Strasbourg, 16/11/2006 (Agence Europe) - On 14 November, the European Commission's 2007 work programme was the topic for a wide ranging debate, the conclusions of which will be drawn together in a resolution on which the Parliament will vote in December (for Mr Barroso's statement and the positions of the political groups, see EUROPE 9306). “We want to deliver,” said European Commission Vice-President Margot Wallström after the debate, and she gave assurances that account would be taken of Parliament's wishes.
The Commission programme failed to convince all the MEPs during the 14 November debate, and it was to be expected that highly critical voices would be raised from some quarters of the chamber. Many Member States do not want more Europe, exclaimed Swedish Independence and Democracy MEP Nils Lundgren, criticising the Commission's “political activism”. British Conservative Roger Helmer fiercely attacked the excessive costs of European bureaucracy (using Günter Verheugen's statements as support). Other criticisms were more concrete. British labour MEP Stephen Hughes regretted that the social union “is at a standstill”: the last legislative act in this area was passed three years ago. And Elizabeth Lynne (ALDE, UK) argued for the removal of superfluous legislation, particularly in the areas of labour, health and security. The chairwoman of the economic and monetary committee, French Socialist Pervenche Berès was in favour of the ecology-energy partnership, but called for it to be granted the budgetary and tax means necessary. She warned that work would have to begin immediately on the review of the financial perspective. Enrique Baron, who belongs to the same group, would like to know more on how the Doha negotiations were to be conducted, since this would have a direct influence in European policy. Another deficit was raised by German Social Democrat Evelyne Gebhardt: consumer protection was to be part of the remit of one of the new Commissioners (the Bulgarian Commissioner: Ed.), but no mention was made in the programme of this policy, which was dear to citizens.
Considerable criticism was also directed at the Commission on the issue of cohesion. The objectives were very good, said French MEP Jean-Marie Beaupuy (ALDE), but the question everyone wanted answered was how the Commission was going to reach them. The idea of having impact studies was a good one, in the opinion of British Conservative John Bowis, stressing that they had to be fully independent. Finnish Socialist Reino Paasilinna wanted to see a European solidarity barometer, which would allow comparisons between countries.
As for justice and internal affairs, French Socialist Martine Roure said she was in favour of severe sanctions against employers who exploited illegal workers, treating them sometimes as slaves (she said MEPs had visited Puglia and seen it at first hand, but that it was a problem throughout the EU). Two Dutch MEPs Sophia in't Veld (ALDE) and Kathalijne Buitenweg (Greens/EFA) were very strong in their condemnation of the lack of action against discrimination based on religion or sexual preference. Within the GUE/NGL group, Italian Giusto Catania and Greek Kyriacos Tryantaphyllides condemned the prohibitionist stance taken towards immigration by a Europe that is making a fortress of itself. In more general terms, British Conservative Malcolm Harbour wondered if a list of more than five priorities could really be called such. Social Democrat MEP Jo Leinen said he put great hope in the Berlin declaration to mark the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome, hoping that it would speak more of the future than of the past, and perhaps of energy - since it was with energy that Europe began.
Belgian Socialist Véronique De Keyser felt that the content of the Commission programme with regard to external relations was “elliptic and almost subliminal”. There was nothing about Africa, except under development, almost nothing about Latin America, and absolutely no reference to fundamental rights, she complained, adding that, reading this document, foreign policy “seems to be more about bilateral policy”. Andrew Duff (ALDE, UK) said he trusted in the support of EU citizens as players on the international political scene. For the Greens, German Angelika Beer expressed some disappointment: what about the instruments the Union had to have in this area, and the much lauded neighbourhood policy? Was this, she asked, to be a “diet policy”?
Commission Vice-President Margot Wallström indicated that the message had been received: Parliament was arguing firstly for sustainable development, the creation of jobs and growth which takes account of natural resources and the environment. “We must do it the European way,” she agreed. As for another of citizens' major concerns, security in all its forms (against terrorism, against crime, against environmental pollution), Ms Wallström stated that the number of legislative proposals in this area had increased. A more political programme had been sought, she concluded, arguing against some of the criticism, particularly that human rights had been forgotten. Human rights was, she said, “a very high priority in all we do”. (lg)