TABLE OF CONTENTS

 Scope, objectives and rules of the Conference of Presidents

Dahl Birgitta, President Riksdag (Sweden)
de Almeida Santos Antonio, President Assembleia da República (Portugal)
De Decker Armand, President Sénat (Belgium).
Fischer Heinz, President Nationalrat (Austria)
Haenel Hubert, President Delegation for the European Union, Sénat (France)
Hansen Ivar, President Folketinget (Denmark)
Kaklamanis Apostolos, President houlì ton Ellìnon (Greece
Korthals Altes Fritz, President Eerste Kamer (Holland)
Mancino Nicola, President Senate of the Republic (Italy
Mullooly Brian, President Seanad Aireann (Ireland).
Podestà Guido, Vice-President European Parliament.
Thierse Wolfgang, President Bundestag (Germany).
Lord Tordoff Geoffrey Johnson, President Special Committee for the European Union House of Lords (United Kingdom)
Van Der Hoeven Maria, Vice-President Tweede Kamer (Holland
Violante Luciano, President Chamber of Deputies (Italy).

 Meeting with the Presidents of Parliament of the Common Market of the South  (MERCOSUR)

Cafiero Juan Pablo, Vice-President Cámara de Diputados (Argentina).
Dahl Birgitta, President Rìksdag (Svezia)
de Almeida Santos Antonio, President Assembleia da República (Portugal)
Galeano Villalba Juan Roque, President Cámara de Senadores (Paraguay)
Haenel Hubert, President Delegation for the European Union, Sénat (France)
Haselhurst Alan, Deputy-Speaker House of Commons (United Kingdom)
Hierro López Luis, President Cámara de Senadores (Uruguay).
Kaklamanis Apostolos, President houlì ton Ellìnon (Greece)
Korthals Altes Fritz, President Eerste Kamer (Holland)
López Baspineiro Morgan, Vice-President Cámara de Diputados (Bolivia)
Podestà Guido, Vice-President European Parliament
Rudi Úbeda Luisa Fernanda, President Congreso de los diputados (Spain)
Temer Michel, President Cámara dos Deputados (Brazil)
Thierse Wolfgang, President Bundestag (Germany)
Violante Luciano, President Chamber of Deputies (Italy)
Zaldívar Larraín Andreés, President Senado (Chile)

 PRESIDENCY OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE ITALIAN SENATE,  NICOLA MANCINO

  Scope, objectives and rules of the Conference of Presidents

NICOLA MANCINO, President Senate of the Republic (Italy) opened the sitting and gave the floor to the President of the Portuguese Assembleia da República so that he could deliver the paper scheduled in the programme.

ANTONIO de ALMEIDA SANTOS, President Assembleia da República (Portugal) recalled that in the course of the Lisbon conference the following principles were adopted as regards the regulations. The conference is to be made up of the presidents of the national parliaments of the member states of the European Union and by the President of the European Parliament, who participate on an equal footing and on the basis of mandates that conform to their respective constitutional systems. The presidents of parliaments of states who are candidates for membership to the European Union may be invited to participate in the meetings as observers. The presidency of the conference is the responsibility of the president of the host parliament, who also guarantees the production of the respective minutes. The members can issue declarations beyond the positions taken by the conference without their being binding on the conference in any way. The conference can set up working groups. The general secretaries of parliaments can accompany their respective presidents and they can meet separately for consultations or for the preparation of the agenda. The conference is held once a year and at the invitation of one of its members. In conformity with these programmatic directives, the Italian presidency drew up an initial draft proposal, initially examined by a small group at Strasburg and distributed to all presidents last June. In the last meeting of the secretary generals, held in Rome, the most controversial aspects of the draft were examined and the following questions emerged: the framework in which to assign the troika, the participation of observers and invited persons (whose presence should be conditional upon the consensus of the members of the conference), the fixing of the agenda and in conclusion the general recourse to unanimity. It was thus agreed that amendatory proposals could be made. Numerous contributions were received from the Finnish, Danish, Swedish, Greek, Irish and Luxembourg parliaments, the Spanish Senate, the House of Commons, the House of Lords, the French National Assembly and the President of the European Parliament. In the light of the contributions proposed a new text was drafted, made up of ten articles (see attachment). The President then set out the principle innovations. As regards the terminology to entitle the articles, the expression "directive principles" was preferred to "operating rules" as it was more general and more in keeping with the nature of the rules. No reference was made to the troika, which was only justified in the preparatory phase of the text. As regards the arrangements for passing resolutions, reference to unanimity was suppressed, as it was preferred to indicate the principle of consensus, which in concrete meant the manner of obtaining deliberations or resolutions in line with the procedures hitherto adopted by the conference and based on preparatory works and preliminary consultations. The reference to the respect for autonomy and the constitutional position of each parliamentary assembly was removed, preferring to limit the document to the autonomy and position of each president. A subsection was added to clarify that the presidents can be replaced by a vice-president or deputy of the chamber to which they belong. It was clarified that the invitation should be formulated by a president, using a more precise expression than earlier, which only spoke of inviting "one of its members". The consultation of the secretary-generals was also included in the text. It was preferred to suppress the rule that provided for the invitation of one of the presidents of the parliaments of other countries for matters of common interest. However, the decision was not taken to eliminate this possibility but rather because the absence of a written rule would give the conference greater freedom of action. The text, therefore, represented a set of regulatory principles designed to govern the formal aspects of the working of the conference. Although the possibly of doing away with rules altogether was considered and to base all the arrangements on consolidated practice, it was held that a set of flexible rules would help to reach a consensus on resolutions thereby avoiding situations of "defensive entrenchment". Pointing out the text could be further improved and represented another step forward towards the institutionalisation of the conference and the reinforcement of the democratic legitimacy of the European Union; he submitted it to the conference for its unanimous adoption.

BRIAN MULLOOLY, President Seanad Éireann (Ireland), in thanking the Italian presidency for the welcome and hospitality provided, expressed his appreciation for the effort made to reach a formula on which a general consensus could be reached, and noted the contribution made by the secretary generals. He held the text was a valid basis that would enable the conference to proceed with clear and adequate procedures and declared himself convinced that as the conference was itself a result of the first enlargement of the European Union, it should endow itself with rules and procedures to keep pace with the developments in European architecture.

HUBERT HAENEL, President European Union Delegation of the Sénat (France), expressed this thanks to the Italian presidency for the quality and warmth of the welcome given to the participants and held that the moment had come to fix directive principles for the organisation and operation of conference meetings, drawing attention to the need to avoid excessive inflexibility. The text proposed by President de Almeida Santos was excellent also because it avoided excessively binding rules and left space to ad hoc decisions. He stressed the essential role played by the preparatory meetings of the secretary generals for purposes of drawing up the agenda and in this sense held it would be appropriate that the reference to this role be directly included in article 5 of the text on the preparation of the agenda, thus suppressing article 9. He asked if, in application of the principles of subsidiarity, it would not be preferable to leave each president free to decide who could replace him or her, noting that in meetings on questions regarding the European Union, it would not be held illegitimate to substitute the president of a parliament by a president of a parliamentary committee for European affairs. However, as the text could be improved successively, it was possible to wait a year or so to see if any of the fears ventilated were grounded or not.

MARIA VAN DER HOEVEN, Vice-President Tweede Kamer (Holland), complemented the compilers of the text and appreciated that account had been taken of all the various positions expressed by member countries. Although understanding the problem posed by the French colleague she found it difficult to come up with a solution in this meeting. Perhaps a member of the office of the presidency could be indicated. She drew attention to the delicate problem of language, an inseparable part of the culture and identity of the nations and underlined the need to take account of the large German linguistic group, also as regards written documents. Any amendments should be examined in the next meeting of the conference in order that the rules could be adopted in the present session.

GUIDO PODESTA', Vice-President European Parliament, also expressed his thanks for the welcome received as well as his complements for the quality of the work conducted by the Portuguese presidency in drawing up a draft set of regulations, containing clear but not excessively rigid rules. The European Parliament was in agreement with the proposal to make a more continuous and structured use of the contribution of the secretary-generals. It was also appropriate to maintain the possibility, where necessary, of joint consultations among the incumbent, the previous and the successive presidency in order to facilitate the rapid adoption of decisions.

LUCIANO VIOLANTE, President Chamber of Deputies (Italy), thanked the Portuguese president for this paper proposing the directive principles. He recalled that they were the outcome of a work carried out, by the presidents of the troika and the European Parliament in compliance with the mandate received in Lisbon. He proposed to adopt this proposal as a basic text to be used for the next meeting in Stockholm, leaving the question of the amendments, if any, to that meeting so that each member would have sufficient time to formulate them.

HEINZ FISCHER, President Nationalrat (Austria), thanked the Portuguese colleague and shared the proposal of President Violante to adopt the text in is present form, while observing that it did not mean that it was unchangeable. It was appropriate, however, to have the time to reflect upon improvements, if any. For example, in his view the possibilities of standing in for the president should be circumscribed in order not to alter the nature of the conference.

BIRGITTA DAHL, President Riksdag (Sweden), thanked the president of the Portuguese parliament for his excellent paper. The regulations proposed were acceptable to everybody and she intended to follow them in preparing the next conference in her country. She was willing to include the examination of proposals to change the regulations in the agenda, but held that the document had managed to indicate clear, concise and at the same time flexible directive principles, inspired by wisdom and common sense. She underlined the need for a direct and personal relationship among presidents, while sharing the need for a certain elasticity in replacing them, whenever necessary. She extended a warm welcome to colleagues in preparation for the next meeting of the conference to held in Sweden from 13 to 15 September 2001. The presidents of the parliaments of countries candidates for membership of the European Union would be invited, as it was very important to discuss the enlargement process with them. It was, in point of fact, important to return to the classical themes of the conference, that is to say the active role of the national parliaments in European cooperation and the manner in which they can increase their influence. On the occasion of the next conference, the theme of the quality of legislation was to be dealt with, to which would be added the question of cooperation between parliaments on environmental matters, as well as the question of peace and security in Europe in order to ascertain how to enhance the cooperation that already existed on these questions among the competent commissions. Pursuant to the new regulations, at least three months before the 2001 conference the proposed agenda would be released together with the relative documentation. For this purpose she held that the contribution to be offered by the meeting of the secretary-generals, scheduled for 26 and 27 March 2001, was essential. In conclusion, consultations between the conference and other similar organisation in the world was considered useful. She thanked President Mancino and President Violante for their hospitality.

LORD GEOFFREY JOHNSON TORDOFF, Chairman of the Special Committee for the European Union, House of Lords (United Kingdom), expressed his agreement with the proposal for the regulations, although considering it necessary to reflect upon some points such as, for example, the substitution of presidents. However, as there was no obvious and given solution, he agreed with the proposal to postpone the reflection to the Stockholm meeting. He expressed his concern for the undertakings proposed by President Dahl, which would entail meetings with other inter-parliamentary organisations and held it would be better to avoid an excessive proliferation of meetings. In conclusion, he thanked the presidency for the organisation of the conference.

ARMAND DE DECKER, President Sénat (Belgium), congratulated President de Almeida Santos for his paper. He agreed with the proposal to approve the prepared text, reserving any amendments to the next conference in Sweden. For this purpose he held it would be useful if every delegation expressed its opinion on the draft proposals. He underlined the importance and the delicacy of the question of the replacement of the presidents. It would be an error to limit it only to vice-presidents, also because every national parliament has its own rules and practices. He held that each president must be free to invite as his or her representative a member of the office of the presidency or, more in general, of the parliament, who was considered a fitting substitute. As regards the language arrangements, he shared the proposal of Vice-President Van Der Hoeven that the conference should demonstrate more flexibility. In conclusion, he held that the two-thirds majority as set out in subsection 3 of article 3 was rigid and contrary to parliamentary principles. He proposed that it be limited to a simple majority of the members, with the agreement of the incumbent president.

BIRGITTA DAHL, President Riksdag (Sweden), elucidated the idea expressed earlier: her proposal was simply to verify if there were other bodies in the world similar to the conference of the presidents of the parliaments of the European Union in order to acquire possible useful information. She agreed with the principle that it was necessary to avoid the proliferation of meetings, holding that they should be held only when there were important questions to be dealt with. In conclusion, the present text of subsection 3, of article 3, although having been agreed upon in Lisbon, seemed to be appropriately restrictive.

WOLFGANG THIERSE, President Bundestag (Germany), expressed his respect for the work that had produced the proposal for the regulations and agreed with the position of President Violante. He held that as regards the language system it would be necessary to find a more flexible solution that took account of the German linguistic group. In conclusion, he proposed maintaining the present text of subsection 3 of article 1, and permitting his or her substitution by other member of parliament on in exceptional cases, but to postpone the question to the meeting in Stockholm for further reflection.

IVAN HANSET, President Folketinget (Denmark) expressed his thanks for the work carried out on the regulatory proposals that in his view represented an excellent compromise between the various positions taken by the presidents of the national parliaments as regards the tasks of the conferences. But the text was not immutable and could, where necessary, be subject to changes in a few years time. He agreed with the present wording of subsection 3 of article 1, which constituted an excellent solution to the problem of replacing presidents. He held that the replacement of the latter by presidents of committees could undermine the nature of the conference, which brought together the presidents of the parliaments of the European Union.

FRITZ KORTHALS ALTES, President Eerste Kamer (Holland), with regard to the substitution of the presidents, held it appropriate to maintain the greatest continuity possible, also taking account of the temporary nature of the mandates and to avoid an excessive heterogeneity in the make up of the conference. He shared the position of Vice-President Van der Hoeven as concerns the linguistic arrangements.

APOSTOLOS KAKLAMANIS, President Voulì ton Ellìnon (Greece), congratulated the compilers of the text and in particular President de Almeida Santos for the work undertaken, stressing the need for regulations to institutionalise the meetings of the conference. He expressed his appreciation for the text and the manner in which the various suggestions had been incorporated. He suggested adding among the objectives included in article 2 the promotion and the reinforcement of the role of parliaments and the widening and consolidation of the democratic dimension in the construction of Europe. It would be necessary to reflect on this and other proposals in preparation for the forthcoming conference in Sweden in 2001. As regards the substitution of presidents of the conference, he stressed the importance of the presence of the presidents of national parliaments, who therefore, could only be replaced by vice-presidents in exceptional circumstances. He mentioned that these regulations could also prove useful for the meetings of other analogous bodies such as the Euro-Mediterranean conferences.

ANTONIO de ALMEIDA SANTOS, President Assembleia da República (Portugal), expressed his thanks for the appreciation shown for his work and stated that a near consensus had been recorded on the text. He then examined the points on which the discussion had been mainly concentrated and where differences had emerged. In relation to the question of the substitution of presidents, he noted that the text took account of the fact that the conference was for the presidents of the parliaments and not for other parliamentarians. He took note of the objections raised and declared that he did not consider it necessary to underline the exceptional nature of the substitution. He suggested two possible solutions: to maintain the present text, with the reservation of verifying the opportunity of presenting an amendment for the next meeting, or to cancel the rule and introduce whatever alternative arrangement was deemed appropriate in Stockholm. The duty of replacing a president unable to attend obviously fell to a vice-president but each president could include in the delegation those members of parliament that he or she held to be most appropriate. He noted the importance of the troika in the preparatory phase of the test, but believed it was excessive to represent it as an organ of this conference, above all after having envisaged the conference of the secretary-generals and the existence of working groups. He proposed to defer discussions on the linguistic arrangements, which could be dealt with later, taking account of the fact that German and Spanish were very widespread languages. The problem existed but there was neither the time nor sufficient preparation to examine it adequately. As regards the proposal of the French colleague Haenael to include the provisions contained in article 9 in article 5 and suppress the former, he held that the two rules were not duplicates. The suggestion of the French colleague could represent a basis for discussion in the forthcoming Stockholm conference. While agreeing upon the validity of the proposal of President Kaklamanis to include an additional objective in article 2 of the text, he held that it would not be appropriate to deal with this question here. He was in full agreement with the need to ensure flexibility, which should, however, be tempered by the need to deploy a set of rules that contain certain principles. The justification for the rule regarding the two-thirds majority needed to convene an extraordinary meeting of the conference, introduced at the suggestion of one of presidents, was to avoid the proliferation of meetings. The proposal to provide for a less ample majority could not, therefore, be accepted.

NICOLA MANCINO, President Senate of the Republic (Italy) announced the conclusion of the debate, and the acquisition by the conference of the text of the directive principles illustrated by the rapporteur, declaring that the suggestions for the amendment of the text could be usefully taken up and widened in the course of the next conference to be held in Stockholm.

BIRGITTA DAHL, President Riksdag (Sweden), noted that many presidents of the parliament of the European Union had declared themselves willing to adopt the proposed set of regulations just discussed, upon the understanding that any changes would be discussed in the forthcoming conference of Stockholm. She, therefore, proposed that the regulations be adopted that day. She also asked when the question regarding the meeting of the conference to be held in two years time would be dealt with.

LUCIANO VIOLANTE, President Chamber of Deputies (Italy), observed that - as just stated by President Mancino - a consensus of the conference had been reached on the text of the directive principles. In the meeting in Stockholm the considerations aired in that day's debate could be appropriately evaluated, for purposes of a possible amendment of the text. As regards the question posed by President Dahl, he pointed out that it could be dealt with after a brief suspension of the proceedings, when the presidents of the Spanish parliament would be present. He, therefore, suspended the proceedings.

 PRESIDENCY OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE ITALIAN CHAMBER OF  DEPUTIES, LUCIANO VIOLANTE

 Meeting with the Presidents of the Parliaments of the Common Market of the  South (MERCOSUR)

LUCIANO VIOLANTE, President Chamber of Deputies (Italy), after announcing the resumption of the proceedings, extended a warm welcome to the presidents of Mercosur. He communicated that the Presidents of the Spanish parliament had expressed their willingness - for which he expressed his sincere thanks - to host the 2002 meeting.

LUISA FERNANDA RUDI ÚBEDA. President Congreso de los diputados (Spain), confirmed, also on behalf of the president of the Spanish Senate, her willingness to host the 2002 meeting. It would also take advantage of the occasion provided by Spain's six-month presidency of the European Union in 2002.

LUCIANO VIOLANTE, President Chamber of Deputies (Italy), confirmed that next year's conference would be held in Sweden and the 2002 conference in Spain. He recalled that for the first time a meeting with the Mercosur countries had been scheduled. These countries viewed the European Union with interest and the latter in turn intended to establish more intense relations with them for historical, cultural and linguistic reasons. Insofar as this was a first trial meeting, no specific questions had been tabled for discussion, or a rigid agenda for the debate. In future it would be possible to evaluate the terms with which a permanent relationship between the European Union and Mercosur could be established within the scope and limits of the responsibility of each country as dictated by its own constitutional and parliamentary system.

MICHEL TEMER, President, Câmara dos deputados (Brazil), declared himself to be very pleased to participate in the proceedings of the conference, an extraordinary opportunity for dialogue. He stressed that in a globalised world it was necessary to overcome national frontiers and look with ever-greater attention at unions among states. From this point of view the experience of the European Union was a valid example for Mercosur, whose importance was steadily increasing in the Latin American continent. In the name of Brazil he expressed his appreciation for the day's initiative. He had been appointed by the presidents of the parliaments of Mercosur to deliver a common declaration setting out the guidelines of the action of the countries that had stipulated the agreement. The declaration confirmed the members' adhesion to democratic principles and the compliance with the interregional cooperation framework agreement - signed in 1995 - between Mercosur and its member nations, on the one side and the European Union and its member nations, on the other, as well as its regard for the historical, cultural and ideological bonds that link Mercosur to the European Union. He declared that in conformity with the provisions established in June 1999, negotiations for the setting up of a free trade area between Mercosur and the European Union would be accelerated. He also stressed the need to recognise the damage caused to millions of farmers due to the application of the EU's agricultural policy. He felt it would be expedient to institutionalise meetings between the presidents of Mercosur and those of the European Union and on behalf of the former he invited the presidents of the conference to a meeting to be held in one of the Mercosur countries. In conclusion, he indicated the opportuneness of establishing regular meetings between Mercosur and the European Union on perhaps an annual basis, alternating the venue between a European state and a state of Mercosur.

LUISA FERNANDA RUDI ÚBEDA. President Congreso de los diputados (Spain), thanked the presidents of Mercosur for having accepted the invitation to preside that day's important meeting, which she hoped could make special relations possible between countries that belonged to Mercosur and the European Union. In recalling the historical, linguistic and cultural reasons that induced Spain, in particular, but also the other European states, to deem that a special report with the Mercosur countries was important, he observed that as between these and the European Union countries two similar integration process were taking place, as could be ascertained from the contents of the Asunçion Treaty. There were, furthermore, many common interests that made more intense contacts at a parliamentary level indispensable, and which could find a starting point in the day's meeting. In this respect, she wanted to offer some issues for debate that could become the subject matter of a later meeting. Given that it was necessary to avoid interfering with the dialogue in progress between bodies of the European Union and Mercosur, she emphasised the need to formalise institutional relations between the two bodies. Although she held that a precise indication of such relations would be premature, she believed it was important to arrange for informal meetings. Among other things she suggested a special delegation in the context of the conference of the presidents of the European Union. In thanking the presidents of Mercosur once again, she hoped that the best route would be identified for extending relations between the parliaments of the European Union and those of Latin American countries.

JUAN PABLO CAFIERO, Vice-President Càmara de diputados (Argentina), expressed gratitude for the day's meeting and took advantage of this opportunity to illustrate the state of the democracies in his continent, in which the period of transition from military dictatorship to democracy was by now completed. It had generally been concluded without civil war and with the guarantee of freedom and certainty of law. This, among other things, made an adequate level of economic development possible as well as safeguarding social rights, including those referring to social security. In his continent a great effort was being made to ensure transparency and thus the problem of corruption was a subject of particular concern. From this point of view, an attempt was being made to construct a new social contract with society and much attention was dedicated to the experience of Europe and the United States. In confirming the need to sustain the defence of human rights, he held that those who were responsible for the repression during the military dictatorship should not be allowed freedom of movement. Argentine held that the Treaty of Rome was very important as regards the creation of an international penal tribunal. It had always complied with international undertakings, including those contained in the UN Charter, and had taken part in all the missions assigned to it. Therefore, on account of the high esteem that Argentine entertained for the international community, it called for a real cooperation in order to identify the persons responsible for the serious terrorist attacks, which in 1992 and 1994 had been carried out in his country, against, respectively, the Embassy of Israel and the Jewish community. He called, inter alia, upon the international community to isolate those states that had attempted to conceal such responsibilities. In conclusion, he agreed with the need to remove tariff barriers that contributed to the underdevelopment of agriculture in his country.

GUIDO PODESTA', Vice-President European Parliament, welcomed the presidents of the countries of Mercosur, underlining the importance of the existing relationship with the European Parliament. In the framework of an ever more planetary evolution of political, social, economic, cultural and environmental relations, there were areas which were more disposed towards reciprocal dialogue: the European Union was in favour of enlarging and strengthening its dialogue with Mercosur countries, with which it had a particular affinity. Therefore, it looked favourably upon the proposal of institutionalising the meetings at the level of the presidents of the parliaments of the European Union and Mercosur countries. The construction of the EU - of whose institutions the European Parliament was alone legitimated by a democratic vote - had produced a consolidated area of experience that could be compared to that of Mercosur, also in consideration of the ever more relevant role played by national parliaments after the Amsterdam Treaty. In conclusion, he hoped that such meetings would be periodic and not intermittent.

JUAN ROQUE GALEANO VILLALBA, President Càmara de Senadores (Paraguay), first of all stated that the Paraguayan delegation considered it a great honour to be invited to participate in the day's meeting, and went on to emphasise that Mercosur - which was instituted in the capital of Paraguay - would enable member countries to continue in the battle for the extension of democracy to the economic and social spheres. In his country major progress was being made at a political level. In the recent general election of 13 August 2000 a member of the opposition had been elected vice-president of the republic. He hoped that such political progress would also produce effects in the social and economic fields. Paraguay still had not started out on the path of industrialisation and at present was limiting itself to supplying raw materials. As a result it called for aid from the member countries of the EU in order to sustain its small industry. In addition, the country needed further investments to fight unemployment, an authentic scourge, harbinger of corruption and dangers for democracy. Paraguay offered greater guarantees in terms of respect for human rights and respected its own international commitments. In conclusion, the considered that the Mercosur countries needed a common agricultural policy.

ANTONIO de ALMEIDA SANTOS, President Assembleia da República (Portugal) in expressing his satisfaction for being able to participate in a meeting between the presidents of parliaments of the EU and those of the parliaments of Mercosur, and in consideration of the common values that bound the various countries, stressed that Mercosur was attempting to achieve some of the results that had already obtained by the European Union. It was a matter of common interest to put the model of the EU at the disposal of other countries. This model had made it possible to build up a constructive experience which contained such federative elements as a common currency, a common banking system, common policies founded upon majority decisions which the sovereign states were obliged to accept, and a European juridical system that overrode the national systems. Mercosur was at the start of the path that Europe had already taken. For this reason an exchange of experiences was necessary that facilitated the preparation of profound institutional reforms. For this purpose it was necessary to proceed to periodic encounters in order to discuss common problems. Such meetings must also involve the parliaments, which represented the citizens. Globalisation was making competition ever stronger and this called for rules to prevent stronger subjects from overcoming weaker ones. Therefore, regional developments such are Mercosur and the European Union were very welcome. It was also necessary to achieve cohesion within these organisations as they had to operate in an increasingly globalised world. He was, therefore, in favour of the institutionalisation of the conferences as parliaments could not just act as witnesses but had to make an impact on the progress of society. In conclusion, he noted that the agricultural countries of the EU were unhappy with the common agricultural policy dictated by the economically stronger states. A new common agricultural policy was, therefore, necessary.

LUIS HIERRO LÓPEZ, President Càmara de Senadores (Uruguay), declared his agreement with the idea of consolidating procedures for regular consultation and links between the presidents of the parliaments of the EU and those of Mercosur, which in the course of its ten years of life had promoted an irreversible integration among the member states, albeit with difficulties, in part caused by trade competition. Mercosur that represented 200 million persons, intended to present itself to the international community as a single block ready to act in defence of its own trade interests and proposals for economic and commercial questions. While following the process of European integration with great interest, right from its beginning Mercosur had attempted to promote free trade, by dismantling the protectionist systems of its member countries. Now it intended to stipulate free-trade agreements. The solution of the internal problems of the member countries of Mercosur was their own responsibility. They did not request aid from Europe but to be juridically treated as full partners. Mercosur intended to be an important and valid partner. Its citizens hoped for an agreement with Europe but it would choose the path to be taken independently. Various governments wanted to accentuate the link with the American free-trade association in order to guarantee the maximum bargaining capacity for Mercosur. Very important ties existed with Europe, among which he mentioned the framework agreement for a free trade association, stipulated in 1995. This agreement should be given greater content in order to consolidate the relations between Mercosur and the EU, whose protectionist agricultural policy was damaging millions of Mercosur farmers. Uruguay depended upon the European market for its investments - which it could not renounce - in the technological and infrastructural sectors. But it could neither renounce free trade with Europe on agricultural products, particularly in view of the high quality of its products. In conclusion, he stated his wish to invite the presidents of the parliaments of the European Union to one of the Mercosur countries to illustrate the level reached by the farms and the local production. This would make it possible to overcome the present divergences.

APOSTOLOS KAKLAMANIS, President Voulì ton Ellìnon (Greece), in greeting the representatives of the parliaments of Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay and Uruguay, recalled the sufferance that the peoples of those countries had experienced in this century, and also very recently, after the end of colonialism and at the hands of American imperialism. He also observed that the process of globalisation of the economy penalised the weaker countries, including those of Latin America. Since the Greek people had also experienced years of dictatorship, his feelings were very strong when he met presidents of countries that had, in their turn, suffered at the hands of fascist and military dictatorships, including those manoeuvred from abroad. For example, the CIA admitted to having organised the coup d'état in Chile when President Allende fell victim to the blows inflicted upon the democracy in his country. For the torturers of the peoples of the Latin America there should be neither immunity nor freedom of movement in democratic countries such as European countries, distinguished by a long tradition of parliamentary democracy as well as respect for human rights and personal freedoms. It was necessary to assure support and cooperation to Latin American countries in order to permit them to consolidate their democratic institutions by dealing with problems derived from poverty, unemployment and urbanisation - which impede economic and social progress - with the same spirit of comprehension. The development of relations between the European Union and the countries of Latin America must present a message of encouragement for peoples fighting for democracy, given that the precondition for every form of cooperation is the development of democracy. After having paid homage to the victims of the last dictatorship in Europe, those of the Iberian peninsular and those of Greece, as well of those countries that on that day represented democracies, he accepted without reserve the invitation of the state that would be organising the meeting with the representatives of the European parliaments, and in conclusion thanked the Presidents of the Italian Senate and Chamber for the initiative they had taken and the example given for the excellent organisation of the meeting.

ANDRÉS ZALDÌVAR LARRAÌN, President Senado (Chile), after thanking the promoters of the daily meeting, dwelt initially upon the question of the trade alliance between the European Union and Mercosur, recalling that Chile, while having taken the political decision to adhere to this organisation, at the moment was only an associate. It was still necessary to resolve the problem of harmonising its tariff policy with that of Mercosur. It was, however, taking steps to identify a satisfactory solution and in this respect Chile had signed the declaration prepared by the representatives of the parliaments of the countries belonging to Mercosur. He recalled, in addition, that Chile was conducting parallel negotiations with the European Union and believed that the presidents of parliaments must not only deal with trade matters, albeit important, but also political questions. He, therefore, looked forward to the institutionalisation of meetings such as that day's, also for purposes of dealing with themes regarding the necessary support for democratic processes. He confirmed his country's interest in cooperating with Europe, which boasted a 50 year long experience of political integration, and invited the presidents of the European parliaments to be confident about the democratic nature of the Mercosur states and of Latin America. He recalled in this respect, the case of General Pinochet, stressing how his own country was respecting the international trust accorded it as regards the pursuit of objectives that were intrinsic to a state of law, and also as a reaction to the brutal violations of human rights experienced in the past.

FRITZ KORTHALS ALTES, President Eerste Kamer (Holland), expressed his appreciation for this opportunity for meeting and exchanging views and observed that, once having led a delegation of Dutch parliamentarians in visit to Brazil, he had had the opportunity to comprehend the significant development of the agricultural sector in that country. Holland attached great importance to the establishment of constructive relations between the two countries and this was the context in which the forthcoming visit to Holland of the Brazilian president, who had expressed his willingness to exchange views with the presidents of the Dutch parliament, should be viewed. Having observed that the prospect of a more incisive cooperation could not ignore the importance that must be attributed to free trade, he recalled that negotiations were in progress for the entry into the European Union of the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, which had liberated themselves from dictatorship only ten years ago. It was therefore necessary to widen the themes related to a new institutional organization of the EU so that, even with an enlargement in its numbers, the community institutions would continue to operate efficiently and democratically. In this respect, he suggested that, in preparation for the next conference, to be held in Sweden, a list of the priority objectivities be drawn up in order to enable the conference to achieve tangible results.

MORGAN LÓPES BASPINEIRO, Vice-President, Cámara de Diputados (Bolivia), first of all greeted all those present on behalf of the parliamentarians and the people of Bolivia, who had faced enormous sacrifices and had constructed one of the newest democracies in Latin America. Every effort was being made to consolidate the democratic institutions but it was necessary to consider that government based upon macroeconomic stability had not improved the quality of life of the citizens. As the growing poverty represented a threat for the recent democratic conquests, it was necessary to find concrete solutions to this problem, together with the aid received from the international community. The Parliament of Bolivia had sustained and still strongly sustained every integration system and Mercosur presented an element of this process. The integration effort should not, however, be dealt with only in economic terms, but must take the form of a political process that also envisaged the creation of a parliament. It would be useful, in this regard, to follow the example of the European parliament. As regards the declaration delivered by the president of the Brazilian parliament, which he had subscribed to with conviction, he thought it preferable to use the term "occasion" or "opportunity". In conclusion, he stressed that three years ago his country had initiated a plan that had led to the elimination of 82% of the redundant cultivation of cocaine and the withdrawal from the market of hundreds of tons of this substance. In order not to call into question the results hitherto obtained, Bolivia must have the chance of being able to switch to alternate crops as well as being able to export the new agricultural products to Europe. Therefore, he called for solidarity with regard to the programme that Bolivia was carrying out and which entailed a notable economic sacrifice for the country, but which he hoped would be overcome also with the aid of the international community.

WOLFGANG THIERSE, President Bundestag (Germany), referred to the importance of the day's meeting and underlined the need to reinforce cooperation with the Mercosur countries in order, first of all, keep the common historical-cultural roots alive. Secondly, the relations between the countries and the EU must not be limited to governments and state agencies but must become the subject matter of cooperation between parliaments. Furthermore, the globalisation process must not be only determined by economic factors, but also called for the active involvement of the parliaments. He expressed his perplexity as regards the possibility of fully implementing the institutional experiences of the European Union especially in different contexts and recalled the long dictatorial experience of this own native country (the ex-East Germany). He stressed the need that, as soon as the theme of the enlargement of the EU to the east was dealt with, the questions concerning the legacy left by the communist dictatorships should be fully investigated. In conclusion, he hoped the parliaments would call for negotiations on an association with Mercosur. The German parliament was favourable that such negotiations continue and rapidly reach a positive conclusion.

BIRGITTA DAHL, President Riksdag (Sweden), expressed her satisfaction for the day's meeting, recalling that the experience of the dictatorships had led to the economic isolation of the peoples of Latin America. For years Sweden had given shelter to refugees fleeing from these dictatorships. Many had returned to their countries after the return of democracy and the instauration of human rights, while others had become Swedish citizens and some of these had been elected as deputies in the Riksdag. It was an exceptional event to be made fully aware that those times were finally over and that it was now possible to deal with other problems. In recent visits to Chile and Argentina, the Swedish delegation, of which all the parties present in parliament were represented, had expressed great interest in future cooperation between the presidents of the parliaments of the European Union and Latin America. Perhaps President Violante would formulate a concrete proposal in this sense. She noted, furthermore, that Sweden was preparing itself for the presidency of the EU for the first six months of 2001. On the occasion of the solemn inauguration of the Riksdag for the New Year, it clearly emerged that Sweden intended to contribute to the construction of a more open Europe. It was necessary to give top priority to the enlargement to the east of the EU, while maintaining an effective cooperation with non-European countries. In confirming the validity of the free trade model, especially from the point of view of international solidarity, she recalled that the prime minister of her country had declared that Sweden would adopt initiatives aimed at reaching a satisfactory operation of World Trade Organisation.

ALAN HASELHURST, Deputy Speaker House of Commons, (United Kingdom) in expressing his satisfaction for the cooperation between the Mercosur countries and the European Union, he asked how a more appropriate form of continuing these relations could be defined. Great Britain had given its consent to the objectives of the day's meeting as concerns the questions regarding the role of parliaments and the organisation of parliamentary functions. As wider-reaching questions had been posed, it was also necessary to consider the relationship between these and the objectives of the Conference of the Presidents of the Parliaments of the Union. The European Parliament, the inter-parliamentary union and the commissions of the parliaments of the European Union should take account of the indications of the colleagues from the Mercosur countries with a view to strengthening future relations. More intense contacts were most certainly to be hoped for but the Conference of the Presidents of the Parliaments of the Union was not the most appropriate instrument for achieving the objectives indicated in this meeting. In conclusion, while hoping not to become ensnared in a difficult debate on the various institutional roles of the presidents of the parliamentary assemblies because there was the maximum willingness to reach an understanding with Mercosur colleagues, it was necessary to identify the best means to proceed.

HUBERT HAENEL, President European Union Delegation of the Sénat (France), observed that the European Union countries were the main suppliers and customers of Mercosur as well as the main sources of development aid and emphasised that this economic progress corresponded to the profound affinities mentioned earlier. The Rio Summit of 1999 had indicated the common interests of Europe and the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean and appropriately defined the issues of the strategic partnership that had to be instituted in the two areas. On that occasion common principles were identified. The countries of Latin America and the European Union were first of all favourable to a new round of global trade negotiations that did not exclude any sector, rejecting unilateral measures with extraterritorial effects and hoped for a reform of the international financial system as well as the definition of an action plan on financial matters. There was no significant impediment to the conclusion of an agreement to liberalise trade apart from the question of agriculture. With respect to this, it was necessary to set out the reciprocal positions as clearly as possible in order to avoid misunderstandings. The Europeans must fully understand what was at stake for the Mercosur countries in terms of agriculture, while the Latin American countries must understand the serious difficulties that an immediate opening of the market would imply for European agriculture, less subsidized than American agriculture. It was also necessary to carefully evaluate the new amendments. The reform of CAP, carried out in the framework of the 2000 agenda, had not made any impact in opening up the market with the exception of the corn-growing sector. However, political willingness to move in this direction on the part of Europe remained. Other reforms of CAP were expected in recent years. European producers and exporters were aware of their responsibilities but time was needed for such developments to be introduced. The policies followed, however, were moving in the direction of a positive acceleration of trade that both the European Union and Mercosur were interested in sustaining.

LUCIANO VIOLANTE, President Chamber of Deputies (Italy), believed that the session just concluded had been particularly productive and interesting. As there were no objections to the repetition of similar meetings in the future, he observed that it would be necessary to organise them in order that they did to interfere with the work of the presidents of the parliaments of Mercosur or that of the conference of the presidents of the European Union. He stated that economic, political and cultural questions had been raised as well as questions referring to the defence of freedoms with respect to which Europe had twice found itself directly involved in this century, as had many South American countries. The tragic experiences that all these peoples had undergone ought to induce the parliaments, as the direct representatives of their respective peoples, to cooperate. These meetings had taken place in this specific institutional context as other responsibilities had been delegated to the governments. It was, therefore, possible to deal with any theme, but only from the specific point of view of the responsibilities of the presidents of parliaments, which varied according to the different countries. He had taken note of the common orientation in favour of the continuation of the meetings with Mercosur colleagues and declared that, if there were no objections, the implementation of the procedures regarding the arrangements for the holding of meetings would be left to the presidents who were to chair the conferences in the coming two years, on account of the specific responsibility that they would hold. In the name of the presidency and thus also on behalf of the president of the Italian Senate, Mr Mancino, he read the concluding declaration (see attachment), stating that according to accepted practice, these were the conclusions reached by the Presidency of the Conference. He took note that there was a consensus on the text of the declaration. In his own name as also on behalf of the president of the Italian Senate, Mr Mancino, he thanked all the participants and declared the session was over.