puzzled, often anxious, for guidanceand protection when faced with actions and decisionsby public authorities, which seem to him to be anony-mous and invisible.

Modern conditions, the growth of the power of theState and its increasing involvement in the lives of thecitizens, have caused the rapid increase in the numberand role of national ombudsmen, as set out in para-graph I of the explanatory statement. It is an increasewhich can confidently be expected to continue. Butnational and regional ombudsmen deal with nationaland regional law and administration. Clearly theincreasing role and application of Community law hascreated a new situation with new needs, and it is ourduty here to see how far these can be met within theparameters of the possible. It is to the analysis of thisthat my report is primarily directed.

Section II of the explantory statement sets out, in para-graph 4, the questions for enquiry -two basic and sixconsequential. The two basic questions are those ofneed, and what type of ombudsman would bestanswer the needs of the Community citizen. Then theancillary questions : the legal instrument for his crea-tion, the method of appointment, his powers andduties, the procedure for complaints, his links withthis Parliament, of which he would be, as it were, theservant but not a Member, and finally his relationswith the ombudsmen in the rrational States.


Sir Derek lValker-Smith

In Section II, I identify the keen inrerest in, andindeed support for, this concept, which suggests anaffirmative answer on the question of need. Faragraph5 deals with the Council of Europe. Paragraph 9-, andthe letters in the Annex to the report, deal with theattitude of the national ombudsmen within theCommuniry, with all of whom I communicated andto whom I am very grateful for their response. para-graph l0 deals with the opinion of the politicalAffairs Committee, which is annexed to my report. Itgives a highly positive conclusion, stressing the valueof such an institution for giving the Community amore human look, a more democratic and less tech-nocratic aspect than it has at present. I summarize myconclusion as to the need in paragraph I I of theexplanatory statement.

The role and function of the commissioner are dealtwith in Section III. It is logical to start with ananalysis of the opbration of Community law and itseffect on the citizen. Consequent to Article 189 of theTreaty, of course, the extent of the Community's invol-vement in the affairs of the citizen varies considerably.I identify four categories, in descending order of directapplication, in paragraphs 14 to 17 of the explanatorystatement : first, where there is direct administration,for example competition policy; second, where thereare detailed guidelines, for example customs andtariffs ; third, where there is some discretion in theMember States, for example in the national allocationof Community funds, such as the Regional and SocialFunds and the Guidance Section of the EAGGF ;fourth, where there is a larger discretion, as in somedirectives.

This complex pattern, to quote my words in para-graph l8 of the explanatory statement, only increasesthe individual's feeling of powerlessness in rhe face ofan anonymous Community, for he often does ,notknow where to go in order to lodge his complaint orget redress for his grievances. This analysis identifiesthe very valuable role for a Community ombudsmanor Parliamentary commissioner. His general roleshould, therefore, be to act as a focus for thecomplaints of the citipgn in this complex situation. Ofcourse, the complexity of the administration and theform of the Community also imposes constraints.These are identified in paragraphs 19 to 2l of theexplanatory statement.

Our task, then, recognizing the need but acceptingthe constraints, is to decide on the type of officialwhich will best serve the needs of the Communiry. Intheory there are two possibilities.

First, an ombudsman on traditional lines with fulipowers of investigatiorr ;. but this would involve a newinstitution and entail an . amendment to the Treaty,with all the uncertainties and delays inherent in thisprocedure, and might, indeed, be unwelcome in someMember States. This pgsition is accepted in the lastparagraph of the preamble to the motion for a resolu-

tion, and I hope I may be allowed, Mr president,slightly to amend that paragraph by adding the words'on traditional lines' after the words ,Communiry

ombudsman' by reason of the interchangeability inpopular language to which I referred earlier. ITith theinsertion of those words I think the position becomesclear.

Then there is a second, more limited, but still veryvaluable possibility, which is set out in paragraph 24of the explanatory statement. This would involve theappointment of an ombudsman or commissioner withpowers delegated by the European parliament. Hewould be able to receive complaints from Communitycitizens, either directly or via a Member of this parlia-ment, investigate the complaints and report his find-ings both to the complainant and to parliament. Evenif he did not have formal, wide investigatory powers, itis difficult to see how the authorities concerned wouldbe able to refuse to give the required informationVhere appropriate, he could refer complaints tonational ombudsmen for investigation. This recom-mendation, Mr President, is given effect by paragraphsI to 3 of the motion for a resolution :

Decides thar as a matter of principle it rs desirable toinstitute a Parliamentary Commissioner with the task ofexamining_ complaints on behalf of the Communirycitizen and advising him on the means of redress avail-able ;

Instructs its Committee on the Rules of procedure andPetitions to report on the procedure to be followed forthe appointment of the Parliamentary Commissioner andon how his responsibilities are to be defined in relationto those of the Committee on the Rules of procedure andPetitions ;

Instructs its President to take all appropriate steps toenable Parliament to appoint the Commissioner as soonas possible ;

I think this proposal, Mr President, constitutes thehighest common factor of what is both desirable inprinciple and practicable in operation. It follows, Ihope, the wise dictum of Cavour as to le tdct de-tchoses possible,t by which I always seek to be guidedin my political conduct. It may, or may not, turn outto be the first step towards further progress, but in anyevent, and of a certainry, it will, in this necessarilylimited form, constitute a valuable step forward andwill serve an immediate and important purpose.

Mr President, I respectfully ask the House for itsassent and adoption of this report.

8. Draft supplementarybudget No 2 for 1979 (aote)

President. - The next item is the oral report by theCommittee on Budgets and the vote on draft supple-mentary budget No 2 of the European Communitiesfor the 1979 financial year (Doc. 186/79), on whichthe Council has consulted Parliament, pursuant to theprovisions of the Treaties, and which includes parlia-


President

ment's estimates, which Parliament adopted yesterday.

Since the draft is identical with these estimates and

since no amendments have been tabled, the

Committee on Budgets considers it unnecessary to

give an oral report.

I accordingly put to the vote draft supplementarybudget No 2 of the European Communities for the

1979 financial year.

Draft supplementary budget No 2 of the European

Communities for the 1979 financial year, in the formin which it has been sent to us by the Council, is

approved.

As the procedure laid down in the budgetary Provi-sions of the Treaties has thus been completed, Ideclare supplementary budget No 2 of the European

Communities for the 1979 financial year to be finallyadopted.

This budget will be published in the Official Journalof the European Communities.

9. APPointment of a CommunityOmbudsman (contd)

President. - The next item is the resumption of the

debate on the \Talker-Smith report (Doc. 29179).

I call Mr Broeksz to speak on behalf of the Socialist

Group.

Mr Broeksz. - (NL) Mr President, ladies and

gentlemen, I think Sir Derek can be congratulated on

his own-initiative report.

There is something rather peculiar about it, however,

because the title of the report gives the impressionthat it is about the appointment of a Communityombudsman, but on reading the text of the motion fora resolution it becomes clear that the report is in fact

about the appointment of a Parliamentary Commis-sioner.

I have to confess, Mr President, that the members ofmy group are not all of the same opinion on this

matter. Consequently, my grouP is not at present very

enthusiastic about taking a decision on this' HoweverI do not think that that matters very much because

the proposal still stands.

As there is little time at our disposal, I shall not add

much to what Sir Derek said. It is true that if this

proposal were adopted a very large number of Commu-nity citizens might benefit from it, but on one point Ithink Sir Derek is a little optimistic. He says he does

not know the views of the Commission and Councilon this but is sure that information will be available at

any time.

I am not so sure of this myself. The situation is notthe same as in a national parliament when it is

decided to appoint an ombudsman. In the latter case,

the ombudsman has all the influence and power ofthe parliament behind it. The type of ombudsman, orrather Parliamentary Commissioner, proposed here,

however, will have only the backing of this Parlia-ment, assuming he is to get even that. I thereforethink it is of the utmost importance that the Commis-sion and Council should be in agreement with thisidea. If this commissioner is to give information toCommunity citizens on request, he in his turn willhave to apply for this information to the Commissionand the Council, and the difficulties that this involvesmust not be underestimated. The officials of what we

call the fourth power have so far shown no inclinationto give their opinions or inform the public about thedecisions that have been taken. It is therefore mostimportant not only that this proposal should beapproved by a large majority in this Parliament butthat we should have some assurance that it will receive

the approval of the Commission and Council.

I personally regard this as a conditio sine qua non,

and I think the rest of my group takes the same view.I can only hope, therefore, that in the first place theCommission, but the Council too, will show its

approval of this idea and that when this ParliamentaryCommissioner is appointed officials will be instructedto provide him with all the information he requests.

Subiect to those conditions, Mr President, I give myfull personal support to the report, though unfortu-nately I cannot assure you of the support of my group.

President. I call Mr de Gaay Fortman to sPeak onbehalf of the Christian-Democratic Group (EPP).

Mr de Gaay Fortmen. - (NL) Mr President, it is

my privilege to pay tribute to the rapporteur, SirDerek l7alker-Smith, who has presented us with a

highly succinct and clearly-written report. It is obvi-ously the work of a man of great legal knowledge and

experience. It is an authoritative report imbued with asense of realism but stopping well short of oppor-tunism. As the report is so clear and meets with ourapproval, I can confine myself to one or two minorcomments. The first of these concerns Section I of theexplanatory statement, i.e., the introduction, which Imust confess I have not read.

This negligence on my part is particularly reprehens-ible in that in 1976, when I was Minister of ForeignAffairs, I submitted to my parliament a proposal forthe appointment of a commissioner. This proposalhas still not been considered by -y national parlia-ment. I regret this omission on my part. It might, ofcourse be asked how it was possible for me, of allpeople, to be guilty of such an omission. Perhaps Imight reply, as Sir Derek often does, by a Latindictum : Prolegomena non leguntur i.e. it is not thecustom to read introductions, which demonstrates

once again that sayings are often based on mistakenideas.

Paragraphs 24 and 27 of. the explanatory statementbear witness to the realism of the rapporteur and theLegal Affairs Committee which has supported him.The Parliamentary Commissioner will initially have

no more than the power to establish which authority


de Gaay Fortman

is responsible for the decision being challenged. Hewill then inform the complainant how he may secureredress where there are means of doing so. In most ofour countries this is possible in the vast maioriry ofcases. The rapporteur is right, I think - in thisrespect that the commissioner's powers will eventuallyincrease, which may lead to a regulation officiallyappointing a Community ombudsman.

I do, of course, agree with Mr Broeksz - and I thinkSir Derek does too - that the cooperation of theCouncil and the Commission will be essential for thisParliamentary Commissioner, despite his limitedpowers. And it seems to me that now that the proce-dure, as we hope, for the appointment of the Parlia-mentary Commissioner has been set in motion, weshould ascertain whether we can count on the coopera-tion of the Council and the Commission. I personallycannot imagine such an official's being refused cooper-ation.

The personal qualities of the person holding thisoffice are of immense importance, more so than forother public offices. !fle believe that the followingqualities are indispensable: integrity, naturalauthority, determination, wisdom and a thoroughknowledge of Community law and of the way inwhich the Community institutions function and therelationships between them. Finally, he should also befamiliar with the national administrative law o[ theMember States of the Community. He cannot, ofcourse, manage all this alone and must therefore havehis own staff to assist him.

My group hopes that it will be possible to appoint a

Parliamentary Commissioner in the very near futureand that experience will show that this office and themanner in which it is exercised constitute a welcomestrengthening of the legal protection of the individualin the Community.

President. - I call Mr Rivierez to speak on behalf ofthe Group of European Progressive Democrats.

Mr Rivierez. - (F) Mr President, this dossier - if Imay call it that - has been building up over thecourse of several months. It began with the Parlia-ment's own-initiative report on a perfectly clear-cutquestion : the worthwhileness of instituting a Euro-pean mddiateur, - an ombudsman, to use thepopular expression.

This was referred by Parliament to the Legal AffairsCommittee, as the committee responsible, and, amongothers, to the Committee on the rules of Procedureand Petitions for its opinion. I was the draftsman forthis committee, and we had a meeting on the subject.Those present by no means took the view that it was a

good idea to institute European ntddiateurs, and atthat time it was my intention to submit an opinionalong these lines ; but in the end no opinion wasconveyed by the Committee on the Rules of Proce-dure and Petitions to the Legal Affairs Committee.Since then, things have changed in so far as we beganwith the idea of instituting a European nddiatcur and

are now concerned with the question whether itwould be worthwhile instituting a ParliamentaryCommissioner who would have neither the powersnor the responsibilities generally associated withombudsmen such as we know them in the MemberStates. In Sir Derek's report, you will find the corres-pondence he has had with the principal ombudsmenin the Member States, who would appear to haveoffered this idea a favourable welcome but nonethelessgave cautious replies : what these amounted to wasthat an encroachment upon the powers of thesenational ombudsmen was undesirable.

In the end, Sir Derek has conceived a more modestambition: what he proposes to us, with the support ofthe Legal Affairs Committee, is the institution of a

Parliamentary Commissioner charged with examiningcomplaints from citizens of the Community andadvising them on the means of redress available. Heinstructs - or rather, he asks the House to instruct -the Committee on the Rules of Procedure and Peti-tions to report on the procedure to be followed for theappointment of the Parliamentary Commissioner andon how his responsibilities are to be defined in rela-tion to those of the Committee on the Rules of Proce-dure and Petitions.

The curious thing about the whole affair is that a parli-amentary institution already exists for this purpose :

the Committee on the Rules of Procedure and Peti-tions. One might have thought that the activities ofthis committee, which could have been defined moreprecisely or perhaps even extended, were sufficient tosatisfy citizens' needs ; but now this committee is tobe duplicated by a Parliamentary Commissioner !

Vhat is to be his role in relation to the tasks of theCommittee on the Rules of Procedure and Petitions ?

It may be replied that rhe committee is going todefine this role very well, but what disturbs my group

- and this is why its members have asked me not tocommit them - is that this Parliamentary Commis-sioner will have already been instituted by this motionfor a resolution, if it is adopted. !7e should havepreferred to see the Committee on the Rules of Proce-dure and Petitions being asked to study the wholequestion of the worthwhileness of such a parliamen-tary institution and of the responsibilities to beassigned to it.

Another thing that disturbs the members of my groupis that this Parliamentary Commissioner is to berequired to offer the citizen recommendations, toadvise him on the means of redress available. Thismeans that he would have to be a lawyer, a legaladviser, and consequently would be consulted as

counsel if consulted, since he would be giving adviceon the means of redress available to the citizen inspecific cases. His responsibilities would thereforehave to be further extended, and this is yet anotherreason for carefully considering the advisabiliry ofsetting up this institution.


Rivierez

My group has therefore asked me to submit its views

to the House and at the same time to leave its

members free to decide for themselves how they willvote.


Mr Nyborg. - (DK) I wish to associate myselfentirly with Mr Rivierez's remarks. I noted a certainhesitancy in the Socialist Group's attitude towards thisproposal, and a slight reluctance on the part of the

Christian Democrats. \(e feel that, basically, there are

enough institutions. !7e in Denmark know quite a bitabout the Ombudsman system, as it has existed in ourcountry for many years now. I would venture to say

that it has not been an unqualified success, and Itherefore regard it as a trifle odd that we should be

debating a matter today which largely falls within thepurview of the Committee on the Rules of Procedure

and Petitions. It is wrong that we have had no clear

statement from that committee of its views on the

question. In my opinion, it would be wrong for Parlia-

ment to debate the matter without obtaining such a

statement. I don't know - perhaps I should recom-mend Sir Derek !flalker-Smith to withdraw his pro-posal until the Committee on the Rules of Procedure

and Petitions has given us its opinion and we can

discuss the proposal properly here in Parliament.

President. - I call Sir Derek l7alker-Smith.

Sir Derek \$(alker-Smith, rapporteur' - I will onlytake up a very few moments out of courtesy to those

gentlemen who have been good enough to contributeto this discussion, to thank them for their interven-tions.

First, may I express regret that I omitted in paragraph

9 of the explanatory statement the reference to theNetherlands Ombudsman and would ask Mr de Gaay

Fortman to accept my apologies and also Mr Broeksz

as well.

On the matter raised by Mr Broeksz as to the accePta-

bility of such an appointment to the Commission and

the Council of Ministers, I think we can fairly confi-dently assume the sympathetic cooperation of the

Commission. The House will have seen the text of theanswer given by the President himself as set out inparagraph 5 of my report, that statement of course

being given coram publico in this House. I shouldatso say that we had the benefit at the definitivemeeting of the Legal Affairs Committee of the pres-

ence and assistance of our distinguished friend MrOlmi, the deputy director of the Legal Services of theCommission. So I express myself fully optimistic as to

the cooperation of the Commission.

fu to the Council of Ministers, this is very important,and of course one cannot speak perhaps with the

same precise confidence because the composition ofthe Council of Ministers varies from time to time, but

the nature of ministers does not vary. It has been myprivilege to know a gte^t many ministers in a greatmany countries in Europe and elsewhere, and to have

been a minister for five years myself in three differentdepartments, and the one thing that does not change

is the responsiveness of ministers to the Pressures and

attentions of parliarients - democratically-electedparliaments - when those pressures are properlyapplied. !7e hear a lot about the functions and oppor-tunities of the directly-elected Parliament, of which Ishall not myself be a Member, but I hope that some

of my colleagues who have spoken will. This is an

opportuniry for them to get the cooperation of theCouncil of Ministers in these matters which affect so

dearly the hearts and lives of the ordinary citizens ofthe Communiry.

It is on purpose, as I have said, that this proposition is

put forward in this modified form - not withoutreference, as Mr Nyborg seemed to think, to theopinion of the Committee on the Rules and Proce-dure and Petitions. On the contary, I studied carefullythe opinion of Mr Riveriez, as I said, and took it fullyinto account in the report which I have here writtenand present to the House. If one looks as the report as

to those who were present at the meeting of the LegalAffairs Committee where this report was adopted,with all in favour except for one abstention, it will be

clear that all groups were there represented. It may be

that there was not a Communist and Allies Groupmember there, but I have no reason at all to thinkthat they are otherwise than sympathetic to this pro-posal.

Finally, as to the point raised by Mr Nyborg, and tosome extent my valued colleague, Mr Riveriez, inregard to any conflict of interest between such an

appointment and the petitions procedure of this Parlia-ment let me lust say to them this: I have been a

member for over 30 years of a parliament with thelongest history of petitions in the whole world. !7edid not find that that was a reason for not appointinga parliamentary commissioner in 1967. And I cantestify, over the 12 years of our parliamentary commis-sioner's work in the United Kingdom, to the greathelp it has been to the citizen, and what a powerfulreinforcement it has been, in spite of our petitioningprocedure, to the rights of the citizen. And I cantestify, having served in parliament both before andafter the creation of this office, that it has been whollybeneficial, as was testified to also by -y Britishcolleagues from other groups in the course of ourdiscussions.

So with those words, and again thanking those whohave contributed to this, and having, I hope given a

measure of reassurance to them on the points andniceties which they have raised, I commend this onits own merits. If Mr Rivierz or others want to see a

fuller rype of ombudsman hereafter, well, it may be a


Sir Derek Walker-Smith

case of c'est le premier pas qui cofite,but at any rate itis a valuable step and I hope ir will commend itself tothis House.


Mr Jakobsen. - (DK) Mr President, I feel I mustspeak, as I too come from the country Mr Nyborg wasspeaking of, and where this institution exists. I do notdisagree with Mr Nyborg when he says that it has notbeen entirely successful, but so what ? Is anything everan unqualified success ? I would not claim that theinstitution has not been misued by troublemakers orhas never been show to act. But that is the situationwe face as Members of Parliament, and that is the situ-ation this Parliament will find itself increasingly in as

it acquires more influence. \7e shall encounterhostiliry and incomprehension. In such cases, such aninstitution would act as a buffer and could investigatematters. The idea is good. I do not wish to getinvolved in the technicalities, but I feel we should begrateful to the European Conservative Group for real-izing that this point will arise when Parliament haswider powers in various fields. In any case, I thinkthat one point we can agree on is to thank Sir Derekfor using so much of his time and his long parliamen-tary experience to go into this question so thoroughly,thereby facilitating the new Parliament's choice in thematter. fu a citizen of one country where this institu-tion is well established, I felt that these things shouldbe said.


Mr Giolitti, tuIember of tbe Conrntission. - (I) MrPresident, I should like to begin by telling the rappor-teur that his confidence in the Commission's willing-ness to cooperate is well-founded. As he himselfrecalled, the President of the Commisson, in reply toan oral question from Mrs Ewing, had, as long ago as

January 1977, welcomed the idea of instituting a

Community ombudsman. On that occasion, MrJenkins emphasized that the Commission had alwaysstriven to take action in response to protests relatingto its activities and submitted by citizens of theMember States. Naturally, the Commission willcontinue to do so whenever such complaints are trans-mitted to it by an ombudsman instituted by the Euro-pean Parliament.

On the legal and institutional aspects, the Commis-sion entirely shares the views of the rapporteur. Anombudsman charged with examining complaints fromCommuniry citizens and advising them on the meansof redress available, as laid down in paragraph 1 of themotion submitted to Parliament, presents noproblems. On the other hand, an ombudsmanconceived as a new Communiry institution could onlybe instituted by way of a modification of the Treaties.

President. - I note that no one else wishes to speak.The motion for a resolution, as it stands, will be put tothe vote at the end of the sitting.


10. Directiae on tbe auditing of accountsof limited liability companies

President. - The next item is the report (Doc.173179) by Mr Shaw, on behalf of the Legal AffairsCommittee, on

the proposal from the Commission to the Council for aneighth directive pursuant to Article 54 (3) G) of the EECTreary concerning the approval of persons responsible forcarrying out statutory audits of the annual accounts oflimited liability companies.

I call Mr Shaw.

Mr Shaw, rdpporteur. - Mr President, let me start bysaying that this document has intentions which areagreed upon by everybody. At the outset of our discus-sions, I think we all felt that we could agree to everyaspect of it, but as we discussed it, although our objec-tives were the same, certain differences of view in ap-proaching that end did appear, with the result thatwhilst the basic document is sound, some of the expla-nations and so on, I am afraid, are a little hurried andperhaps not given in the way we should have likedhad we had plenry of time. But we have spent time onthe text, which I believe is valid, and that is entirelydue to the hard work of those members of the LegalAffairs Committee who joined with me in discussingthis document.

Its purpose is to lay down the conditions for grantingapproval to carry out statutory audits of the annualaccounts of limited liabiliry companies. Althoughsome Member States require statutory audits to becarried out by highly qualified persons, this is not therule in all cases, and for this reason the proposal foran eighth Directive is designed to provide sharehol-ders, workers and third parties, for example creditors,with equivalent guarantees on the quality of the statu-tory audits. It is not intended either to introduce theautomatic recognition by one State of diplomas, certifi-cates or other qualifications required in another; it ismerely setting down minimum standards. So it is onlythe first stage in what may be quite a long process : Ihope it will not be too long, because I am sure thatthe quicker we reach the freedom to carry out auditsthroughout the Communiry the better, but certainlythat objective is not for today. So the implementationof this eighth Directive will provide guarantees that inthe Member States only persons who have the neces-sary professional qualifications, are of good repute andare independent so far as their relations with thecompany are concerned will be authorized to carryout these statutory audits of accounts.


Shaw

The document has been amended as a result of thehard work that we have had in an earlier week and

this week and we have concentrated on Setting the

essentials of the basic document - that is to say, the

amendments - right. There are iust one or two addi-

tional amendments that have come in, which perhaps

we can deal with shortly.

I end by thanking the Commission for their hardwork in assisting us at such short notice, and mycolleagues for their flexibiliry of approach. I hope thatas a result we have managed to produce a documentthat will be of lasting use to the Communiry and so

serve as some small memorial to our labours this last

week or two.

President. - I call Mr Broeksz to speak on behalf ofthe Socialist Group.

Mr Broeksz. - (NL) Mr President, it is somewhatregrettable that this eighth directive is being consid-

ered so soon after the fifth directive. I7hen the fifthdirective was considered, a rule in the Rules of Proce-

dure was invoked which, fortunately, is not oftenapplied. If it were often applied, it would seriouslyobstruct the work of this Parliament. Some of us have

been wondering whether we should try to get ten

Members together to make sure that this matter is notconsidered any further.

Fortunately that has not happened. There were certain

strongly political aspects to the fifth directive, but itemerged in the Legal Affairs Committee that differ-ences of opinion concerning the eighth directive were

fortunately not of a political nature. The committeeinvestigated ways in which this directive could best be

formulated for accountants.

Mr President, I share Mr Shaw's hope that this willconstitute an important step along the road to free

movement for accountants. This need not take muchlonger now. However, while it is true that we have

tried to arrive at the best possible directive, this does

not mean that no difficulties arose. The difficultieswere, however, of a technical rather than a politicalnature. 'We therefore have no obiections to the rePortintroduced by Mr Shaw.

Attention must, however, be drawn to one or twopoints. For example, a number of terms have been

incorrectly translated into Dutch, and this might lead

to difficulties. The Dutch text of Article 4 (2) containsthe expression 'annual accounts' though there is nosuch term in the original, and fails to mention theword 'year' in the same paragraph. It would be betterto use the term 'financial report' rather than 'annualaccounts'. The rapporteur has also proposed an amend-ment to Article 2 (2) seeking the deletion of the last

part of the second indent. 'We are in agreement withthis, because it nright lead to difficulties in future invarious countries.

A better Dutch translation of Article 4 was submittedat the last moment and reflected the original moreaccurately. However, even this improved text says thatin order to be admitted to vocational training candid-ates must have attained university entrance level. NowI personally, and many members of my group, feel

that this constitutes a regrettable restriction of access

to training for accountancy. It is in fact quite possibleto become an excellent accountant through special-ized training followed up by on-the-iob trainingwithout having previously attained university entrancelevel.

Mr President, I too have tabled a couple of amend-ments at the last moment which it was unfortunatelynot possible to discuss in committee. The reason for

_

this is that at the very last moment I received a letterfrom the Association of Dutch Municipalities, towhich all Dutch municipalities belong, enclosing a

letter from the Association of Directors of Provincialand Municipal Accountancy Services. This letterexplained that the directive would make it impossiblefor accountants employed by the province or themunicipality from auditing limited companies inwhich the provinces and municipalities hold themajoriry of shares, and there are many of those in mycountry. This would therefore certainly give rise togreat difficulties in the Netherlands.

I think it is unfortunate that this point has been made

so late in the day and I would fully understand if therapporteur or the Commission were not able to say

straightaway whether they agreed with the amend-ments.

But even if they are not adopted, I think it would be

extremely useful to draw attention to these points so

as to give the Commission an opportuniry to considerwhether or not it should accept the minor amend-ments which are being proposed. If they are adopted,

so much the better; if not, then I hope that they willprompt closer consideration of the matter involved.

Mr President, I think I have made most of the pointsI wanted to make, but before concluding I should liketo thank the rapporteur sincerely for the work he has

put in in connection with this directive. He knows thesubject inside out. That is always a great advantageand it was something that came out very clearlyduring the consideration of this directive incommittee. It is usually no easy task for a rapporteurto deal successfully with a technical directive of thisnature, but Mr Shaw has succeeded in doing so and Iextend to him my sincere congratulations.

President. - I call Mr De Gaay Fortman to speak onbehalf of the Christian-Democratic Group (EPP).

Mr de Gaay Fortman. 4 (NL) Mr President, thebreviry of my speech is inv6isely proportional to myestimation of the value of this report. This report is of

Sitting of Friday, ll May 1979 25t

de Gaay Fortman

outstanding qualiry although it deals with a compli-cated subiect, with which I have had practical dealingsin my own country. Nonetheless, the report isextremely clear. It is also an example of the fine workdone in the Legal Affairs Committee and thesuccessful cooperation with the Commission's LegalService, which, I am glad to see, is present here todayto hear me say how much I appreciated their coopera-tion. My group is in agreement with the report, but Ishould like to make one or two comments on theamendments.

Beginning with my own amendment, which concernsthe Dutch translation alone. I think the Dutch transla-tion is in line with the English text ; I have comparedit very carefully with the English and I also listened tothe rapporteur's explanation of the English text incommittee.

Secondly, I urge you to adopt Amendment No 2, byMr Broeksz. After what he has said about this, there isno need for me to explain why this amendment isnecessary.

Finally, my group accepts Amendment No 4, by MrSieglerschmidt, in its corrected form. It is our viewthat the adoption of this amendment will add convic-tion to the resolution.


Mr Sieglerschmidt. - (D) Mr President, ladies andgentlemen, I can subscribe wholeheartedly to thepraise meted out to Mr Shaw's report.

My purpose in asking for the floor was to move myamendment, Amendment No 4. \7hen this wasdiscussed in the Legal Affairs Committee, the decisionwas taken by a very small minority, and the result wasthat what was originally paragraph I of the motionwas taken up as paragraph 3.

This can, I think, in part be attributed to a slightfeeling of guilt, for those colleagues who voted for theretention of this paragraph were themselves notentirely at ease: hence its transfer to a less conspi-cuous position as paragraph 3.

I should like to say briefly what it is all about as far as

I personally am concerned. It is true, as the rapporteurpointed out, that almost the same sentence is to befound in the explanatory memorandum to theCommission proposal; but to define what a directiveis not in the course of an explanatory statement andto do so specifically in a resolution are two differentthings. This is an unusual procedure ; moreover, theless well-informed reader - and we hope that fromtime to time our citizens, or at least those who are tosome extent interested and not only experts read ourresolutions - may be left with the false impressionthat we are not aiming for the mutual recognition ofexaminations or for freedom of movement with regardto services, etc. For this reason, I would urge thosecolleagues who are still present to vote for my amend-ment.


Mr Giolitti, tulernber of the Commission. - (I) MrPresident, on behalf of the Commission, I wish tothank Mr Shaw and the Legal Affairs Committee forthe valuable contribution made with this report. !7iththis eighth directive, the Commission proposes toharmonize the qualifications of experts responsible forcarrying out statutory audits of the accounts of limitedliability companies. Mr Shaw's report considerablyimproves the Commission's text and takes account ofthe observations made by members of the EECAccountants' Study-group.

I come to the amendments. Mr Shaw's amendment toArticle 2 appreciably improves the Commission's text.It should be noted that if the amendment is notadopted, it will follow that only those auditingcompanies formed after the directive has come intoforce will be subject to these provisions and not allsuch companies, including those already in existence.The situation is particularly intolerable in that, incertain Member States, numerous auditing companiesare at present being formed whose capital is held bypersons other than the auditors, in the hope of thusbeing enabled to get round the directive.

The amendment to Article 5 (3) is due to translationproblems in the Dutch. The Commission wishes toassure Mr Broeksz and Mr de Gaay Fortman that thetext in question will be examined with the closestattention when the modified proposal for a directive isbeing drawn up.

The amendment tabled by Mr Broeksz to Article l l(1) involves a new phrase designed to lay down thatthis provision will not apply to auditiors in the publicservice. This amendment, which is making irs firstappearance at this plenary sitting, cannot be acceptedby the Commission and will not, I think, be acceptedby a majoriry in this House. At all events, the Commis-sion wishes to assure Mr Broeksz that the text in ques-tion will be examined with the greatest possible atten-tion when the modified proposal for a directive isbeing drawn up. This principle does not, of course,affect persons working under the supervision of anauditor who satisfies all the conditions of the directive.

President. - I call Lord Ardwick.

Lord Ardwick. - If I may say a word, I was the oneon the committee who suggested taking this first para-graph and putting it in third position. I thought thatwe had found a satisfactory consensus andcompromise. Now, I myself think it is generally veryimportant, when we are saying what a measure ofharmonization is, also to say what it is not, and that iswhat this paragraph does. There is more trouble in a

country such as Britain about harmonization, which isnot very clearly understood, than about anything else.


Lord Ardwick

In fact, I am frequently reminded of my school days,

of a volume called Les cent meilleurs poimes de lalangue frangaisq which contained a poem by de

Musset, I think, which began,'Harmonie, barmonie,

fille de la douleur. It is of course of very considerableconcern in Britain. This paragraph spells it out' If youare saying that you are going to have a kind ofminimum harmonization of qualifications, there are

two possibilities : one is that you are going to recruitilliterate and non-numerate youths and that they willbe regarded as qualified ; the other extreme is that youwill have to do ten years at a university and have twodoctorates before you can practise the profession. So itis really a clarification, and I do hope that paragraph 3

does remain.


Mr Shaw, raPporteur. - First of all, Mr President, Iwould like very genuinely to thank those who have

made a contribution today, because I am sure that as a

result of our work together we have a much betterdocument. Something that I have learnt through these

last weeks - it is something I thought I had learnt a

long time ago, but it has been greatly reinforced - is

the difficulty of getting the same nuance of meaningin all our different languages. At the end of the day

that was what our discussions were nearly always

about. !7e were aiming at the same thing. But, in fact,

the translations, through no fault of the translators,

did not quite mean the same thing in every language.

If I might, therefore, go through the amendments, MrPresident, may I say that I was glad to find theCommissioner confirming my view - and I must say

I thank him too for his remarks - when he said thathe thought Amendment No I was largely a questionof translation. May I put it this way to Mr Broeksz :

obviously these points are going to be looked at againby the Commission in the light of what he has said,

but if the term'annual accounts' is taken out and thewords 'financial accounts' put in, it really affects thebasis of the whole directive. Article I specificallyspells out the statutory audits of the annual accounts.That is the whole basis of the document. So it wouldbe unwise, I suggest, to start changing the words.

Certainly in the English text I suspect that when the

Commission, as it has promised, compares all the

texts and looks it over in the light of Mr Broeksz's

words, we may be able to get some agreement on that.Perhaps I have said enough on that one.

Amendment No 2, also tabled by Mr Broeksz, andthis is a fundamental one, concerns the accountants inthe municipal service. May I put it this way to MrBroeksz : if a municipal service seeks to make use ofthe limited company organization to pursue one of itsservices or interests, it does so because there is an

advantage in having that particular form of company.Now if it does it for advantage it must at the same

time accept the disciplines that everyone else has toaccept when they adopt this form of organization.

One of the fundamental disciplines that we are tryingto build up is that there should be a completely inde-pendent audit. I would start from the point that ifmunicipalities are in fact going to take advantage ofusing the limited company formation, they mustaccept the discipline in exactly the same way as

anybody else would accept it. For example, I cannotsee how a municipal authority that sets up a limitedcompany can then appoint one of its own employeesto do the audit. Suppose a multinational company set

up another company and then employed one of itsemployees to do the audit : this would be a verydangerous thing. But having said that, I accept thefact that the Commission will look into this. It is easy

for me to talk of my experience : I have no Dutchexperience and there may be factors that I knownothing of, so I think it would be right for theCommission to examine this matter once again. Butmay I say, finally, on this point that under Article 7,

where people are entitled at law to do the audits ofthese companies at the present and are doing them,they can carry on for the rest of their lives, so thatthere is some aleviation here. It is an interim period,so that we do not cause hardship to people who are

within their rights in doing these audits at themoment. But for the future new entrants will have topass the exams. I hope that this is a full explanationof that point.

I am glad that the Commission could accept the last-minute amendment that I have put down. I hesitate as

rapporteur to put down an amendment, but I did takethe trouble to agree with the acting chairman, MrBroeksz - in fact, we were all agreed - that in thelight of further discussions this was an improvement.Because this is one of the clauses on which, quitefrankly, I lost. I was therefore unhappy. But perhaps,as a result of the compromise that we have nowreached, we can all agree. It does not affect my owncountry, but it affects certain countries where there arelimited companies doing an audit. It is a question ofthe people with a majority interest in the capital ofthes auditing companies getting rid of the majority ofthe capital.

Now then, although in this particular article we have

abolished the period of time in which they can do it,nonetheless, the period will continue to exist in a laterarticle, Article 13, and, provided the Member States

agree to it, that will amount to no less than threeyears. I think that we can agree on that compromise,and I hope that the House can accept it.

So far as Mr Sieglerschmidt's comment is concerned, Ican only echo the words of Lord Ardwick. I do thinkit would be helpful, if it is not detrimental to MrSieglerschmidt's views on this, if it were left in.


Shaw

Although, frankly, I am not prepared to go to thestake on it.

Finally, Amendment No 5. As far as I have been able

to discover, this is entirely a matter for the Dutch textand I am grateful to Mr De Gaay Fortman forpointing it out. I can assure him that the texts will be

looked at to ensure that they reflect, in all thelanguages, what he and I want. \flith those words Iwould thank the House and hope that we can reachagreement.


The motion for a resolution, together with the amend-ments that have been tabled, will be put to the vote at

the end of the sitting.


ll. Carry-ouer of appropriations from tbe 1978to tbe 1979 financial year

President. - The next item is the report by MrShaw, on behalf of the Committee on Budgets, on thelist of requests for the carry-over of appropriationsfrom the 1978 to the 1979 financial year (non-auto-matic carry-overs) (Doc. 165179).

I call Mr Shaw.

Mr Shaw, rapporteur, - Mr President, having votedappropriations in the budget, we can deplore the factthat they have not been fully utilized. But I think wewould find it difficult to say that we no longerapprove of the plans we had for the spending of thatmoney. !7e still approve of them. !7e may deplorethe fact that the money was not spent in the properyear; on the other hand we welcome the fact that themoney is being carried over for use in the next year.

That is the whole purpose of this carry-over docu-ment. I think that the reasons for the delays whichhave taken place ought to be examined when we lookat the discharge of the 1978 budget, but not now. If,Mr President, we exclude the sums for agriculture, theamount of non-automatic carry-overs requested by theCommission is small, it is less than 54 million EUAin all. I will only comment on one of these -namely, Item 3751 : investment premiums. Now thisis an item to which this House attached very consider-able importance when the 1978 budget was beingexamined, because, of course, it deals very largely withhelping small companies. I think it is regrettable thatfor various reasons this money has not been spentusefully during the budgetary year. However, despitethat one note of regret, I feel that under the circum-stances, and particularly in order to encourage theCommission to actually spend the money on the orig-inal projects, we should deliver a favourable opinionon this carry-over document. And with those few

remarks, Mr President, I hope the House will give itsapproval.


Mr Giolitti, Mernber of tbe Comnission. - (I) MrPresident, first of all I wish to thank the rapporteur forhis favourable opinion regarding our request for thenon-automatic carry-over of appropriations from the1978 to the 1979 financial year. This is a by nowfamiliar procedure which is specifically provided forin the Financial Regulation and which is applied tothose appropriations which could not be utilizedbefore the end of the preceding financial year.

I have only one point to make. Following on the adop-tion last Tuesday of Mr Shaw's resolution concerningthe amendments to be introduced into certain provi-sions of the Financial Regulation, it has been indi-cated that from now on the authorization for the carry-over of appropriations from one financial year toanother will be given sooner : this will make possiblea greater degree of flexibiliry in the implementation ofthe budget.



12. Renewal of tbe trade agreement witb Uruguay

President. - The next item is the report by MrSandri, on behalf of the Committee on ExternalEconomic Relations, on the renewal of the trade agree-ment with Uruguay (Doc.75179).

The rapporteur has informed me that he has nothingto add to his written report.

I call Mr Giolitti.

Mr Giolitti, hlember of tbe Commission. - (I) MrPresident, the Commission not only agrees with MrSandri's report but unequivocally condemns the repe-ated violations of human rights that have taken placein Uruguay. The Commission wholeheartedlysupports the principles that inspired the joint state-ment made by representatives of certain Latin-Ame-rican parliaments dissolved by unconstitutionalmethods - those of Argentina, Chile and Uruguay -and published on the occasion of the Fourth Interpar-Iiamentary Conference of the European Parliamentand the Latin-American Parliament, which took placein Rome from 19 to 2l February 1979.

The Commission intends to maintain the de factofreezing of the EEC-Uruguay agreement, and under-takes not to grant any particular preferences toUruguay so long as the present political situationshows no substantial improvement.


President. - I note that no one else wishes to speak.The motion for a resolution, as it stands, will be put tothe vote at the end of the sitting. The debate is closed.

13. EEC-ASEAN trade and economic relations

President. - The next item is the report by Mr Baas,

on behalf of the Committee on External EconomicRelations, on trade and economic relations betweenthe EEC and ASEAN (Doc.77l79l.

I call Mr Jung.

Mr Jung, deputy rapporteur. - (D) Mr President,ladies and gentlemen, it is all the easier for me todeputize for Mr Baas inasmuch as the Committee onExternal Economic Relations unanimously adoptedMr Baas's report on 3 April. This report draws atten-tion to the growing importance of the ASEAN, theSouth-East Asian countries, in this particularly sensi-tive part of the world and to its r6le in consolidatingpeace and political stability in this region.

In this part of the world, interests of vital importanceto Europe are at stake : hence the need to improveEEC-ASEAN economic and trade relations further,especially through the scheme of generalized prefer-ences, the liberalization and expansion of trade. !flewelcome the conclusions of the Second EEC-ASEANConference, which ended in Djakarta on 29 March,and call on the Commission to pursue an intensivecampaign of information and introduce measures tofacilitate action by private enterprise.

The report stresses that the Parliament, or at least thecommittee, agrees to an overall agreement on EEC-ASEAN cooperation. Contacts are to be establishedbetween the EEC and the unions with a view toensuring compliance with the ILO recommendationson wages, and it is important to both parties that thesecontacts should lead to economic stability and socialprogress in this important region of South-East Asia,since this alone can ensure peace and freedom. It goes

without saying that this report constantly stresses theimportance of the fundamental problem of humanrights.

Ladies and gentlemen, this, I think, may serve as a

summary of the conclusions unanimously arrived atby the Committee on External Economic Relations. Irecommend the Parliament to adopt this report.


Mr Giolitti, Member of tbe Commission. - (I) MrPresident, the Commission has always been of theopinion that the Community's relations with theASEAN should be intensified by means of practicalmeasures, of which the Conference in Djakarta is an

exemple. Since the ministerial conference ofNovember 1978, the possibility has emerged of

concluding an agreement on economic and commer-cial cooperation. A formal proposal to open negotia-tions will be sent by the Commission to the Councilbefore the approaching summer recess.

Apart from its economic importance in view of theobvious European interests in the region, which therapporteur pointed out, such an agreement will alsobe of political importance. The Commission takes theview that by intensifying economic and social rela-tions it will be possible to help improve the condi-tions governing the development of democracy in thecountries concerned and so contribute to a morewidespread and durable respect of human rights inthe member countries of the Association.



14. Regulation on table-grapes fronr Cyprus

President. - The next item is the report (Doc.l3ll79) by Mr Kaspereit, on behalf of the Committeeon External Economic Relations, on


regulation opening, allocating and providing for theadministration of a Community tariff quota for freshtable-grapes falling within sub-headings ex 08.04 A I (a)

and (b) of the Common Customs Tariff, originating inCyprus.

I note that no one wishes to speak. The motion for a

resolution, as it stands, will be put to the vote at theend of the sitting.


15. Peripberal coastal regions of tbe Community

President. - The next item is the report, withoutdebate, by Mr Corrie, on behalf of the Committee onRegional Policy, Regional Planning and Transport, onthe peripheral coastal regions of the EuropeanCommunity (Doc. I 13179).



16. Transport of passengers and goods by road

President. - The next item is the report by MrSchyns, on behalf of the Committee on RegionalPolicy, Regional Planning and Transport, on the diffi-culties encountered at the Community's internal fron-tiers by the transport of passengers and goods by road(Doc. 678/78).

I call Mr Schyns.

Sitting of Friday, 1l May 1979 265

Mr Schyns, rapporteur. - (F) Ladies and gentlemen,as long ago as the beginning of 1977, a colloquiumheld in Brussels was devoted to the subject of customsdifficulties encountered at the internal frontiers of theCommuniry. Today one is forced to the realizationthat the voluminous report produced by this collo-quium has had no effect whatsoever, for any citizen ofthis Community, as soon as he attempts to cross oneof the Community's internal frontiers, is in a positionto appreciate the degree of integration that has alreadybeen achieved or the lack of integration.

I would like to begin by emphasizing that it is

p-ecisely this lack of integration that has promptedmy colleagues on the Committee on Regional Policy,Regional Planning and Transport, and myself, toenvisage the drawing up of own-initiative reports onthe difficulties presently encountered at the Commu-nity's internal frontiers in the transport of passengers

and goods by road. In committee, we have frequentlyhad occasion to deplore obstacles of one kind oranother which beset road transport when it comes tocrossing a frontier - obstacles which derive from thelack of a Community policy in one field ot another,particularly in the fiscal, economic and monetaryfields. This, incidentally, is why the 1'ransportCommittee right from the beginning associated theCommittee on Economic and Monetary Affairs withis work by asking this committee to submit an

opinion and also by making use of reports it has

drawn up on the subiect. I refer here in particular tothe excellent reports drawn up by Mr Nyborg on thedevelopment of the customs union and the internalmarket. It is obvious that the complete realization ofthe customs union is an essential element in theremoval of impediments to the free passage of fron-tiers, and in view of this I think I should leave it tomy colleague Mr Ellis, in his capacity as draftsman forthe opinion of the Committee on Economic andMonetary Affairs, to go into his subject more deeply.

The aim of my report - a somewhat ambitious one, Iadmit - is to provide a survey of all the controls andformalities with which those concerned with roadtransport are today confronted. If I have deliberatelyconfined myself to road transport, this is not because

other sectors know nothing of the problems we are

dealing with today. Throughout the preparation of thisreport, I have observed that the situation in air, rail orwater transport is no better and that the need toexamine the problems encountered there is just as

great.

In my explanatory statement, I have gone through allthe obstacles to the free passage of frontiers, thosederiving from national or international transport regu-lations and those that have their origin elsewhere. Asyou will have noticed, the list is a long one ; eventhough some of them may seem at first sight derisory

or of marginal importance, I can assure you that, as

talks that I have had with the various interestsconcerned show, these controls and formalities inevit-ably lead to a more or less considerable increase intransport costs because of delays or even breakdownsin the functioning of transport services.

And this is where the root of the problem lies. It is

extremely tempting to check at the frontier whether a

regulation has been observed or to proceed to someother formaliry, particularly when it is a matter ofnational regulations. \flhat is simpler than to stopprivate cars or lorries at a national frontier for the sake

of some check or other formality ? The frontier is themost obvious point to choose for these purposes, andyet this is exactly what should be avoided, in order notonly to reduce the costs to which I have iust referredbut also to give the citizens of our Community a

better idea of the advantages to be derived from Euro-pean unification.

One is forced to the conclusion that many obstaclescould long since have been eliminated if there hadbeen more good will on both sides ; that is to say, ifthe authorities concerned had shown a little more flex-ibility. In paragraph 7 of the motion for a resolution, Isuggest measures that would undoubtedly and consid-erably simplify the business of crossing frontiers, prac-tical measures which could easily be carried out with a

little goodwill.

These measures, which in my view deserve priority oftreatment, include, first, closer cooperation among allthe authorities concerned, both national and Commu-nity authorities; second, the abolition of checks andother formalities which have lost their raison d'€treand the abandonment of checks at the frontier whichcan equally well be carried out further inland ; third,the replacement of frontier checks by random checksand other procedures such as the inspection ofcompany accounts ; and, finally, extending the prac-tice of carrying out customs formalities at customsoffices installed at the place of departure. All thesemeasures could be applied without great difficulty tothe various fiscal, monetary, health or other formali-ties which today are regularly carried out - unfortu-nately - for the most part at the frontier. I shall notrecapitulate now the practical examples contained inthe report, which clearly demonstrate the existence ofa situation that could very easily be changed.

By way of conclusion to this part of my speechconcerning those obstacles that do not derive fromtransport considerations, I should like to say thatwhen the customs union is realized in its entirety andall the different Community policies have indeedbeen harmonized, formalities at the Community'sinternal frontiers could be reduced to checks relatingto security and public health.


Schyns

As regards frontier formalities deriving from transportregulations in the proper sense of the term, thebiggest problems are of a fiscal nature and concern inparticular fuel. Since the structure and rates of indirecttaxes and also excise duties on mineral oils differconsiderably from one Member State to anotherwithin the Community, considerable delays at thefrontier, due to the checking of petrol tanks and, inappropriate cases, the levying of duties, are the result.It therefore seems to me absolutely necessary thatagreement should be reached, within the shortestpossible time, on letting through duryfree the wholeof the fuel contained in the normal petrol-tankscarried by buses, coaches and lorries. A similar agree-ment should be reached on the dufy-free admission ofa definite quantity of fuel in jerry-cans. Such agree-ments would cut out the need for levying duties at thefrontier and confine checks to cases where there aregrounds for suspecting serious fraud.

There are a number of other national and Communityregulations in the transport sector which lead todelays - often very costly - at the frontier and forwhich I propose realistic solutions in my report. Thisis not the occasion to attempt to explain them all,particularly as most of them are of. a relatively tech-nical nature.

The last section of my report deals with the obstaclescaused by inadequate facilities and the unsuitableorganization of customs services. As regards the facili-ties, these obstacles are of two kinds: first, the lack offacilities at all too many frontierposts and, second, theshortcomings in the road network in many frontierregions. In both cases, action is urgently needed if theinfrastructure is to be adequate to the present needs ofroad traffic. In paragraph l5 of the motion for a resolu-tion, I have drawn attention to the contribution thatthe Commission could play here, both financially andin the sphere of coordination.

One cannot avoid the impression that some customsofficials do their work in a rather off-hand manner,and it is not always particularly clear what determinesthe speed or frequency of checks. Beginning at paru-graph 84 of the explanatory statement, I list somerecommendations which would undoubtedly help toensure a more rapid flow of traffic at frontiers. Allowme to draw your attention to the following sugges-tions.

First of all, the speed and frequency of random checksand the staffing and opening-hours of frontier postsshould be adjusted to the density of traffic. Then itseems to me essential to harmonize the opening-hours o[ the customs offices on both sides of the fron-tier, and to make every effort to avoid absurd repeti-tions of these checks. In conclusion, energeticmeasures must be taken to simplify, in every waypossible, cross-frontier road traffic within the Commu-nity, and it is our duty, as members of this Parliament,

to be wide awake and do whatever is necessary toensure that what can be done is done.

May I point out, Mr President, that the various textsbefore us contain some errors. There is, for example, a

phrase missing from the German version of paragraph17 of the motion for a resolution. In the same para-graph, the Dutch text speaks of the 'executive' wherethe Fench text refers to the Commission. Perhapsthose errors could be corrected at a later stage.

Since Mr Albers has tabled three amendments, Ishould like, as rapporteur, to give you my view onthem very briefly. I can agree to the first and thesecond amendments, but as regards the third, I wouldask Mr Albers to withdraw it. The Commission doesindeed need an adequate staff if the harmonizationwhich is the theme of this report is to be broughtabout.

President. - I call Mr Seefeld to speak on behalf ofthe Socialist Group.

Mr Seefeld. (D) Mr President, ladies andgentlemen, I should like to make a few observationson this extemely important and interesting report byMr Schyns. Everywhere where ordinary citizens are ina position to observe for themselves what progress theEuropean Community is making, they can see howseriously solemn declarations of intent are meant.'S7hen these declarations find no other reflection inreality but reticence, sluggishness or quarrels overwords, then even good-tempered citizens are angered.Anyone who lives in a frontier area, like our rappor-teur, could draw up a long list of sins of omission ofwhich our Nine Member States and the Communityare guilry - failures to take steps that were necessaryto make life easier in these frontier areas, or to givethem and others the feeling that they are living in a

Community in the proper sense of the word.'Whoever does not live in a frontier area only has towait until a public holiday or the summer vacation tosee how big the gap is between official statements andreality. Of what use to us is the guarantee of freedomof movement between the countries of the EuropeanCommunity if, for example, frontier posts, so far fromhaving been gradually disnrantled since this Commu-nity came into exisrence, are actually multiplying innumber, some of them with imposing buildings ofwhich the ordinary citizen, standing in front of them,can only say : Yes, that is our Community, which doesnot dismantle the frontiers but even marks them outas places where documents have to be inspected ?

Today the flow of traffic is impeded at rhe frontiers asmuch as it ever was. One would think that the thingto do was to improve the flow; instead, irritatingdelays are the order of the day. It is at the frontiersthat it must be made clear, in the interests of Euro-pean integration, that for the citizens of the EuropeanCommunity none of the Nine Member States isforeign soil. Otherwise, what is the point of our


Seefeld

coming together and of all our attemPts to harmonize

in so many fields ?

In this sphere, action must take the place of non-com-mittal talk. Mr Schyns rightly states that this Parlia-

ment has tabled innumerable questions about trafficcontrols, and I can state my Group's wholehearted

support for the observation he makes in his explana-

tory statement, that 20 years after the establishment ofthe EEC and years after the creation of a customs

union, crossing the internal frontiers of the Commu-nity still causes the same, if not Sreater, difficulties'

It is true, citizens are aware - and we all know this

from the electoral campaign - that in this field a

great deal is said and little is done. Some are asking :

!7hat is the point of it all ?

This report conlains a number of good suSSestions. Itraises yet again all the questions connected with the

European passport. !flhat is the good of a Europeanpassport, valid for all citizens, if they still have toshow that they possess this European passport when

they cross the frontiers ? !7hat, I ask, is the value of

declarations, such as those made at the summitmeeting in 1974, or those contained in Commissiondirectives dating from 1958, that the inspection ofdocuments must be the exception ? I recall the

summit meeting which announced that the European

passport was on the way: it has been under discussion

for almost five years now, and people still cannotagree whether to put the heading'European Commu-niry' above and the name of the individual countrybelow, or the other way round.

Really, in this sort of thing we are cutting a sorry

figure. It is time that something was done along the

lines set out in Mr Schyns' report.

In conclsuion, may I say the following' This reportwas needed: it was needed in connection with the

forthcoming direct elections to the European Parlia-

ment. It is right and proper that the outgoing Parlia-

ment should, with this report, reiterate its views,

which have been quite clear for years, ' The report is a

good one ; it is not complete, but it does not pretend

to be complete, since it only deals with one part ofthe problem. Nevertheless, I say that if all the propo-

sals contained in the motion for a resolution were

carried out, we should be a good deal further along

the road to a genuinely united Europe or European

Community. This subiect must remain on the agenda

of the European Parliament, and I hope that the new

Parliament will appreciate that the problems attendantupon the trans-frontier transPort of passengers and

goods must be overcome and further suggestions fortheir solution produced.

On behalf of my Group, I thank the rapporteur for his

work and assure him that we shall vote for his excel-

lent report.

(Applause)

President. - I call Mr Jung to speak on behalf ofthe Liberal and Democratic Group.

Mr Jung. - (D) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen,I thank the rapporteur and welcome his report on the

problems attendant upon the crossing of internal fron-tiers. It is to be regretted that the rePort did notappear a few years earlier, but this is not the raPpor-

teur's fault, since living in a frontier area as he does,

he is naturally well acquainted with the problems.

As every day goes by, we are reminded at our meet-

ings, as Mr Seefeld said, that above all these problemsleave the ordinary citizen sceptical and the man in the

street is forced to ask himself what the point of thisCommunity is if the barriers are still there. This is, ofcourse, especially important for people who live near

the frontier and whose place of work may be on theother side of the frontier.

In our view, unnecessary checks should be abolishedas soon as possible: this should have been done years

ago. \flhat purpose is served by the mutual recogni-

tion of certificates and documents of every kind when

the laissez-passer issued by the Parliament is not even

known to the customs or the frontier police ? Theresult is that you, too, Mr President, if at the last

minute you have to drive to Strasbourg to relieve

someone else, may be delayed en route, and that is the

sort of thing the document was designed to Prevent.

'We should therefore welcome the fact that Mr Schyns

has now described, without beating about the bush,

the difficulties that arise and that he proposes that the

inspection of personal documents be confined to

random checks and even then should only be

tolerated within the framework of security measures

within one of the countries concerned. This we wishto stress particularly, and I hope that the superfluousbarriers referred to by Mr Seefeld will be dismantledagain as soon as possible.

As to the customs or tax formalities which Mr Schyns

suggests could be settled at the place of departure, Iwould say, well and good, but this must not have theresult of increasing the bureaucratic load on firmswhose work extends beyond these frontiers - Particu-larly the middle- and small-scale undertakings, whichare simply not equipped to carry this bureaucraticburden.

But, Mr President, I should like to turn to one parti-cular aspect of this report which has been referred tobut has not received the attention it deserves -namely, the people who live in frontier areas. Theyhave experienced all aspects of the nation-state withan intensiry that has escaped the inhabitants of otherregions. For them, the frontier is not only a politicaland economic phenomenon; only too often it is a

source of personal inconvenience and an impedimentto normal relationships. It is quite natural thereforethat in the process of European integration the fron-


Jr.g

tier regions should continually call for especial atten-tion. \7e want to rid the frontiers of their peculiareffect, which prevents us from arriving at that singleinternal market that we want to achieve. Distortions ofcompetition between Member States are to be felteverywhere in the Common Market ; but in frontierareas they are even more acute and often amount to a

threat to people's economic survival. S7hat I want tosay, therefore, is that frontier areas are particularlysensitive. For geographical, economic and otherreasons, cross-frontier cooperation is becoming moreand more necessary, and this offers the frontier areas a

chance to gain in importance in this Community, toderive from their situation as peripheral areas in thenation-state system, in which this importance wasdenied them, a new function, that of bindingelements, and so help to promote a successful integra-tion.

This subject was taken up by the Liberal and Democ-ratic Group at its 1976 seminar held at Lochem, inthe Netherlands, where it was able to study theproblem on the spot - namely, in the Euregio, onthe German-Dutch border. By way of supplementingMr Schyns's report, I would repeat the demands putforward on that occasion : the Council was calledupon to take decisions designed to bring the areas oneither side of the Community's internal frontiertogether to form a genuine working community ; wealso called for the development or modernization -on a joint basis - of roads in these frontier areaswhich, for strategic or other reasons, had been muchneglected. I am reminded of an arterial road of Euro-pean importance which passes through my ownregion and for topographical reasons, would be muchbetter if it crossed the frontier, since this would be amore efficient and also a cheaper arrangement : whyshould such roads always stop at the frontier or runalong the frontier ?

Here we need an idea, a plan that is binding in itsimplications. The coordination of facilities for whichlocal authorities are responsible must not stop short atfrontiers. Regional planning decisions on either sideof the frontier must be coordinated and industrialcentres established on a ioint basis along the lines of a

middle and long-term plan. Programmes of education

- this I noticed recently at a meeting of schools fromboth sides of one such frontier - can be coordinatedand so help to overcome the problems arising oninternal frontiers. Public services, too, could be usedby the population of neighbouring countries underthe same conditions as those living on this side of thefrontier. In the sphere of public health, for example,this coordination should lead to the possibility of a

hospital situated on one side of a frontier being madeaccessible to the neighbouring population on the

other side. This would, of course, require the coordina-tion of health services. Another example is the esta-blishment of joint refuse-processing plants with theobject of reducing costs and avoiding unnecessarypollution.

All this is important for the purpose of making itclear to the ordinary citizen that we take the businessof European integration, of overcoming our internalfrontiers, seriously, for these internal frontiers nolonger have any justification. That is why we, theLiberal and Democratic Group, are so wholeheartedlyin agreement with you, Mr Schyns. Ve agree withyour report and can only hope that, although 20 yearshave passed without very much - if anything at all

- being done in this direction, the ordinary citizen,stimulated by your report, will be able to see that thisParliament, the Commission and the Council have thepolitical will to overcome these obstacles. The Liberaland Democratic Group gives the motion for a resolu-tion now before us its wholehearted support.


Mr Albers. - (NL) Mr President, I should just likebriefly to explain the background to my amendments.They have, of course, been partly approved, but I stillthink it is necessary to make a further comment.

The first paragraph uses the word 'regret'. I think wetend to use this word a little too often here. A case Ihave come across has led me to the conclusion thatwe must express outright condemnation of the lack ofprogress that has been made in this area. The matterto which I refer concerns a professional driver who;owing to a mistake on the Dutch-German border wasdeprived of 100 guilders a month over a period of sixto seven years. Such cases are not reconcilable withEuropean integration, and we cannot confineourselves to merely expressing our regret about suchthings. 'We must condemn them.

A further point I wish to make concerns groups ofyoung people. In the past - even before the Commu-nity was established - groups of young people undersupervision who spent their holidays near the bordercould cross over without passports. For some yearsnow, this has no longer been possible. This constitutesa retrogressive step. I would therefore recommend thatan effort be made to investigate how this facilitymight be restored, possibly by a Community measure.

As far as the last amendment is concerned, I doubtwhether extra staff would improve matters. The rappor-teur believes they are necessary. I do not wish to makean issue of this ; all I hope is that the Commissionwill take effective steps in response to Mr Schyns'sexcellent report. I therefore withdraw AmendmentNo 3.


President. - Mr Albers, I note your withdrawal ofAmendment No 3.

I call Mr Giolitti.

Mr Giolitti, Menber of the Contntission. - (I) MrPresident, the Commission greatly appreciates theinitiative shown by your committee, which has

resulted in the preparation of this report on theproblems still existing at frontiers between theMember States. The Commission is fully aware of the

problems existing in this field : this is a matter that ithas already deplored on more than one occasion inthis Chamber. The ultimate aim of the Commission is

to reach a situation in which not only customs but allessential formalities are carried out within the territoryof Member States, in offices provided for thispurpose : this will make it possible to avoid all formali-ties when crossing the frontier between two MemberStates.

This ultimate objective - and here I share the views

expressed by your rapporteur - is extremely difficultto achieve within a short space of time, and that iswhy the Commission takes the view that for themoment the best that can be hoped for is to simplifyas far as possible the formalities at the frontier.

There are no points in the motion for a resolutionwith which the Commission is not in agreement, butI would add that a considerable number of the sugges-

tions it contains have already been the subject ofspecific proposals. I need only mention the European

passport, the bilateral and multilateral authorizationstamp, driving licences, fuel for commercial vehicles,or financial aid for transport infrastructure projects. Iam quite sure that if the House adopts this motion fora resolution, it will be making an important contribu-tion to progress in the work that has already begun.

Finally, I am grateful to Mr Albers for not insisting onhis Amendment No 3, since the organization of theCommission's services really is a problem of essential

importance if we are to pursue our objectives.

President. - I call Mr Schyns.

Mr Schyns, rapporteur. - (F) Mr President, I shouldlike very briefly to thank my colleagues for thesupport they have given to my report, first incommittee, then in plenary sitting.

Further, I should like to thank the secretariat of ourcommittee for their assistance, also the rnembers ofthe Commission. If in future we can all devote

ourselves with the same unanimity of purpose to theresolution of this problem, I am certain that the newelected Parliament will not have to discuss it as

frequently as we have had to.

President. - I note that no one else wishes to sPeak.

The motion for a resolution, together with the amend-ments that have been moved, will be put to the vote at

the end of the sitting.


17. Intprouing tbe situation in tbtin I a n d - wat e ruct)'-t s e ct o r

President. - The next item is the report by MrFuchs, on behalf of the Committee on RegionalPolicy, Regional Planning and Transport, on possiblemeasures to improve the situation in the inland-waterways sector (Doc. 146/79).

I call Mr Schyns.

Mr Schyns, deputl rapporteur. -

(F) Mr President,exactly one year ago to the day, the European Parlia-ment discussed the problems of inland-waterways. Onl1 May 1978, a motion for a resolution, tabled by MrDamseaux, on the crisis in this sector was debated and

rejected by this Assembly - not because there was

any disagreement on the substance of the matter, butbecause the majority considered that the fundamentalproblems in this transport sector should be examinedin committee before entrusting any precise tasks tothe Commission.

As a result, n'ry colleague, Mr Fuchs, drew up an own-initiative report on improving the situation in theinland-waterways sector. This report is the product ofprolonged and painstaking preparation, and it is a

matter for regret that the rapporteur, who had alreadytaken on important engagements before learning thathis report was to be included in the agenda for thispart-session, cannot be here to present it himself.

In the first section, Mr Fuchs examines the presentsituation and shows that for some years inland-waterways have been facing serious problems, ofwhich the main consequences are a fall in the share ofthis sector in the total volume of transport, a steadydrop in the numbers of crewmen, of vessels and ofundertakings, and above all a low rate of profitability.Energetic measures are absolutely essential if these

difficulties are to be remedied - measures on both

national and the Community level. I may say inpassing that it is to be regretted that proposalspresented by the Commission ten years ago for esta-

blishing a r6gime governing capacities in this sectorhave not been adopted by the Council; this is all themore deplorable because the essential problem thathas beset inland-waterways for many years is one ofstructural over-capacity. Although the problen'r ofexcess capacities is no longer so acute today, a policyon capacities is nevertheless desirable in order to dealwith the reserve tonnage which is necessitated byseasonal fluctuations and also by variations in thewater-level if these are not to affect the quantities offreight.


Schyns

Among the measures implied by such a policy, Iwould draw particular attention to Communitymeasures governing access to the occupation ofwaterway carrier and the institution of a system oftransport permits and navigabiliry licences. A jointposition should also be arrived at on the questions oflaying up, scrapping and rotation. These measuresshould be taken as rapidly as possible so as to have a

coherent policy before competition from East Euro-pean enterprises makes itself felt - that is, before thecanal linking the chief arteries, the Rhine and theDanube, is opened. !7e therefore not only need a

coherent body of measures, but these measures mustbe accompanied by others designed to preventComecon fleets from putting up a fierce and indeedruinous competition which, as Mr Fuchs rightlypoints out in his report, might weli makepointless what has already been done.

These precautionary measures are of two kinds : first,an additional protocol to the Mannheim Convention,which governs navigation of the Rhine, in order tosettle the legal aspects of the question, and second, a

system of annual quotas. In addition, it goes withoutsaying that steps must be taken to ensure that thecarriage of goods by inland-waterway can be carriedout at profitable rates, or at least at rates which coverthe costs.

In the social field, the Committee on Regional Policy,Regional Planning and Transport considers thataction would be desirable to protect the interests ofinland-waterway carriers who have suffered fromvarious measures to clean up the market.

As regards infrastructure, the inland-waterway networkin Europe is in need of improvement despite theefforts of recent years, particularly with regard to themain routes. According to the rapporteur, the realiza-tion of an up-to-date and adequate network requiresthe assistance of the Commission, in both its plan-ning and its financing.

As regards the financing, the Community's contribu-tion should be based on cost-benefit analyses and takeinto account the aid already granted by the nationalgovernments. A study should also be made of thepossibilities of Community aid for the purpose ofmodernizing the inland-waterway fleet, adapting it tothe present needs of the market and so rendering thistransport sector more competitive.

In paragraph 18 of the motion, Mr Fuchs recom-mends the setting up of a permanent advisory bodychaired by a Commission representative andcomposed of delegates from representative inland-wat-erway organizations, for the purpose of studying theproblems and proposing satisfactory solutions. In myview, this proposal merits absolute priority, because itwould undoubtedly make it possible to avoid strikeaction harmful to the inland-waterway sector itself.

It is also of great importance that the Commissionshould consult Switzerland and Austria before drawingup proposals in the inland-waterway sector.

These, Mr President, are the main suggestions andrecommendations made by Mr Fuchs on behalf of theCommittee on Regional Policy, Regional Planningand Transport with a view to improving the situationin the inland-waterways sector.

President. - I call Mr Jung to speak on behalf ofthe Liberal and Democratic Group.

Mr Jung. - (D) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen,the Liberal and Democratic Group welcomes andsupports the report submitted by Mr Fuchs onpossible measures to improve the situation in theinland-waterways sector. I do not propose to cover theentire report, only to pick out a few points containedin paragraphs 10, I I and 12 of the motion for a resolu-tion, which deal with the question of protecting lUestEuropean inland-waterway transport from the growingthreat presented by competition from the Easternbloc. I should like to say straight away that the fearsimplied here do not relate to all and any competitionbut to a particular sort of competition which, bymeans of unwholesome practices, may well threatenthe very existence of the Community's inland-wat-erway transport and hence necessitates the timelyadoption of appropriate measures. These indoubtedlyinclude a modification of the Mannheim Convention :

this I mentioned in committee, and Mr Fuchs hastaken it up. It should also be considered whether thefair treatment of Western navigation should not beassured by means of bilateral agreements.

A clear example of the dangers threatening !7est Euro-pean inland-waterway transport is offered by the situa-tion with regard to navigation on the Danube, where,although we have no wish to maintain a system ofstate subsidies - what we want is fair competitionunder equal conditions between the Community andComecon fleets - it is only thanks to currentsubsidies of this kind that the lfest can maintain itsPresence.

In its present form, the Mannheim Convention statesthat vessels of all nations are free to use the Rhine. Inmy view, there are two possible ways of getting roundthe difficulties I have referred to. First, free access tothe Rhine could be restricted to vessels of the Mann-heim Convention signatory states and possibly theother Member States of the Communiry. Secondly, allvessels using the Rhine, instead of being exempted,could be charged with the costs of maintaining naviga-tion on the Rhine - and here a number of measuresare indeed necessary - so that all were obliged to payfor the privilege of using the river installations andequality of treatment was thus ensured.

In the present circumstances, it would also be usefulto conclude bilateral transport agreements with the

Sitting of Friday, ll May 1979 27r

Ju.g

Comecon countries provided these were agreed tobeforehand by the Mannheim Convention signatorystates and the Member States of the European

Community. In reciprocal traffic, agreement must be

reached on the fair and equal distribution of cargoes

in terms of kilometretonnes, bearing in mind the rype

of cargo and the routes travelled. Controls could be

exercised by interest-groups in which \flest Europeaninland-waterway enterprises and Comecon shippingenterprises were represented. There must also be oblig-atory freight-rates capable of covering the costs oftransport: these could be proposed by the interest-group, after consultation with the carrier, and wouldthen be subject to approval and surveillance by thetransport authorities, as is the present practice in ourown inland-waterways system.

East-bloc vessels should not be allowed access eitherto national cabotage or to traffic berween West Euro-pean countries. There can also be no question ofadmitting them to traffic with third countries or tosubsequent cabotage.

Ladies and gentlemen, if I stress these things I do so

bearing always in mind that here competition based

on unwholesome practices is involved and that ifthese practices cannot be eliminated, then themeasures we have just proposed must be carried out.

One last point concerns the abuse of freedom of esta-

blishment. Here we must at all events prevent theComecon countries from getting round the provisionsoutlined in this report by setting up branches orsubsidiary companies in the transport sector. Vessels

which are registered in a \7est European country butbelong to a country of the Eastern bloc must be reck-oned as belonging to the Comecon fleet.

\7ith these remarks, I conclude. I have stressed allthese points yet again, because they are of decisive

importance for !flestern Europe's inland-waterwaytransport, particularly in view of the completion,planned for 1985, of the Rhine-Main-Danube Canal

and the appearance of Comecon fleets on the Rhineand other waterways of the European Community,which will automatically ensue.


Mr Albers. - (NL) Mr President, the inland-wat-erway sector continues to be beset by difficulties. Afterthe recent strike action, reports are once again to be

found in many sections of the press referring toserious differences and the danger of further diffi-culties. There are also a number of developments nowtaking place which merit attention. The 1975 agree-

ment on tanker traffic has collapsed. In answer to a

question I put to it, the Commission stated that thiswould have no further consequences for laying-upregulations and other measures which would have tobe taken; nonetheless, it does suggest a deteriorationin the situation in the inland-waterway sector. I asked

a question about an inquiry into the r6le of cargo-laden East German vessels which enter Communitywaters from the GDR to become part of the internaltraffic of the EC. The Commission replied that an

inquiry would be made into this matter, whichsurprises me, because I had thought that the marketobservation system had already been in operation forsome time and that such phenomena must already be

apparent from the data thus obtained.

Furthermore, rumours have been circulatingconcerning the introduction of vessels capable ofpushing six barges. In my view and that of the DutchMinister of Transport, 'Water Control and Construc-tion, their introduction might well have seriousconsequences in the employment field, not only forthe fleet but also for the shipyards. We must keep a

very close watch on developments of this kind in theCommunity.

In answer to questions I had put to him, the Secretaryof State for Transport, 'Sfater Control and Construc-tion replied that the current negotiations on a statu-tory arrangement for North-South traffic are takingplace completely outside the Commission. This situa-tion is much to be deplored, because the inland-wat-erway operators' organizations, whatever their differ-ences, however often they fail to agree, are united inthe European organization and demand a Europeansolution. Consequently, when rules and regulationsare drawn up without the collaboration of theCommission, it is to be feared that the arrangementsmade will go in the wrong direction.

It is an excellent report. Mr Fuchs has really done a

first-class job and I can only say that it shows exactlywhat is needed. The only minor shortcoming I candetect in the next - and I made the same commentpreviously on proposals for improving the situation inthe inland-waterway sector - is the fact that organiza-tions of forwarding agents and of carriers for ownaccount have received such little mention and are also

ignored in paragraph 18 of the resolution, concerningthe setting up of a permanent advisory body on inlandwaterways. (Unfortunately, an error has crept into theamendment I tabled inasmuch as it has been enteredunder paragraph 18.) The point is that these organiza-tions are disturbed by certain aspects of the resolution.More precisely, they take the view that where permitsare concerned, carriers for own account should be

exempt, and to support their view they refer to thepolicy followed with respect to road hauliers fallinginto the same category. The Commission document of13 February last contains a measure designed to safe-

guard capaciry, but for the purposes of carriers of ownaccount this measure would appear unnecessary : thevessels belonging to this sector cater exclusively forthe needs of the undertaking concerned and have nopart in the play and interplay of supply and demandon the market. I believe there is every reason to take a


Albers

closer look at this matter. I am not attacking the rele-vant paragraphs of the resolution, but I wish to see theorganizations of forwarding agents and carriers forown account given the opportunity by the committeesinvolved to express their concern and clearly state

what their difficulties are. The question revolves afterall around the market, in which these organizationsplay a large part. There are a number of other unsatis-factory points, but owing to lack of time I shall refrainfrom going into them further. I hope that this amend-ment will have Parliament's support.

Finally, I should like to comment on the littleprogress that is being made. The Commission has

made an excellent structural survey of the !7est Euro-pean inland-waterway sector.'We are now dealing withthe own-initiative report of Mr Fuchs, but we have

hardly seen any progress for a number of years. Thereference tariffs and working conditions set out in theCommission proposal of November 1975 have yieldedno results. Furthermore, it has become clear from thespeech made by the President-in-Office of theCouncil, Mr Le Theule, at the Council meeting heldin Rome on 20 February that activities are at presentfocused on the maritime shipping sector and impor-tant developments in that field and that practically noprogress is being recorded with respect to inland-wat-erway shipping. In this connection, I would refer onceagain to the Council work programme which resultedfrom the Commission communication of 24November 1977 and which should be completed in1980. I feel that the newly-elected Parliament mustget these matters clear and it will then realize what a

sorry state they are in, with good intentions expressedbut never put into effect. I just wanted to underlinethat point once again.

Mr Nyborg. - (DK) Mr President, I should like toask whether you intend to break off for lunch todayand if so, when, for it looks to me as if we shall be

here until about five o'clock.

President. - My Nyborg, I rely upon our colleagues,and I think we shall be able to finish at about 2 p.m.It seems to me preferable to carry on rather than tosuspend the sitting.

I call Mr Giolitti.

Mr Giolitti, lllenrber of tbe Commission. - (I) MrPresident, I wish to thank the Parliament for thisreport, which, apart from confirming the validity ofthe Commission's approach to this subject, willundoubtedly strengthen its position when defendingthe proposals that are due to be submitted in thissector. I am in a position to indicate that the Commis-sion will submit two proposals before the end of theyear, the first relating to a structural reform of themarket in the carriage of goods by waterway, and the

second concerning common standards for roads andwaterways, in ordsr to face the growing competitionfrom certain Eastern countries.

Finally, as regards the problem of access by certainthird countries to cabotage on the Rhine, we havesucceeded in persuading the Council to agree on thefollowing principles : first, that there should beequality of treatment for the fleets of all MemberStates - Italy, Denmark, Luxembourg and Ireland arenot signatories to the Mannheim Convention; second,that there will be no transfer of prerogatives to theCentral Commission for the Navigation of the Rhine ;

third, that a procedure will be introduced for adoptinga provisional arrangement by way of a decision of theCouncil pursuant to Article 75 of the Treaty. Commu-nity measures are under way and discussions are beingheld bet'ween the Commission, the Member States andSwitzerland, which obviously is also interested in theresolutions to be adopted.

President. - I note that no one else wishes to speak.The motion for a resolution, together with the amend-ment that has been moved, will be put to the vote atthe end of the sitting.


18. EEC-Comecon relations in the fieldof rnaritime shipping

President. - The next item is the report by MrJung, on behalf of the Committee on Regional Policy,Regional Planning and Transport, on the EEC's rela-tions with the Comecon countries in the field of mari-time shipping (Doc. 5l/79).

I call Mr Jung.

Mr Jung, ropporteur. - (D) Mr President, ladies andgentlemen, this report deals with much the sameproblems as that by Mr Fuchs. As I said before, we areconcerned not so much with the fact that third coun-tries, including, of course, the Comecon fleet, are pene-trating the market in the carriage of goods by inlandwaterway and, so far as my report is concerned, by seaas with the unwholesome practices that they adopt tothis end. This is why I welcome in my report, onbehalf of the committee, the establishment of an infor-mation system that will keep us up to date on theactivities of the merchant fleets of third countries,including not only the Comecon fleet. This will throwlight on these practices and show whether rhey aredamaging the maritime interests of Member Statesand undermining the basis for fair competition suchas I have iust described.

Information, however, is not enough : the institutionsof the Community must decide on measures that canbe taken as soon it is established that fair competition


Jrrg

is being undermined by unwholesome practices and

discrimination is taking place on a massive scale.

In addition to the existing consultation procedure,therefore, a Community policy on maritime shippingais-d-uis third countries must be made possible.

Accordingly, we call on the Council to decide as soon

as possible, in cooperation with the OECD countries,on the Community's position on the code of conductfor liner conferences elaborated some time ago by theUnited Nations. I further take the view that theCommunity's external actions will lose their credi-biliry and force if certain minimum conditions are notlaid down internally, i.e., in the maritime shippingand ports policy. Again, Community import and

export firms and organizations must be appealed to totake due account of the interests of Community trans-port undertakings when taking decisions in theirexternal trade transactions and, of course, to avoidaction running counter to what this Communityintends to enact or has already enacted in its regula-

tions. Finally, we take the view that the two-year obser-

vation period should not be allowed to expire withoutthe submission by the Commission of further ProPo-sals regarding a common maritime shipping policy.

I ask the Parliament to adopt this report, which was

unanimously approved by the committee.

President. - I call Mr Nyborg to speak on behalf ofthe Group of European Progressive Democrats.

Mr Nyborg. - (DK) Mr President, I should like tothank Mr Jung for his excellent report, whichconfirms the points we agreed on, especially our verydangerous present tendency to fall behind in the face

of competition from the Comecon countries. I regard

the two points as crucial. One is that the developmentof the Comecon merchant fleets is ruining our ownshipping industry, and the further we are pushed outof the market, the harder it will be to get back in. Mysecond point is the military significance of the vast

increase in the Comecon fleets, which on the one

hand provide a very good means of gathering intelli-gence, and on the other, can with very little alerationbe turned into well-armed warships. The matter musttherefore be taken very seriously, and it angers me tosee the Commission and the Council adopting such a

muted attitude to these problems. A vigorousapproach is required : it is not enough to monitorevents, that won't change anything' We are letting theComecon countries set themselves up on our territory,and they offer us no facilities in return. I don't wish tobore the House by cataloguing the various pointsagain, but would simply call on the Commission and

Council to take effective action rather than stand idlyby, looking on.


Mr Giolitti, hlember of the Connission. - (I) MrPresident, I shall confine myself to the following three

points. First, I wish to thank the Parliament for thisreport.'Second, in reply to Mr Nyborg, I wish to assure

the House that the Commission regards itself as

committed to taking a very seriotrs approach to thisproblem. Third, I wish to offer just one point of infor-mation concerning the notorious code of conduct forliner conferences elaborated by UNCTAD. Last

Tuesday, the Council approved a regulation on theratification of this code by the Member States, subjectto special agreements concerning primarily

^guarantee that the commercial character of liner trans-ports will be maintained under the OECD.

The Commission is gratified that it has provedpossible to reach a Community solution of thisproblem of the code in time for the UNCTADmeeting in Manila.



19. Directiae on plastic materials

President. - The next item is the report (Doc.23179) by Mr Brown, on behalf of the Committee onthe Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protec-tion, on


specific directive on the overall migration limit for theconstituents of plastic materials and articles intended tocome into contact with foodstuffs.

I call Mr Lamberts.

Mr Lamberts, deput! ralrporteur. - (NL) Mr Presi-dent, in view of the lack of interest in proceedings at

this time on a Friday, I should not normally haveneeded to speak on this subject on Mr Brown'sbehalf ; but as Mr Shaw has tabled eight amendments.I think it is worthwhile saying something. First of all,I am, of course, in agreement with what Mr Brown has

written, especially his point that it is absolutely essen-

tial to prevent the migration into foodstuffs of carcino-genic substances. He also points out that it was ratherillogical on the Commission's part to fix a higherlimit than that applicable in certain Member States.

I am reminded by Mr Shaw's amendments that last

week a person in the Netherlands Central Institute forFood Research was awarded a doctorate in 'the migra-tion of substances from packaging into foodstuffs'.According to this doctoral thesis, l0 mg is a sufficientquantity to cause cancer, whereas the figure adoptedhere is 50 mg. Attention is also drawn in this thesis tothe dangers of carcinogenic substances which migratefrom packaging into food. Various examples are given.


Lamberts

Now I have been wondering what might happen toMr Shaw if he were to make a visit to the Netherlandsand have breakfast there.

I have always had great admiration for the Englishbreakfast and no doubt he would enjoy our Dutchbreakfast too. However, he could quite easily he serveda plate of sausage. Now sausage used to be wrapped inguts, but is now usually wrapped in a monomersubstance. In the Dutch doctoral thesis I mentioned,it is explicitly stated that the packaging of, forexample, Saxon liver sausage contains an excessiveamount of carcinogenic substances. It is furtherdemonstrated that the small plastic container usuallyused for serving jam at restaurant breakfasts is prob-ably the type in which the amount of carcinogenicsubstances is the highest, owing to the relatively largesurface area and small content. So there, too, youwould be running a risk. Mr Shaw might then betempted by a rusk with peanut butter. However, 7 0/o

of the pots of peanut butter in the Netherlands areknown to contain aflatoxin B, one of the most carcino-genic substances known to man. Mr Shaw might alsolike a glass of milk. Milk, however, can also contain aflatoxin M, another highly carcinogenic substance. Hewould probably also like a little cheese. Perhaps helikes blue cheese. But cheese is now also suspect,because it contains certain microtoxins which arecarcinogenic. Mr Shaw would thus be consuming hisfifth carcinogenic substance. He might then eat a

piece of grilled fish. However, a highly carcinogenicsubstance appears on the surface of some kinds of fishwhen they are grilled. Mr Shaw would probably not beable to scrape it off. The same applies to grilled meat.If you grill a 200 g steak and then scrape it clean, 1

mg of this carcinogenic substance remains in it.

I hope Mr Shaw does not smoke, but if he does, hemay then light up a cigarette and will then, of course,absorb a condensate containing 40 different varietiesof carcinogenic substances. If he then chews a pieceof gum, the secretion of hydrochloric acid in thestomach is stimulated and this could eventually leadto stomach cancer.

Mr President, as you can see, living is a dangerousbusiness these days. Heart disease and vascular diseaseare the biggest killers in l7estern civilization butwithin a few years cancer will have overtaken them.!fle must therefore make every possible effort for theprecise reason that there is no threshold value. Everymolecule of a carcinogenic substance counts. Nowwhen these molecules come from different substancesthey have a synergetic effect. It cannot be said thatthere is a threshold value. It is necessary to preventany possibility of the migration of carcinogenicsubstances in materials used for food packaging.

The improvements to the text proposed by Mr Shaware acceptable. However, the general tone of hisamendments is at odds with the attitude taken by Mr

Brown and myself. To cut the discussion short, I caninform you here and now that as rapporteur I opposeall Mr Shw's amendments.

President. - I call Mr Shaw to speak on behalf ofthe European Conservative Group.

Mr Shaw. - Mr President, I have in the past alwaysenjoyed my visits to Holland, and I hope that MrLambert's words will not deter me from payingfurther visits to his delightful country. All I will say isthat those colleagues of his and indeed he himself,sitting there brown and healthy as could be, are notgood advertisements for the sad tone of his speech. Ofcourse, the truth is that we are all after the same thing,so let us not get involved in any differences on theoverall obiectives. The truth is, he has been brought inbecause those who should have been doing the jobhave unfortunately had to be elsewhere; I have beenbrought in because those of my group who had thechief interest had to be elsewhere, and we arepursuing the cases from our different points of view.

In fact, my group does welcome the desire of theCommission to strengthen the health-protectionmeasures for Community citizens - let there be nodoubt about that ; but frankly, and this has come fromat least two member countries, there is a belief thatthis proposal is intended to show that something isbeing done for consumers. That is to say, it is moreshow than reality. I know that is a harsh thing to say,but I am afraid the consumers are the 'in' thing.S7hilst we want to help them, for heaven's sake let usnot carry out legislation merely to show that we are allconsumer-minded. The ECG believes that measuresdesigned to safeguard health, whether related to thepacking of foodstuffs, safety in the work-place or inthe home, should be related to empirically or scientifi-cally determined criteria ; and we cannot accept thedirective in its present form, because the industries intwo Member States at any rate, that is to say Denmarkand the United Kingdom, consider the directive to betechnically faulry.

Apart from the reaction of industry to the directive,my group finds fault with the directive nor'with-standing the good intentions behind it. For example,foodsuffs are packed in a variety of materials in addi-tion to plastics, and it does seem rather pointless todeal with only one item rather than the variety ofpacking materials that are available and open to suspi-cion. For example, again, adhesive and soldering mate-rials have been omitted, and yet observation of theiruse in factories, in the workshop or in the householdreveals the often toxic measure of many adhesivecompounds used. By directing attention to one compo-nent of the market for packaging materials, themarket could be distorted, and indeed employmentitself could be affected. In addition, perhaps I ought tosay that we are well aware that three Member States


Shaw

have enacted legislation on the migration of mole-cules from package materials ; but we are notconvinced that the Commission has proved that thelegislation which this has produced in these threemember countries has resulted in creating barriers totrade. The Commission seeks to prevent unacceptablechanges to the composition of food, changes whichmight result from chemical action between the food-stuffs and the container. But, Mr President, such chem-ical action can only occur if certain chemical andphysical conditions are satisfied, and I do not believethat this directive sufficiently reflects the variables thatcan cause those chemical changes.

So, Mr President, as the directive stands it would resultin more expensive packaging costs, which would be

only retrieved ultimately in the price charged to theconsumer. So we put down a number of amendments,and I hope the House gives those amendmentssupport. I could speak about how we could progressby way of resear'ch and development programmes andso on, but time is very short, and I will not go intothose points this morning.


Mr Nyborg. - (DK) Mr President, I agree with MrShaw that Mr Lamberts pointed a gloomy picture. Ifwe look at the statistics - I know we should not, butif we do - we find that it is highly dangerous to drivea motor cycle, a little less dangerous to drive a car,

rather less dangerous than that to ride a bicycle andstill fairly dangerous to walk. Thus if we want to elimi-nate completely any of these risks incurred intravelling, the best thing to do would be to lie athome in bed all day and wait to die peacefully. Butthat is surely not the intention.

(Laugbter)

This report is important, concerning as it does theneed to ban the migration of substances thought to be

carcinogenic - not absolutely known to be, butthought to be. As is so frequently the case, it is a ques-tion here of striking a balance between the need forharmonization, the introduction of a ban and theutility of such a ban. The report itself seems to be

slightly unsure on this point. The best thing wouldtherefore be, as suggested in the proposed amendmentof paragraph 5, to await a proper investigation to ascer-

tain which substances are dangerous and should there-fore be banned, and which substances are harmlessand may thus be allowed to be transmitted. An investi-gation of this kind could result in the drawing up of a

positive list of innocuous substances.

Our primary objective must be to Protect theconsumer's health. But we should not forget that inthe last instance it is the consumer who has to pay theextra costs - in many cases perhaps unnecessaryextra costs - we impose on industry. !7hat if we

simply raise packaging costs without any guaranteedimproved health protection ? \7e should then be weak-ening our own position in the export markets, andhelping to increase unemployment. This cannot be

right. The fact that paragraph 7 in the motion for a

resolution states that it would be impossible to intro-duce the directive in certain Member States, and callsupon the Commission to exercise flexibility is an indi-cation that this proposal for a directive has perhpasbeen submitted a trifle prematurely. I therefore feelthat Mr Shaw's amendment calling on the Commis-sion to withdraw the proposal for a directive andsubmit a revised version makes sense, and my groupsupports his other amendments too.


Mr Giolitti, Mernber of tbe Cornmission. - (I) MrPresident, I rise merely to say that the Commissionagrees with the report and to add that the Commis-sion is prepared to reconsider the migration limit itproposes, although I must point out that a lowering ofthis limit is at first sight difficult. As for compiling a

precise list of monomers, the Commission shares therapporteur's view that this must be given prioriry. Thisis, in fact, the very consideration animating the workat present in progress in the appropriate services ofthe Commission. Finally, the Commission can assure

the rapporteur that it is indeed prepared to show theflexibility demanded of it in the practical applicationof the overall migration limit.

President. - I note that no-one else wishes to speak.

The motion for a resolution, together with the amend-ments that have been moved, will be put to the vote atthe end of the sitting.


20. Directiae on edible caseins and caseinates

President. - The next item is the report (Doc.83179) by Mr Lamberts, on behalf of the Committeeon the Environment, Public Health and ConsumerProtection, on


directive on the approximation of the laws of theMember States relating to edible caseins and caseinates.

I call Mr Lamberts.

Mr Lamberts, raP|orteur. - (NL) Mr Presidentthere is no need for a lengthy explanation of thisreport. During its discussion, a section on hygiene was

added specifying the conditions under which thestudy of these caseinates has to be carried out.

The section of the report on hygiene is badly outdated, as I said in committee, but the Commissionrepresentative replied that the whole system of milkproducts was undergoing review and that a new prop-osal would be made in the coming year. I drew atten-


Lamberts

tion to the old-fashioned nature of the method used,but there is no point in my doing so again. I do notthink this would make much impression on the fewpeople present at the moment. I shall therefore say nomore about that, in the hope that the Commissionwill raise this whole question of milk hygiene in thecoming year and that the new Parliament will showappropriate interest in the matter.



21. Directiue on protection againstionizing radiation

President. - The next item is the report (Doc.78179) by Lord Bethell, on behalf of the Committeeon the Environment, Public Health and ConsumerProtection, on


directive amending the Directive laying down the revisedbasic safety standards for the health protection of thegeneral public and workers against the dangers ofionizing radiation.

The rapporteur has informed me that he has nothingto add to his written report.

I note that no one else wishes to speak. The motionfor a resolution, as it stands, will be put to the vote atthe end of the sitting.


22. Enoironmental carcinogens

President. - The next item is the report by MrJahn, on behalf of the Committee on the Environ-men! Public Health and Consumer Protection, onenvironmental carcinogens (Doc. 99 /79).

I call Mr Jahn.

Mr Jahn, rapporteur. - (D) Mr President, ladies andgentlemen, I regret that this important report - Iconsider it one of the most important of the wholesession - should be dealt with at this time today, butsince doctors and politicians interested in healththroughout the Communiry are waiting for theopinion of this Parliament, we decided that it should,if possible, be put to the vote today.

I would, if I may, select a few points from this rathercomprehensive report on environmental carcinogens,since I assume that you are familiar with its content.

Our reasons for drawing up this report were derivedfrom the European Community's action programmesof 1973 and 1977 on the environment and the actionprogramme of. 1978 on safety and health at work.

These programmes provide, among other things, forpreventive and protective action in respect ofsubstances recognized as being carcinogenic, by fixingexposure-limits, sampling requirements, measuringmethods and satisfactory conditions of hygiene at theplace of work and by specifying prohibitions wherenecessary. !7e all agree that effective action to combatcancer can no longer be regarded as the sole responsi-bility of the Member States but must also be carriedout by the Community under its appropriate researchand action programmes. To this end, the Communityshould draw on the most recent advances in special-ized research, and close coordination is important inorder to ensure optimal use of the research resourcesavailable and prevent unnecessary duplication.

This report has been drawn up on the initiative of theCommittee of the Environment, Public Health andConsumer Protection with the aim of stepping up theimplementation of these Communiry programmes,with particular reference to cancer prevention, esta-blishing certain priorities and stimulating themeasures envisaged. In our view, the Communitymust earmark funds for general cancer research anduse them to maximum effect through close coopera-tion with the cancer research centres in the MemberStates and other international institutions.

It is very difficult - of this we were to provethat a particular substance can by itself producecancer or to indicate the extent to which it influencesand induces this disease. Often the combined effectsof various factors are present, so that the actual carci-nogenic agent is unknown. In this report, we havetherefore tried to avoid generalizations and apodicticstatements, for it is impossible to offer any final proofconcerning many of the factors leading to the emer-gence of cancer.

The fact that universally valid assessments are impos-sible does not, however, mean that we have tried tominimize the problem. On the contrary, we havetaken pains to indicate the dangers that certain toxicsubstances in the environment and certain forms ofhuman behaviour bring with them and which maylead to cancer. Especial caution is called for as soon as

suspicious symptoms make their appearance.

This report is largely based on the results of a hearingof highly qualified experts held in Brussels on 22 and23 May last year. I wish to take this opportunity tothank once more the ten experts from variousMember States of the Community for the specializedknowledge they had to offer, which, as you canimagine, was of the greatest value to us. In particular,we consulted them on the carcinogenic or possiblecarcinogenic effects of hydrocarbons, pesticides,asbestos dust, chemical additives to food, tobaccosmoke, pharmaceutical products, industrial dusts andsmoke and other harmful substances in the environ-


Jahn

ment. The European Parliament, as an institution, has

not yet become active in the general fight againstcancer; but many of its Members, including yourrapporteur, have, in the last ten years or so, drawnattention to the dangers of cancer in written questionsto both Commission and Council and called for appro-priate measures to be taken by the Community.

Now a few words on some specific measures whichwe commend to the Commission and the Council.Now that the tobacco and cigarette industry has of itsown accord imposed limits which in the last ten years

have led to a fifty-per-cent reduction in tar and nico-tine content, more must, in our view, be done in thisdirection. Our main demands are as follows:

l. The tobacco industry must supply products thatare as safe as possible in as much as their tar contentis progressively reduced. Research to this end mustalso be promoted.

2. Further and, I should like to say, more deter-mined campaigns of information on the possibledangers of smoking should be promoted stressing theadvantages of tobacco products with a low tar contentover those with a high tar content.

3. The younger generation above all must be

thoroughly informed about the dangers of smoking.

4. In conformity with existing practice, trains and

aircraft everywhere should be provided with compart-ments in which smoking is forbidden.

I hasten to conclude, and I will leave out a great dealof what I had to say. For the record, I would mentionthat my question No 1098/78 to the Commission has

been withdrawn, because in our report we have

devoted a gte t deal of attention to the dangers tohealth that come from smoking.

Ladies and gentlemen, we are aware that it would be

difficult to carry out all these measures immediately.!7e therefore recommend that the measures set out inour document be carried out step by step.

One final word. I wish to draw attention to the impor-tance of paragraph 5 of the motion for a resolution,which calls on the Commission to set up a permanentworking-party of highly qualified experts in the fieldof cancer research and cancer protection to advise theCommunity on all pertinent questions and, in parti-cular, to submit practical proposals for Communityregulations. Chronological toxicology and, in parti-cular, carcinogenesis, represent a special fieldinvolving so many specific problems that we endorsethe creation of this working-party at Communitylevel, which European experts themselves have askedfor. A further task of this body of experts would be toevaluate the numerous research projects that are nowin progress in the Community in the field of cancer

Prevention.


Mr Nyborg. - (DK) It would be a shame to let Mr

Jahn's excellent report on this important topic pass

without comment. I should first like to make it clearthat my group supports Mr Jahn's report, and I shouldlike to make a few points in this connection. One isthat, as Mr Jahn says in paragraph 4 of the motion fora resolution, we should aim at close coordination inorder to ensure optimal use of the research resourcesavailable and prevent unnecessary duplication.

It is also worth mentioning - and this very point was

made a few moments ago - that the actual carcino-genic agents are largely unknown. That is whyresearch is so necessary, as the report points out.Finally, it is a known fact that tobacco smoke isharmful and in many cases carcinogenic, which is

probably primarily due to its tar content. Although Iam myself a smoker, I feel that non-smokers who donot wish to inhale tobacco-smoke should be enabledto avoid doing so.

President. - I call Mr Lamberts.

Mr Lamberts. - NL) Mr President, I should like tobegin by expressing my great admiration for the initia-tive taken by Mr Jahn and his grasp of the subject andalso for the comprehensive way this difficult questionhas been dealt with in his report.

This report has in fact become a sort of textbook. It isconcise, yet at the same time contains the same infor-mation as the world's great textbooks on the subject.Every shade of contemporary opinion is covered in it.Obviously it would have been going,too far to dealwith every single point, but this report is an extremelyimportant one for Europe's 250 million citizens.Indeed, in my view, it is the most important report wehave considered this week, although little interest isnow being shown in it ! It is important for health, inrelation to sickness and death, especially of the youngpeople in our Community. According to present esti-mates, about 15o/o of. all cancers are caused by radia-tion and about 5 0/o by contact with carcinogenicsubstances in industry, i. e., at the workplace. Impor-tant examples of such substances are polyvinyl chlo-ride and asbestos. However, about 80 o/o of all cancersare caused by environmental factors. By that I meansmoking, eating and drinking, and the fact that mostEuropeans come into everyday contact with all thecarcinogenic substances with which we have beenplagued since the chemical revolution in the last 25years.

Young people will as a result be threatenedthroughout their lives unless we take effectivemeasures to protect them.


Lamberts

The rise in heart and vascular disease now seems to belevelling out. In the foreseeable future, cancer willhave become the worst killer of all unless we takemeasures which will encounter fierce resistance.Smoking is the worst scourge, being responsible for30 o/o oL cancer cases. The measures recommended byMr Jahn will have to be applied and we shall have tofind methods of protecting young people againstaddiction to smoking. Our l7estern eating-habits,such as the eating of a lot of fat and too much meatand the consumption of unnecessary additives, couldtheoretically easily be altered if people were properlyinformed, but in practice we humans tend to preferwhat is bad for us. Our educational methods must be

improved by better psychological and psychiatricinsights. The Community must launch major researchin this area, with the involvement of, and coordinationbetween, all branches of science. Last March, Iexplained this in a Z0-page rply to Mr Vredeling. I donot want to repeat that today, but what I said mightbe compared with the Framingham study in America,which has had such a great influence on heart andvascular diseases. We must combat, for instance, thebarbecuing and the grilling of meat and fish.'S7e mustreject unacceptable mould in peanuts and peanutbutter and carcinogenic microtoxins. This will be diffi-cult, but we must make it clear to young people inparticular that modern sun-bathing is also dangerous.'We must put a stop to the steadily increasing anddangerous consumption of alcohol, particularly strongdrinks.

In short, we must make our whole way of life heal-thier. The danger of nitrosamines is increasing daily,particularly as we are saturating our environment withnitrates.

!7e must spend more money on cancer research, andon research into carcinogens, pro-carcinogens, promo-tors and also the anti-carcinogenic substances, such as

retinoin. An example of these is Vitamin A, which is

anti-carcinogenic. There may be other such substancesin our environment and in our diet. !7e must there-fore carry out a study in this area to assist the fightagainst cancer. Vitamin C, too, can protect us againstcancer to a certain extent.

In addition, we must ban all the carcinogenicsubstances poured out into our environment byindustry. The emission of these carcinogenicsubstances, particularly in water which then has to beused by other people as drinking-water, must bebanned ! !7e shall have an opportunity in Europe ofbanning this at another level.

American legislation in this area is still capable ofimprovement, but even as it stands it would be worthour adopting it. According to US law, a guaranteemust first be given that a substance is not carcino-genic and then it has to be registered 90 days inadvance.

Cancer is an enormous threat for our whole Commu-nity, Mr President. You and I probably spent 40 yearsof our lives in a completely healthy environment. Notuntil the last 20 or 25 years hap this immense threatemerged ; but our children haib been living underthis threat since the day they were born. In theNetherlands, babies are well fed, but their diet is nowbeing challenged by scientists who claim it is carcino-genic. This is just one example. We must thereforetake some definite steps to free ourselves of thismenace.

In conclusion, I would repeat my sincere thanks to MrJahn for his intiative in drawing up this excellentrePort.


Mr Giolitti, lllember of tbe Commission. - (I) MrPresident, I wish to convey the Commission's agree-ment with the report. I would remind you that inMarch the Commission sent to the Council a proposalfor a directive on the protection of workers against thedangers resulting from harmful exposure to chemical,physical and biological agents at the place of workand that the European Parliament has been asked forits opinion.

One remark concerning paragraph 5. The Commis-sion considers the setting up of a working-party oncancer prevention to be inopportune. It already has a

number of scientific advisory committees concernedwith foodstuffs, pesticides, cosmetics and feeding-stuffs, and each of them, within its terms of reference,has submitted an opinion on carcinogenic substances.The latest of these scientific advisory committees tobe set up, that instituted by the Commission in June1978 to study the toxicity and ecotoxicity of chemicalcompounds, will be able to cover those carcinogenicagents not specifically dealt with by the other commit-tees.

President. - I note that no-one else wishes to speak.The motion for a resolution, as it stands, will be put tothe vote at the end of the sitting.


23. Promotion of contacts between tbecitizens of tbe Community

President. - The next item is the report, withoutdebate, by Mr Van der Gun, on behalf of theCommittee on Social Affairs, Employment and Educa-tion, on actions in the educational field specifically topromote contacts between the citizens of the Commu-nity (Doc. 149179).




24. Decision on tbe quality and nutritiueaalue of food

President. - The next item is the report (Doc.89179), without debate, by Mr Nod, on behalf of theCommittee on the Environment, Public Health andConsumer Protection, on


decision adopting a concerted action proiect of the Euro-pean Economic Communiry on the effects of thermalprocessing and distribution on the quality and nutritivevalue o( food.



25. Dire.ctiue on fresb poultry-meat

President. - The next item is the report (Doc.86179), without debate, by Mr Lamberts, on behalf ofthe Committee on the Envirnment, Public Health andConsumer Protection, on


directive amending, in respect of chilling, DirectiveTllllSlEEC on health problems affecting trade in freshpoultry-meat.



26. Regulations on social security

President. - The next item is the report (Doc.1481791, without debate, by Mr Pisoni, on behalf ofthe Committee on Social Affairs, Employment andEducation, on

the proposals from the Commission to the Council for

I. a amending amending Council Regulations (EEC)Nos 1408/71 md 574172 on the application of socialsecuriry schemes to employed persons and their fami-lies moving within the Community, and

II. a regulation amending the Annexes to Regulations(EEC) Nos 1408171 and 574172 on the application ofsocial security schemes to employed persons andtheir families moving within the Community.



27. Teacbing of languages in tbe Community

President. - The next item is the oral questionwithout debate (Doc. 159179) by Mr Mascagni, MrMasullo, Mr Pistillo, Mr Spinelli and Mrs Squarcialupito the Commission, on the teaching of languages inthe Community countries by persons specially trainedto teach their native language:

The teaching and leaming of the most widely spokenlanguages in the Community Member States are of deci-

sive importance to the process of integration, which, inaddition to the economic and political factors involved,calls for the establishment of far closer relations throughthe expansion of areas of common knowledge andmutual understanding and improved contacts betweendifferent cultural groups.

l. Vould the Commission not agree that, in the teachingand learning of languages, far more progress would beachieved by using the services of persons who arespecially trained to teach their native language andalso possess a good knowledge of the language of thecountries in which they are employed (eg., theteaching of English in France by English teachers whohave an adequate knowlege of French, the teaching ofGerman in Italy by German teachers who have an

adequate knowledge of ltalian, etc) ?

2. Does the Commission think that such a radically newscheme, worked out at Community level, subsequentlydiscussed and approved by the individual MemberStates and then reconsidered and finalized by theresponsible Communiry bodies, could be progressivelyimplemented and, if so, what kind of appropriateaction would it be able to take ?

3. !7ould the Commission not agree that, given the fore-seeable objective and subiective difficulties of such a

scheme, it should initially be introduced on c trialbasis and with a view to stimulating the interest of theteachers concerned so that, once adequate experiencehas been gained, the requirements can be more realisti-cally assessed ?

4. Does the Commission not think that" with the agree-ment of Parliament and on the basis of a suitablepreparatory document, the Member States should beconsulted on this matter ?

5. In the Commission's view, what steps could be takenin the near future to encourage the employment ofthe abovementioned teachers in those regions inwhich the population is made up of different ethnicand linguistic groups and in which, as is well known,the linguistic barriers to mutual understanding aremost acute and have to be overcome in the interests ofpeaceful and fruitful co-existence ?

I call Mrs Squarcialupi.

Mrs Squarcialupi. -

(D Mr President, it is withgreat emotion that I rise to speak on the last item onthe agenda of the last sitting of this Parliament beforeit is directly elected.

The subject of language-teaching in the countries ofthe Community concerns one of the principal meansof communication among our peoples and ofdefending our cultures. If we want the principallanguages in our Community to be really used, theconditions under which they are taught and learnedmust be different from those adopted so far. Theteaching, of a foreign language by persons whosemother tongue is not that language, even though theyhave rhe very best knowledge of that language, cannotgive satisfactory results. One only has to think ofItalian teachers of English or French who use Italianwhen speaking to their pupils: under such conditions,


Squarcialupi

the knowledge of the foreign language acquired is scar-cely enough to 'get by' when travelling abroad.

The Community requires its citizens to have a muchdeeper knowledge of languages, since these are tobecome an instrument of day-to-day communicationand a means of promoting integration and culturalexchanges.

Of course, the teaching of languages by persons whosemother tongue is the language being taught is the firstrequirement, but apart from this these teachers musthave an adequate pedagogical training and generalculture and must have completed a course of trainingin psycho-linguistics. It is obvious that the achieve-ment of this aim will be neither easy nor rapid, andfor this reason we must set about it in good time.

S7hat are the prospects for the present teachers offoreign languages ? As far as possible, they will be

expected to teach their mother tongue in the countrywhose language they have studied. Of course, therewill be problems : for example, Italian teachers ofEnglish or German are unlikely to be called upon toteach Italian in Great Britain or Germany. On theother hand, yesterday's issue of Le Monde was sayingthat the teaching of Italian is to be continued inFrance.

It will therefore be a matter of gradually adaptingthese teachers to new conditions while, of course,respecting the rights they have acquired. It shouldalso be borne in mind that the development of theCommunity will in time create other possibilities foremploying these teachers.

I will conclude by referring to the regions inhabitedby national minorities. In the case of ltaly, the lawrequires that in Alto Adige the second language -Italian in the case of Germans and German in thecase of Italians - shall be taught by persons forwhom this language is their mother tongue.

There are nevertheless considerable difficulties,because teachers of German in Italian-languageschools are too few to fill the need. On the otherhand, the rights must be respected of those Italianteachers who are still teaching German. It will there-fore be necessary to organize adult training coursesand work for the gradual replacement of theseteachers within the general framework to which wehave referred.

In the hope, Mr President, that the teaching oflanguages will prove one of the instruments for peace,understanding and European integration, I concludethis, the last speech to be delivered by a member ofthe European Parliament in the phase preceding itsdirect elections, by wishing you, Mr President, theCommissioners and all my colleagues in the new,directly-elected Parliament, success in your work forthe common good of our citizens.


Mr Giolitti, .tuIember of tbe Commission. - (I) MrPresident, the teaching of languages in the Commu-

nity is, for the Commission, one of the most impor-tant programmes in the field of education. TheCommission's proposals in this field, having beenwelcomed by the Padiament, have been submitted bythe Education Committee.

The importance of the contribution that personsteaching their mother tongue can make in ihis sectoris recognized by the Commission, whicfr proposes tomake it easier to exploit this contribution, either byincreasing exchanges of foreign-language a.ssistants

and teachers during their initial period of training, orby introducing a programme for the exchange offoreign-language teachers after they have qualified.The proposal for this latter programme was originallydrawn up on the basis of considerations similar tothose put forward by the honourable Member. In parti-cular, the Commission proposed exchanges of longerduration - from 3 to 5 years - which were to becounted as periods of further training. On suchexchanges, however, the Education Committee failedto reach agreement, while the possibility of short-termexchanges was given a more favourable reception.

Another way of encouraging the teaching of languagesby persons for whom these languages are their mothertongue would, in the Commission's view, be toincrease the number of multilingual educational insti-tutions, particularly in those areas of the Communitywhich present certain characteristics features - infrontier areas, for example, or wherever differentlinguistic groups live together.

Finally, I wish to point out to the honourableMembers that their suggestion cannot be carried outon the basis of exchanges pure and simple but ratherpresupposes implementation of the principle of thefree movement of teachers - a principle that is stillfar from being accepted in practice. On this lattersubiect, the Commission has, however, initiatedconsultations with the Member States on the questionof achieving recognition of teachers'qualifications inthe Communiry.

These proposals were drawn up by the Commissionafter extensive consultations with educational expertsfrom all the member countries. They are now beingdiscussed by the Education Committee, whichembraces representatives of all the Member States.The Commission hopes that a first series of measureswill be adopted by the Council of Ministers of Educa-tion in the course of this year.

Finally, Mr President, may I associate myself, bothpersonally and on the Commission's behalf, with thewishes expressed a moment ago by Mrs Squarcialupi.

President. - This item is closed.

28. Votes

President. - The next item is the vote on thosemotions for resolutions on which the debate is closed.


President

I put to the vote the Glinne motion for a resolution(Doc. 158/79): Trial of hlr J. Sabata.


President. - I put to the vote the motion for a reso-lution contained in the lYalker-Smitb report (Doc.29/79): Appointment of a Communitl 0mbudsman.


President. - !7e proceed to the Sbau report (Doc.173/79): Directioe on tbe auditing of accounts oflitnited liabiliry companies.'S(e must first considerthe amendments to the proposal for a directive.

On Article 2 (2), subparagraph (a), second indenr, Ihave Amendment No 3, tabled by Mr Shaw andrewording this indent as follows :

- that such persons shall not hold a majoriry of thecapital of such professional companies or associations

(34 words deleted)

I put Amendment No 3 to the vote. Amendment No3 is adopted.

On Article 4 (1), I have Amendment No 5, tabled byMr de Gaay Fortman and wording this paragraph as

follows:l. A natural person may be approved to carry out the

activities referred to in Article I only after havingattained university entrance level, followed a

programme of professional education and training andpassed an examination of professional competence atgraduate or an equivalent level of training which isorganized or recognized by the State.

N7hat is the rapporteur's view ?

Mr Shaw, rapporteur. - Mr President, I would liketo retain the English text, but as I understand this isan exact translation from the Dutch, then so long as

that is put into the Dutch text I think we are allagreed.

!flhether that is a formal rejection or acceptance I amnot sure, but that is the way I would like it.



On Article 5 (3), I have Amendment No l, tabled byMr Broeksz and rewording this paragraph as follows :

3. The test of practical knowledge referred to in Article 4shall take place after a minimum of 3 years' practicaltraining with an auditor approved pursuant to thisDirective and involving principally the audit of finan-cial accounts;


Mr Shaw, raPporteur. - I cannot accept this. Ithink, in fact, it is a question again of the Dutch trans-lation. I must be quite safe on this, because the fact isthat the words I use are exactly the same as the onesused throughout the rest of the directive and we mustkeep the same words throughout. I think it is a matterof translation, as was explained earlier this morning,but to ensure that fact, whilst we can look at theDutch translation, which we promised to do, I thinkwe must keep to the original text ; so I am against it.



On Article 11 (l), I have Amendment No 2, tabled byMr Broeksz and adding the following to this para-graph:

This provision shall not apply to auditors in the servicesof the public authorities with respect to their employers ;


Mr Shaw, rapporteur. - Mr President, you will recallthat I did try and explain the problem. I am against it,the Commission is against it, but the Commission haspromised to look at the whole matter again in thelight of particular circumstances that might exist inHolland. So my view is that we must say no, and keepto the original text.



!fle shall now consider the motion for a resolution.

I put the preamble and paragraphs 1 and 2 to thevote.

The preamble and paragraphs I and 2 are adopted.

On paragraph 3, I have Amendment No 4lcon.,tabled by Mr Sieglerschmidt on behalf of the SocialistGroup and deleting this paragraph.

\7hat is the rapporteur's view ?

Mr Shaw, rapporteur. - As I understood it, theobjection was that it was unusual and unnecessary toinclude this paragraph. However, there are strong feel-ings in certain countries that misunderstandingsmight arise if it were not included, so although thereare objections to it as being unnecessary, it can haveno harmful effect I think, on balance, it is better tokeep it there, so I am against the amendment.

President. - I put Amendment No 4/corr. to thevote.

Amendment No 4/corr. is rejected.




Paragraphs 4 to 18 are adopted.I OJ C 140 of 5. 6.1979.


President



President. - I put to the vote the motion for a reso-lution contained in the Sbaw report (Doc. 165/79):Carry-ooer of appropriations from tbe 1978 to tbe1979 financial yar.The resolution is adopted. I

President. - I put to the vote the motion for a reso-lution contained in the Sandri report (Doc. 75/79):Reneraal of tbe trade agreement witb Uruguay


,+

l+

President. - I put to the vote the motion for a reso-lution contained in the Baas report (Doc. 77/79):EEC-ASEAN trade and economic relations.


President. - I put to the vote the motion for a reso-lution contained in the Kaspereit report (Doc.131/79): Regulation on tablegrapes from Clprus


President. - I put to the vote motion for a resolu-tion contained in the Conie report (Doc. 113/79):Peipberal coastal regions of tbe Community.


President. - !7e proceed to the motion for a resolu-tion contained in the Scblns report (Doc. 678/78):Transport of passengers and goods b1 road.



On paragraph l, I have Amendment No l, tabled byMr Albers and rewording this paragraph as follows :

1. Strongly deplores the fact that 20 years after the esta-blishment of the European Community and two years

after the creation of the customs union . . . (remainderunchanged);







I put the introductory phrase of paragraph 7 to thevote.

The introductory phrase of paragraph 7 is adopted.

On paragraph 7(a), I have Amendment No 2, tabledby Mr Albers and amending this paragraph as follows :

(a) providing for closer cooperation among the nationalcustoms and control authorities and between theseauthorities and the appropriate services of theCommuniry, with priority given to the mutual recog-nition of certificates and checks, and exemptingyoung people travelling in groups in the context ofsmall-scale trans-frontier traffic from the obligation tocafry a PassPort;



I put subparagraphs p) to (h) to the vote.

Subparagraphs (b) to (h) of paragraph 7 are adopted.



Since Mr Albers has withdrawn Amendment No 3 toparagraph 17, I put paragraph 17 to the vote.


I put paragraphs 18 and 19 to the vote.

Paragraps 18 and 19 are adopted.


whole to the vote.


President. - !7e proceed to the motion for a resolu-tion contained in the Fucbs report (Doc. 146/79):Itnprooing the situation in tbe inland-waterwaysector.

, OJ C 140 of 5. 6.1979.

Sitting of Friday, ll May t979 283

President


The preamble and paragraphs I to 17 are adopted. Onparagraph 18, I have Amendment No l, tabled by MrAlbers and inserting, after the words 'representativeinland-waterway organizations', the words'organiza-tions of forwarding agents and of carriers for ownaccount',



I put paragraphs 19 to 2l to the vote.

Paragraphs 19 to 2l are adopted.


whole to the vote.


a,

President. - I put to the vote the motion for a reso-lution contained in the Jung report (Doc. 51/79) :EEC-CO/YIECON relations in tbe field of rnaritirnesbipping.


President. - !(e now proceed to the motion for a

resolution contained in the Brown report (Doc.23/79): Directiue on plastic nraterials.

I put the preamble and paragraph I to the vote. Thepreamble and paragraph I are adopted. On paragraph2, I have Amendment No l, tabled by Mr Shaw onbehalf of the European Conservative Group andreplacing this paragraph by the following :

2. Believing that most packaging materials for food-stuffs are hygienic and safe, accepts that migration ofconstituents of some plastic materials and articles whenin contact with some types of foodstuff, in certain chem-ical and physical conditions, may react rn such a way as

to cause a risk to the health of the consumer ;

What is the rapporteur's view ?

Mr Lamberts, deputy rapporteur. - (NL) Mr Presi-dent, Mr Brown and I are opposed to all the amend-ments, and I would point out that in committee MrBrown's proposal was adopted almost unanimously.These amendments would vitiate the whole report,and I am therefore opposed to them on principle.



On paragraph 3, I have Amendment No 2, tabled byMr Shaw on behalf of the European ConservativeGroup and replacing this paragraph by the following:

3. Calls on the Commission to examine, as soon as

possible, the criteria governing standards for packaging offoodstuffs in each Member State and to consult MemberStates within the Standing Committee for Foodstuffs, inorder to define appropriate standards for the protection ofhealth ;



On paragraph 4, I have Amendment No 3, tabled byMr Shaw on behalf of the European ConservativeGroup and replacing this paragraph by the following :

4. Given that simulational tests do not always corres-pond to the real health risks, stresses the need for empir-ical determination of standards for packaging materials inconjunction with the rype of foodstuff with which thesematerials are intended to come into contact ;



On paragraph 5, I have Amendment No 4, tabled byMr Shaw on behalf of the European ConservativeGroup and adding the following to this paragraph:

. . . after manufacturers of packaging materials and manu-facturers of foodstuffs who are the users of these materialshave been consulted ;



I put paragraph 5, thus amended, to the vote.

Paragraph 5, thus amended, is adopted.

On paragraph 6, I have Amendment No 5, tabled byMr Shaw on behalf of the European ConservativeGroup and replacing this paragraph by the following :

6. Calls on the Commission to elaborate as a matter ofpriority, in consultation with manufacturers of packagingmaterials and manufacturers of foodstuffs, a list of mate-rials which are safe and compatible containers for eachtype of foodstuff, specifying the composition limits foreach constituent of the material listed ;



On paragraph 7,1have Amendment No 5, tabled byMr Shaw on behalf of the European ConservtiveGroup and rewording this paragraph as follows :

7. Notes that in the absence of such a list the immed-iate implementation of this directive may be difficult forboth legal and practical reasons and calls upon theCommission to examine a possible framework of aresearch and development programme on loodstuff pack-aging materials in order to establish a scientific basis fora directive.




After paragraphT,l have Amendment No 7, tabled byMr Shaw on behalf of the European Conservative

Group and adding the following new paragraph :

7a. Calls on the Commission to withdraw the proposalfor a directive contained in Doc. 173/78 and to submit a

revised proposal for a directive;




whole to the vote.



lution contained in the Lamberts report (Doc. 83/79):Directiae on edible caseins and caseinates.

The resolution is adopted r.


lution contained in the Bethell report (Doc. 78/79):Directiae on protection against ionizing radiation.



lution contained in the Jabn report (Doc' 99/79):Enui ronmen t a I carcin o gens.


President. - I put to the vote the motion for a reso-lution contained in the Van der Gun report (Doc149/79): Promotion of contacts betuteen tbe citizens oftbe CommunityThe resolution is adopted. I


lution contained in the Noi report (Doc. 89/79): Deci'sion on tbe quality and nutritioe aalue of food.The resolution is adopted. I

President. - I put to the vote the motion for a reso-lution contained in the Lamberts report (Doc. 85/79):Directiue on fresb poultry-meat.



lution contained in the Pisoni report(Doc. 148/79): Regulations on social security.


29. Adjournment of tbe session

President, - There are no other items on theagenda. I thank the representatives of both Counciland Commission for their contributions to ourdebates.

This part-session is the last before the elections bydirect universal suffrage.

I remind the House that, pursuant to the Actconcerning the direct election of its Members, theParliament will meet, without requiring to be

convened, on the first Tuesday following the expiry ofon interval of one month from the end of the periodreferred to in Article 9 (l) of this Act, that is to say, onTuesday, 17 July 1979. This meeting will take placein Strasbourg.

30. Approaal of tbe minutes

President. - Rule 17 (2) of the Rules of Procedurerequires me to lay before Parliament, for its approval,the minutes of proceedings of this sitting, which werewritten during the debates.

Are there any comments ?

The minutes of proceedinp are approved.

I call Mr Nyborg.

Mr Nyborg. - (DK) Mr President, as you are nowabout to close the sitting, I should like to thank you,for myself and on behalf of most of those Memberswho have regularly attended the Friday club, for yourefficient and friendly chairmanship of these sittings.Thank you, Mr President.

(Applause)

' OJ C 140 of 5. 6. t979.


President. - I thank you Mr Nyborg, for your kindremarks.

Ladies and gentlemen, I have no wish to prolongunduly this sitting, which has gone on for five hours,but I should like to say a few words.

Last l7ednesday, President Colombo, Mr Bernard-Reymond, Mr Jenkins and Mr Thorn conveyed to thisAssembly and to its Members messages stressing ourr6le and our achievements in the construction ofEurope. Our thanks were duly conveyed to theCommission and to the Council. There is therefore noneed for me now to attempt a review of what we havedone.

As Friday's habitual occupant of the Chair, I would,however, if I may, extend the messages that wereconveyed to us on the much more solemn occasion ofl7ednesday's sitting to all the members of the Secreta-riat, including the secretariats of the political groups,who, I believe, have been indispensable to us in ourwork. It is only thanks to their devotion and under-standing that we have been able to bring to a

successful conclusion such a long and heavily-loadedagenda as the one we have just completed in thischamber - where, incidentally, we are meeting forthe last time. At the end of this, the last part-sessionof this Parliament, I wish, on behalf of the Presidency,

to convey to them all our gratitude for their work andtheir support.

You will appreciate that I am referring in particular toall those who have assisted us during sittings that havebeen prolonged and on occasion difficult: the high-ranking officials sitting beside me here, the interpre-ters and translators, the staff of the minutes and thereport of proceedinp, and all those who have assuredthe availability, often at very short notice, of the docu-ments necessary for our work, the messengers andtechnicians, the security service - and, of course, thestaff running the bar !

I shall always have - as, I think, all of you will - themost favourable recollection of the work done by thisSecretariat and of its contribution to the constructionof Europe.

Ladies and gentlemen, if we apply to the EuropeanParliament the call, "The King is dead, long live theKing !' we realize that the sadness of leaving behindsomething that belongs to the past and to the presentconceals an immense hope for the future.

In this spirit and with a full heart, I declare thesession of the European Parliament adjourned.


Qhe sining closed at 2.05 p.m)

Contents (continued) limited liability companies, p.259 - Carry-over of appropriations, p. 263 -Tradeagreement with Uruguay, p. 263 - EEC-ASEAN relations, p. 264 - Table-grapes

from Cyprus, p. 254 - Peripheral coastal regions, p. 264 - Transport by road, p.264 - Inland waterways, p.269 - EEC-COMECON relations in maritime ship-ping, p. 272 - Plastic materials p. 273 - Edible caseins and caseinates, p. 275 -Ionizing radiation, p. 276 - Environmental carciogens, p. 276 - Contactsbetween citizens, p. 278 - Quality and nutritive value of food, p. 279 - Freshpoultry-meat, p.279 - Social security, p.279 - Language-teaching, p. 279 -Votes, p. 280 - Adjournment, p. 284 - Minutes, p. 284.

Price Nether-lands

Othercountnes

Annual subscription1979-1980Single copies:up to 32 pages

up to 80 pa8€s

more than 80 pages: price set accordingly in each case and

Prices do not include postage.

83,-

2,40

4,80

re.7o lr

2oo,-l zro,-l ze,-

o* | ,r,-l 5,70 | z,zs

l.2o I 70,-l ll,4o | 4,50ttt169,50

4,70

9,40

32 100

830

t 660

l 200,-

35,-70,-

shown on cover.

Debates of the European Parliament, published as an annex to the Official Joumal of the European

Communities, comprises :

- report of proceedings,

- annual indexes.

Sales Annual subscriptions run from March, the beginning of the Parliamentary Year, until February.

Orders may be placed with the Secretariat of the European Parliament or the Office for Official Publi-

cations of the European Communities.

Payments to be made only to this Office.

Secrctariat of dre Europeen Perliament

Centre euroP6en

Plateau du Kirchberg

Boite postale l50l - Luxembourg

Office (or Oflicial Publicetions of tfie Europeen Communities

Boite postale 1003 - Luxembourgand 5, rue du Commerce - Luxembourg

Postal cheque account: 19 190-81

Bank current account: B.I.L. 8-109/6003/300

Price: UKL 6.00

OFFICE FOB OFFICIAL PUBLICATJONS

OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

rssN 0378-5041

Catalogue number : AX-AA-79-006-EN-CBofte postale 1OO3 - Luxembourg

OfficiaUournal - Archive of European Integration

Documents

Transcript of OfficiaUournal - Archive of European Integration