TABLE OF CONTENTS

 Publicizing the proceedings and the agenda

De Croo Herman, President Chambre des Représentants (Belgium)
De Decker Armand, President Sénat (Belgium)
Fontaine Nicole, President European parliamento
Forni Raymond, President Assemblée nationale (France)
Haenel Hubert, President European Union Delegation of the Sénat.(France)
Hansen Ivar, President Folketinget (Denmark)
Haselhurst Alan, Deputy Speaker House of Commons (United Kingdom)
Kaklamanis Apostolos, President Voulì ton Elìnon (Greece)
Rubi Úbeda Luisa Fernanda, President Congreso de los diputados (Spain)
Thierse Wolfgang, President Bundestag (Germany)
Van Der Hoeven Maria, Vice President Tweede Kamer (Holland)
Violante Luciano, President Chamber of Deputies (Italy).

 Role of parliaments - European and national - in reforming the European Union  and establishing a charter of fundamental rights of the European Union

Mancino Nicola, President Senate of the Repbublic (Italy)
Violante Luciano, President Chamber of Deputies (Italy)

 Agenda

Dahl Birgitta, President Riksdag (Sweden)
Violante Luciano, President Chamber of Deputies (Italy)

 Resumption of discussions

Aguirre Gil de Biedma Esperanza, President Senado (Spain)
Dahl Birgitta, President Riksdag (Sweden)
De Croo Herman, President Chambre des Représentants (Belgium)
De Decker Armand, Presidente Sénat (Belgium)
dos Santos Manuel, President European Affairs Committee Assembleia da República (Portugal)
Fontaine Nicole, President European parliament
Forni Raymond, President Assemblée nationale (France)
Haenel Hubert, President European Union Delegation of the Sénat.(France)
Hansen Ivar, President Folketinget (Denmark)
Haselhurst Alan, Deputy Speaker House of Commons (United Kingdom)
Kaklamanis Apostolos, President Voulì ton Elìnon (Greece)
Korthals Altes Fritz, Presidene Eerste Kamer (Holland)
Pattison Seamus, President Dàil Éireann (Ireland)
Podestà Guido, Vice-President European Parliament
Spautz Jean, President Chambre des Députés (Luxemburg)
Thierse Wolfgang, President Bundestag (Germany)
Lord Tordoff Geoffrey Johnson, Chairman of Special Commission for the European Union House of Lords (United Kingdom)
Uosukainen Riitta, President Eduskunta (Finland)
Van Der Hoeven Maria, Vice-President Tweede Kamer (Holland)
Violante Luciano, President Chamber of Deputies (Italy)

 PRESIDENCY OF THE ITALIAN CHAMBER OF DEPUTIES, LUCIANO  VIOLANTE

 Publicizing the proceedings and agenda

LUCIANO VIOLANTE, President Chamber of Deputies (Italy), as President of the Chamber of Deputies and also on behalf of the President of the Senate welcomed the Presidents of the parliaments of the European Union, their representatives and their respective staffs. He announced that unless there were any objections the proceedings of the conference would be publicized not only in the form of summary minutes but also through use of a closed circuit television recording. He also stated that a web page had been specially prepared for the proceedings of the conference on the internet site of the Senate of the Republic as also on that of the Chamber of Deputies, which would publicise not only the conference documents, but also the minutes of the proceedings. He noted that the general title chosen for this edition of the conference expressed concepts which, he believed, were shared by everybody. In particular, he considered that membership of the European Union was one of the most innovative institutional innovations in the contemporary world, and especially at present, on the eve of important reforms that would directly affect the European Union. New actors, whose operations were not limited to European institutions and who could "take advantage" of efficient communication networks, were making their voice heard within Europe with ever greater force. The next phase of development would make the parliaments' role as also that of their presidents more complex and not least in view of their procedural regulatory function. The conference could present itself as an active instrument of liaison between presidents, and it was hoped that the proceedings would constitute a further development of this new working procedure. After thanking all those who contributed to the organisation of the conference and would ensure its success, President Violante illustrated the three-day agenda and asked if there were any objections to the proposed agenda.

RAYMOND FORNI, President Assemblée national (France) while stating his agreement with the proposed agenda, remarked that the presidents of the parliaments attending the conference were obliged to deal with two particularly important questions: the forthcoming elections in Serbia, on 24 September and the maintenance of capital punishment in the United States of America. As regards the first matter, of fundamental importance for western democracies, he underlined the need to discuss the issue and the hope that the conference would adopt a common stance. Concerning the second question, he recalled the steps taken in Virginia to try at least to obtain the suspension of the execution of Dereck Rocco Barnabei and stated that such a fundamentally important battle must not be abandoned. He, therefore, asked that both questions be included on the agenda.

LUCIO VIOLANTE, President of the Chamber of Deputies (Italy), proposed to deal with the two items suggested by the President of the French Chamber of Deputies by separating the proposal for their inclusion on the agenda from the possibility that a common position could be reached.

HERMAN DE CROO, President Chambre des repésentatns (Belgium), stressed the need to deal with the questions on the elections in Serbia, scheduled for the following Sunday but suggested that the question of the death sentence in the United States, while a very serious matter, should be dealt with in another meeting as this would also give the participants sufficient time to prepare themselves. He, therefore, proposed that only the first question be included.

ALAN HASELHURST, Deputy Speaker, House of Commons (United Kingdom), premising that the agenda had already been agreed upon and that it would be difficult to deal with questions additional to those already on the agenda, stated that he, as other presidents, could not subscribe to common documents or stances.

LUCIANO VIOLANTE, President Chamber of Deputies (Italy), stressing the extreme urgency and topical nature of questions relating to the elections in Serbia, reiterated that adding new items to the agenda did not necessarily entail that a stand would be taken, while positions could, furthermore, also emerge in other ways without, for example, calling for a vote on specific documents.

APOSTOLOS KAKLAMANIS, President Voulì ton Ellìnon (Greece), pointed out that the items on the agenda had been defined last June and the preparatory work of the parliaments had been conducted upon them. He was, therefore, perplexed at the suggestion that additional items be added to the agenda for which preparatory work had not been conducted. In particular, he observed that as regards the Greek parliament a prior consultation with the political parties therein represented was necessary before the President can adopt any position. Moreover, he pointed out that passing a resolution on the elections in Serbia could lead to problems in terms of international law insofar as any such a position would refer to another sovereign country.

WOLFGANG THIERSE, President Bundestag (Germany), noted that the elections in the territory of the ex-Yugoslavia were an extraordinary important event for Europe and, thus, in his view, a stand should be taken in the hope that the elections would be free and democratic and the results not manipulated. Such a position should be taken for granted with freely elected parliaments. He, therefore, agreed with the proposal formulated by the President of the French National Assembly and asserted that the insertion of this item on the agenda was indispensable. On the other hand, given the complexity of the subject matter, he considered that it would be appropriate to defer the discussions on the death penalty.

APOSTOLOS KAKLAMANIS, President Voulì ton Ellìnon (Greece), observed that his German colleague had probably misunderstood him. There was nobody, in his view, who would not want to see the democratic institutions introduced and free elections held. The question should be considered in another light; that of the results that the conference expected to achieve. An action that was addressed to the Serbian elections might not reach the goals proposed as there was the risk that it could foster a climate that would presage further tragic events, whatever the results of the elections.

RAYMOND FORNI, President Assemblée national (France) pointed out that the frequency with which the conference met was not such as to provide an agenda that could take account of topical questions and recalled that some countries represented in the conference had asked to send parliamentary observers to Serbia in order to verify the regularity of the vote but Serbia had refused to issue them with entry visas. This fact alone justified the fears that the polls would not be held in a democratic manner. This justified the inclusion of the question in the agenda of the conference and, furthermore, illustrated that if a position was not taken, at least as regards the refusal to issue visas, the presidents of the parliamentary chambers and the parliaments in toto would appear to be incapable of defending the prerogatives of their parliamentarians. It was, therefore, necessary to take a stand. However, if some colleagues were not in agreement they were free to disassociate themselves from the resolution. With reference to the question of the death penalty, and while understanding the need to deal with the question in depth, it would still be possible for the conference to undertake - as a matter of urgency - to deal with the matter as early as possible, given that there were 3,600 persons condemned to death and awaiting execution in the USA.

ARMAND DE DECKER, President Sénat (Belgium) shared the position of the President of the French National Assembly considering it "unseemly" if not "unworthy" for the conference not to adopt a common position on the question of the democratic nature of the forthcoming elections in Serbia especially in view of the denial of entry-visas to European observers. With respect to the constitutional difficulties suggested by some presidents, there was the possibility of abstaining from the vote. It would, furthermore, be appropriate to defer the discussion of problems such as the death penalty, which, in particular, could become the subject matter of a special study.

LUISA FERNANDA RUDI UBEDA, President Congreso de los diputados (Spain), was in favour of including the question of the forthcoming election in the agenda of the conference although aware of the need for caution and the necessity of identifying appropriate "linguistic formulas", in order to respect the limit represented by a possible interference in the domestic matters of another state. In addition, she also agreed with the proposal to postpone the question of the death penalty to a later meeting of the conference in order to deal with the subject with the preparation and calm that a matter of such delicacy required.

IVAR HANSEN, President Folketinget (Denmark), while sharing the perplexities expressed by his British colleague, felt that as far as the elections in Serbia were concerned, it was in order to make an exception to the principle that excluded the presidents of some parliamentary chambers from taking a political position. He also stated to have only just had notice of the refusal to issue entry-visas to Danish observers who were preparing to visit Serbia. He, therefore, suggested that the Presidency propose a declaration stressing the need that the Serbian elections take place according to democratic rules. In his opinion, in conclusion, it would not be possible to make a common stance on the question of the death penalty.

NICOLE FONTAINE, President European Parliament, considered it indispensable that the conference make its views known on the democratic character of the Serbian elections, particularly in view of decision taken by national parliaments to send observers to Serbia. Seeing that the numerous international reactions were beginning to produce an effect on public opinion in the United States of America with regard to the support for the death penalty, she held that it would be a mistake to weaken the efforts being made in this direction, recalling the numerous stands taken by the European parliament on the issue. She understood the difficulties experienced by some presidents and thus their need for more time before making a pronouncement. For this reason she proposed that the discussion of the subject matter be put back a couple of months.

LUCIANO VIOLANTE, President Chamber of Deputies (Italy), suggested that it would be appropriate to consider the two questions raised separately, observing that the debate seemed to indicate that the discussion of the death penalty should be deferred.

HUBERT HAENEL, President European Union Delegation of the Sénat (France), observed that on the basis of the charter of fundamental European rights whose preparation was in progress, it would be impossible not to take a stand on the elections in Serbia and stressed that intervention by the conference would assume the value of a strong message.

MARIA VAN E HOEVEN, Vice-President Tweede Kamer (Holland), while accepting the principles on which President Forni based his proposal, she agreed with the considerations made by her British, Danish and Greek colleagues and also stated that the request to include a question on the democratic regularity of the elections in Serbia into the conference's agenda could only be a prelude to a clear and common stand on this question, otherwise it would be merely an exchange of views. Moreover, the request for inclusions in the agenda should have been communicated ahead of the meeting in order to obtain well-prepared speeches and consultation with parliamentary colleagues.

ALAN HASELHURST, Deputy Speaker House of Commons (United Kingdom), stated his agreement as regards the postponement of discussions on the death penalty. As concerns the elections in Serbia there would be no difficulty in approving a declaration couched in general terms that sustained the need to respect fundamental liberties. Such a document should figure as a declaration by the President's Office issued at the conclusion of the conference.

HERMAN DE CROO, President Chambre des Représentants (Belgium), shared the opinion of his British colleague but observed that a declaration made at the end of the conference might be too late for the events in question. He, therefore, suggested that the presidency prepare a declaration for the following morning in order that it be submitted to the conference the day following.

LUCIANO VIOLANTE, President Chamber of Deputies (Italy), having noted that the decision of the national parliaments to send observers into Serbia bore witness to the general preoccupation regarding the transparency and the democratic nature of the elections in that country, agreed with the need to take a position the following day in order that it be ready when polling commenced. The presidency could draw up a brief declaration concerning the guarantee on the democratic nature of the elections in Serbia. A draft of this document could be submitted to the conference the following day and could, where necessary, be amended. He also declared that the conference would be required to decide if the document was to take the form of a declaration by the presidency, at the conclusion of the conference, or a declaration of the entire meeting. Moreover, he held that the question of the death penalty could be included in the agenda for the forthcoming meeting of the Conference of the Presidents of the European Union to be held in Sweden.

APOSTOLOS KAKLAMANIS, President Voulì ton Ellìnon (Greece), considered it strange that the conference concerned itself with the electoral procedures of another country while remaining silent on an extraordinarily important humanitarian question, which involved fundamental rights and which strongly disturbed European public opinion.

LUCIANO VIOLANTE, President Chamber of Deputies (Italy), while agreeing in general terms with the observations of his colleague, stated that the proposal to defer the discussion of the death penalty to the date indicated was due to the multiplicity of aspects involved. The judiciary system of the largest democracy in the West, the United States of America, makes provision for the death sentence. In some countries the death sentence is sanctioned by religious convictions while other countries deem it a legislative-juridical utility. Taking a position on these questions was necessary according to the principle whereby the state is not the proprietor of the life of the citizens, but it must be made with due competence and in a non-obtrusive manner. For this purpose, it was necessary to be appropriately prepared and therefore, he suggested suspending discussion on the question in order to re-examine it when the proceedings resumed, that is after a brief pause for refection after which it would be possible to decide whether or not to debate the question or defer it to another occasion. He, therefore, passed onto the first point of the agenda.

 Role of the parliaments - European and national - in reforming the European  Union and establishing a charter of fundamental rights of the European Union

LUCIANO VIOLANTE, President Chamber of Deputies (Italy), declared the conference open and gave the floor to the President of the Italian Republic for the first of the papers on the agenda.

NICOLA MANCINO, President of the Senate of the Republic (Italy), declared that the European integration process was going through a crucial phase. The convention set up to draft the charter of rights would soon submit its findings to the European Council summit at Biarritz and in December a European Council meeting would be held in Nice, which would have to deal with many fundamental issues for the future architecture of the Union after Amsterdam. Consequently, the day's conference was particularly important, as it had to seize the opportunity of creating a more appropriate involvement of the representative bodies of the population of the Union. In addition, he reminded the conference that the need to implement further reforms had already been noted at the conclusion of the Amsterdam Treaty, to which a protocol was added expressly dedicated to the role of national parliaments whose right to be informed about the preparatory acts of community legislation was recognised. It was successively recognised that the traditional format of intergovernmental negotiations on institutional reforms had some drawbacks. Greater attention had, therefore, been given to the role of parliaments, which were now actively involved in the reform process, and not longer just required to ratify decisions taken during negotiations. In the wake of authoritative proposals launched by various European statesmen, various models for the reorganisation of the European Union had been ventilated, particularly in the light of the need to recuperate a functional connection between the efficacy of government actions at various levels and the representativeness of the institutions called upon to take decisions. The European Council meeting in Cologne in June 1999 had established that the remit of the new intergovernmental conference would have been defined in the successive Helsinki summit, where discussions took place between the countries that intended to limit the new intergovernmental conference to the three themes that the Amsterdam Treaty had deferred for future negotiation (composition of the commission, weighing the vote of the council and extending the scope of the majority vote), and the other countries that believed that a more extensive examination of reforms was necessary in order to give greater efficacy to the institutional framework of the European Union and involve the people of Europe in the process of European construction. The European Council of Helsinki, with regard to the definition of the remit of the intergovernmental conference, had only reached a consensus agreement on the foregoing three themes, but did not exclude the examination of the other amendments to the treaty, and gave the Portuguese Presidency the task of evaluating the possibility of supplementing the agenda for the new intergovernmental conference which started work in Brussels on 14 February 2000. At the European Council meeting in Feira, the Portuguese Presidency presented a paper with which it drew attention to the consensus for including, inter alia, the revision of the mechanisms related to the "reinforced cooperation" in the agenda of the intergovernmental conference. The Portuguese presidency emphasised the difficulties entailed by including further questions despite the fact that various countries, among which Italy, had pressed for the inclusion of further items. However, the European Council did not decide to preclude various possible solutions being presented to the Nice summit scheduled for the end of the year but, in view of the opposition of various countries towards an extension of the list of subjects for discussion, launched the idea of a new intergovernmental conference in the near future, or alternatively to identify new procedures for the revision of the treaties that would make it possible to undertake a reflection on additional and necessary institutional reforms. In the context of the discussion on the definition of the agenda for the intergovernmental conference attention was focused on the importance of reinforced cooperation or reinforced integration. The streamlining of the rules envisaged by the Amsterdam Treaty for launching reinforced cooperation initiatives could, in point of fact, enable some member states to proceed further with the integration of sectors in which at present a consensus of views had not been reached. This mechanism, to function effectively, would call for the following specific modifications: the abolition of the powers of veto by those countries that had not belonged to the EU from the outset; the application of this approach to the areas of foreign policy and common defence; the reduction in the minimum number of countries necessary for implementing the simplification process. In the absence of an agreement on the simplification of the foregoing procedures, there might be the risk that reinforced cooperation would come into being outside the ambit of the treaties. Experience has shown the difficulties of bringing understandings developed outside the sphere of the community back into their natural ambit as also the greater impediments created for adhering to such agreements on the part of the countries which initially had called themselves out from the initiatives. The introduction of more flexible rules would guarantee that such difficulties might be overcome as well as ensuring that such understandings were in line with the general interests of the European Union, which would be preserved by guaranteeing a single institutional framework. He stressed that the route indicated was not, however, free from problems and that an exchange of ideas in all the appropriate places between parliamentary representatives would be very useful. The problem areas call for clarification and among these there was the need to avoid that reinforced cooperation finished up by justifying the postponement of the most important question - the extension of a qualified majority vote to ordinary procedures. In order to exclude the emergence of a scenario characterised by first and second division member states, there should be the guarantee that new member states could participate fully and immediately as well as guaranteeing the open character of such reinforced integrations. The inclusion of the charter of fundamental rights of the European Union was one of the questions debated as regards the agenda of the intergovernmental conference. The convention, appointed to draft the charter project, had prepared an updated version of the articles to be subject to further general observation and conclusive scrutiny by Easter in order that the definitive text could be presented to the European Council meeting in Biarritz and successively to that of Nice. In the articles of the draft proposal it was stated that the Union of the European peoples, organised on the basis of the principle of democracy and the rule of law, were founded upon common values represented by the universal and indivisible principles of the dignity of the person, freedom, equality and solidarity. The result achieved seemed to achieve the right equilibrium between the fundamental common values of the European Union: the principle of the freedom of the individual from interference and constriction by public authorities (negative freedom) and the principle of solidarity. At the basis of the proclamations of the charter of rights there is the common aspiration of ensuring the right to life for every man - to a free and dignified life, in which the personality of each could develop and express itself adequately. The affirmation and spread of the culture of the right to life was based upon the principle of the inviolability of human dignity and implied that the life of every person from the birth up to his or her natural end was a fundamental value. It followed from this that nobody could be condemned to death or executed. He also recalled that two matters still had to be settled - the delicate question concerning the coordination between the European Convention on Human Rights and the charter being prepared, and the coordination between the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Community -if the risk of divergent, if not contradictory, case-law interpretations of the same law by the various jurisdictions was to be avoided. This suggested that the EU should adhere to the ECHR and thus to the jurisdictional mechanism of the European Court of Strasburg, to which the Union would entrust the safeguarding of fundamental rights. However, there were two obstacles for this solution: it could not be carried out without a prior and explicit amendment to the Treaty; the convention itself made no provision that international organisations could adhere to it. After noting that among the questions posed in the debate on the new institutional model of the European Union there was that of reordering the treaties for purposes of founding the Union upon a constitutional text, he recalled that the numerous positions taken underlined the need to improve the role and the position of the European parliament in its dealings with the Council, as well as in its relationship with the procedure for the revision of the treaties and the ratification of international agreements concluded by the European Union. The relationship between the European Commission and parliament was also subject to change, after the progress already made in Amsterdam where the double vote - for the President and for the constituency - had reinforced the relationship of trust between the executive and the representative assembly of the peoples of the European Union. In conclusion, having noted that in all the countries of the European Union a lively debate was in course regarding the latter's future, as also on constitutionalism, federalism, integration and subsidiarity, he stated that the need to widen the debate on common objectives went hand in hand with the awareness of the possibilities of reaching understandings on concrete solutions, notwithstanding the distinctions that still remained. From this point of view, it would be appropriate to choose tools suitable for collecting information on a systematic basis regarding the positions taken by the various parliaments, commencing from the premise that a wider knowledge of the respective positions, concerns and priorities would enhance the development of a common path (Applause)

LUCIANO VIOLANTE, President Chamber of Deputies (Italy), after thanking the president for his paper, stated that so far ten requests to speak had been received. He ruled that five minutes be allocated to each speaker.

LUCIANO VIOLANTE, President Chamber of Deputies (Italy), held it appropriate to pass a resolution on a document regarding the elections of the following Sunday in Serbia, at the conclusion of the day's works on account of the imminence of the elections. The test will be immediately prepared. He asked if the meeting deemed it appropriate to simply postpone the debate on the themes related to the death penalty or whether it preferred to draw up a declaration first. (The meeting decided to postpone the discussion of themes connected to the death penalty).

BIRGITTA DAHL, President Riksdag (Sweden), referring to the tradition in her country on the role of the presidents of parliaments, whereby it was necessary for a procedure of consensus to be followed before taking any positions, announced that she had to refrain from taking a position.

LUCIANO VIOLANTE, President Chamber of Deputies (Italy), stated that the procedure had been chosen on account of the limited amount of time available. He also communicated that as concerns the other question, the text of a brief declaration would be distributed at the conclusion of the proceedings. The text could be amended and would take the form of a declaration of the presidents of the conference on behalf of the conference. The sitting was adjourned.

LUCIANO VIOLANTE, President Chamber of Deputies (Italy), gave the floor to the President of the European parliament, Nicole Fontaine.

NICOLE FONTAINE, President of the European parliament, underlined the importance of the development of relations between the European parliament and the national parliaments as well as the cooperation between institutions, especially on the occasion of the intergovernmental conference and within the context of the convention for the drawing up of the European charter on fundamental rights. She also noted that cooperation between the European Parliament and national parliaments had intensified. The questions regarding the extension of the qualified majority and reinforced cooperation, although being viewed favourably, had to be handled with caution in order not to run the risk of causing the dismantling of the European Union. In the drawing up of the charter on fundamental rights, cooperation appeared more innovative insofar as it was not organised on a national basis but according to criteria of political affinity, as happened in the European parliament. The entire process took place, moreover, with the maximum transparency. All the meetings of the convention were held in public with therefore an open door approach to civil society. In expressing the hope that this method could be followed in future, she remarked the difference with respect to the progress being made in the intergovernmental conference. In the public opinion and within the European parliament the impression had begun to spread that the conference was marking time. In its history the European Union had gone through moments of stasis, which it had, however, overcome. If this sensation continued the effect would not be positive. She recalled that in the course of the meeting of the ministers of foreign affairs on the previous Monday she had invited them to make a particular political effort to overcome the obstacles that the intergovernmental conference had run up against. She noted, moreover, that the extension of the European Union was the result of the conclusion of the Cold War. The countries of Eastern Europe all intended to adhere to the European Union, and it was not possible to defer their membership indefinitely as this would only provoke a sense of delusion. She stressed the importance of the recent report of the three experts of the European Court on Human Rights, which had made it possible to overcome the crisis with Austria and observed that the European Union was not only based on economic relations but also on common moral values. For this reason the charter of fundamental rights was particularly important as it gave rise to other hopes of acquiring a real juridical force. The reflection on article 7 of the treaty requested by the European parliament should be carried out jointly with the national parliaments. In conclusion, she reminded the conference that as regards all the steps taken for the creation of Europe, from the constitution to a more intense involvement of the national parliaments, the European Parliament would propose the application of the cooperation method in order to bring the institutional process closer to the citizens. As regards this proposal it would be best to acquire the opinions of colleagues on everything that could reinforce cooperation.

WOLFGANG THIERSE, President of the Bundestag (Germany), underlined that the question of the role of the European Parliament and national parliaments in the reform process of the European Union as also in the drafting of the charter of fundamental rights of the European Union must be dealt with at all levels, from the municipal right up to the national and international level. He believed that the political union of the Europe should implement a global idea of democracy. Widespread prejudices can only be overcome by guaranteeing a real right to democratic participation by national parliaments. On the basis of the Amsterdam Treaty, the European parliament started out on the path of a constructive democratic exchange visible to all the European peoples by exercising those responsibilities typical of an organ of control to a much greater degree than in the past. The national parliaments remained a vehicle for shaping public opinion but in the medium and long term a European democracy needed a public opinion that discussed matters outside its national borders. The national parliaments could participate in shaping a European public opinion by cooperating better and by securing links with civil society. An example of this was represented by the working group on the quality of legislation. In dwelling on the themes and questions that made it possible to improve cooperation among parliaments, he noted that national parliaments could influence the European unification process to a far greater extent than was recognised by either public opinion or the national parliaments themselves. Referring to the presentation of a report on the democratic control of the European security and defence policy by the Vice-President of the European Union, he underlined that not only had much discussion taken place on this question but there also had been concrete action. He recalled the proposal to modify the name of the assembly of the WEU into the assembly for European security and defence, and to extend membership to members of the European Union who were not members of the NATO as also to countries, which were candidates for membership of the European Union. He also stressed the importance of the work carried out by deputies in the area of the Council of Europe and the work on the bioethics convention. As concerns the responsibilities for European-wide legislation and the participation of the Bundesrat and the Bundestag, the government was committed to informing the German parliament as early as possible in order that the latter may influence developments as soon as they begin. Regarding the role of national parliaments and the role of the European Parliament in the drafting of the charter of fundamental rights of the European Union, the Bundesrat and the Bundestag were making their contribution through the convention and the Intergovernmental Conference. They could, as such, represent a model or forms of participation by the national parliaments in the future integration of Europe. The charter would have to be discussed by the national parliaments and the European Parliament before its approval by the Council of Europe. As concerns European public opinion, modern technology must be used to improve relations between the citizens and politics. In this way information could be given and documents distributed in a manner that was beyond the reach of the political parties and went beyond national borders. He also looked forward to the reinforcement of the European centre for research and parliamentary planning, and reiterated that all these suggestions were aimed at improving relations between the national parliaments and the European parliament.

ALAN HASELHURST, Deputy Speaker House of Commons, (United Kingdom) given that the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons could not take binding political positions, as this is the prerogative of the executive, he reminded the conference that the competent committees of the parliament of Westminster had examined both the charter of fundamental human rights and the intergovernmental conference and each had presented a report. In particular, the report of the European Affairs Committee had been debated in the House before the Conference in Feira but without the participation of the government, and the European Commission had reported to the House on European security and defence policy without formulating its own observations. As concerns the charter of human rights, although progress could be made on a step-by-step basis, it would also be possible to make progress by streamlining the programme of work so as to complete the examination of all the items before the Nice summit. Many colleagues would like to proceed at a faster pace but it would be appropriate to proceed gradually in order not to prejudice the future developments of the European Union.

SEAMUS PATTISON, President Dáil Éireann (Ireland) expressed his thanks for the hospitality and congratulated President Mancino for his excellent paper. In his view the present debate on the future development of the policies of the European Union was timely and he underlined its importance in the context of the role that the national parliaments would be called upon to play in the process of European integration. He therefore illustrated the solutions adopted by the Irish parliament to enable European parliamentarians to participate in the meeting of the Foreign Affairs and European Affairs Committees. The latter was directly responsible for the development of the community process and also had control functions with respect to the government's actions in this sphere. The important cooperation between national parliaments and the European parliament had an authoritative reference in the protocol attached to Amsterdam Treaty but it must not, however, become too complex. In this respect efficiency could only be achieved by making the most profitable use of the limited time available for parliamentarians to dedicate to European questions. Referring to the need - already expressed by President Mancino - to bring the institutions of the European Union closer to the peoples of Europe, he believed that Ireland, an island, had to keep a European commissioner at all costs. The Irish parliament had taken a very firm position on this question. With regard to the charter of fundamental human rights, the Irish parliament had appointed the chairmen of the two competent committees - Foreign Affairs and Community Affairs - as representatives to the convention. There were certain problems areas that had to be dealt with as concerns the application of the principles of the charter. Thus, insofar as the duties of the single member states were not clear, it should be necessary to identify the bodies to which the enforcement of these principles could be assigned. He expressed his appreciation for the work of the convention and held that this conference offered a very positive contribution towards making the work undertaken more effective. Finally, he hoped that the conclusions of the intergovernmental conference would make it possible to open up a new phase in the development of the European Union.

JEAN SPAUTZ, President Chambre des députés (Luxembourg), noted that the intergovernmental conference and the drafting of the charter on fundamental rights led to reflections on the extend of the mandate of the national parliaments and stressed that cooperation between parliamentary institutions would be reinforced as soon the integration process concerned itself not only with the economy but also the sectors that were of more interest and nearer to European citizens. The role of the parliaments was that of expressing the opinion of the representatives of the people on the policies proposed by governments, within the scope of their negotiating power and with a view to reinforcing the complementarity of their respective powers. The fundamental rights, instead, form part of the exclusive competence of the national parliaments. European citizens had expressed great interest in the project for the charter of fundamental rights drawn up by the convention as shown by the considerable participation, also on the part of various non -governmental bodies in the hearings organised by the Luxembourg Chamber of Deputies on the preparatory work for the charter. The Treaty of Rome concerned the organisation of economic relations but Schuman's objective was much more ambitious. Subsequently the EEC had developed by enlarging its sphere of responsibility to cover individual rights. It is necessary to consider the identify of the Union in relation to the fundamental rights of which it was a guarantor and the European citizens who had reposed their hopes in the charter of fundamental rights could not be deluded. And it is for this reason that it was necessary to guarantee the equilibrium, in particular, between economic and social rights. Moreover, he foresaw further difficulties regarding the binding nature of the principles contained in the charter. The charter might be approved in the Biarritz summit in mid-October but if further amendments were needed, approval could be deferred to the subsequent summit in Nice. In this regard, he placed particular attention on the matter of the competence of the two courts of justice of Strasburg and Luxembourg with respect to which case-law was already in a developmental phase, given that one took account of the rulings of the other. In addition the courts referred not only to the treaties but also to international conventions and national constitutions. Therefore, they would have to take account of the charter even if it were not to have a binding character. This project which was still in progress would certainly occupy an important place in the evolution of the European Union.

HUBERT HAENEL, President European Union Delegation of the Sénat (France), in expressing his thanks for the welcome received, held that the innovative aspect that characterised the present progress of European evolution - which in the course of the years had made considerable progress - referred to both the new interventions of the European parliament and the national parliaments, on the one hand, and the drafting of the charter of fundamental rights on the other. The sum of this experience was positive. An innovative method had been followed to prepare a community text of great importance for the representatives of national parliaments and the European parliament, who for the first time were involved in such a procedure "from the start". The convention, with total respect for the principles of transparency and democracy, had allowed national parliaments to participate to the full, also thanks to telematic information, and had solicited fertile debates in member countries. The advantages of the original method followed were beyond doubt. In this respect, this methodology could also be invoked for the preparation of other important community texts, for example in the field of justice, where it would be possible to prepare the foundations for the harmonisation of penal law, for purposes, inter alia, of waging war on organised crime. The method followed by the convention would enable the national parliaments to work by bringing an even more active form of cooperation into being, which could also extend to a possible draft for a European constitution, in which all must be involved right from the start. This road, however, could only be undertaken when the time was ripe. Once the themes had been jointly identified, it would be possible to examine the question of the means to be used, in other words the organisation of powers and the sharing of responsibilities.

MANUEL dos SANTOS, President European Affairs Committee Assembleia da República (Portugal), after expressing his thanks for the welcome received and his hope that the conference would achieve the success expected, stressed that the question of drawing up a charter of fundamental rights of the European Union was one of priorities of the European political agenda. The Portuguese parliament and society had greeted the decision to start the process taken by the head of state and governments at Cologne. The work carried out by the convention was significant and timely and had obtained satisfactory results. The Portuguese parliament had formulated a recommendation on the need for a juridical and political interpretation of the charter, whose first tenet was to turn the fundamental rights of the citizens into positive rights by including them in the legal system of the European Union. The charter of fundamental rights did not necessarily represent a first draft for the European constitution, as it had to recognise the primacy of the national constitutions. The charter of fundamental rights is a document for the European Union not for the member states. The fundamental rights must be subject to a "clause of no-return" with respect to the European convention on human rights. On the basis of such principles the Portuguese parliament had set in motion a discussion that, within the framework of a plurality of contacts, made it possible to acquire various points of view and alternative solutions in order to reach a resolution that implemented the principles on which the consensus was given. Furthermore, while such a document represented "a half-way house" with respect to the expectations created, it still formed part of an unstoppable process. The Portuguese parliament considered that the charter should be juridically binding even if this, at present, was not a priority issue, and judged the method used to draft the charter to be of great interest in view of the participation it afforded parliamentarians, even if the role of governments could not be forgotten. It was necessary to continue down the path traced out by the convention as it would make it possible to involve the parliaments and the public opinion of the member states in the creation of a future European constitution, but with due gradualism. He associated himself with the views expressed by France and hoped that the preamble to the charter would not make any reference whatsoever to religious issues.

FRITZ KORTHALS ALTES, President Eerste Kamer (Holland), premising that in the meeting he represented the government and not the parliament of his country, observed, with regard to the problem of the involvement of national parliaments and the European parliament, that the members of the Dutch chambers had a very wide mandate and kept the competent committees constantly informed. Reviewing the entire procedural process, he advanced a criticism on the role undertaken by the presidium, with particular reference to the procedure for choosing the amendments to be excluded from the vote. Therefore, the presidium alone had the responsibility for verifying the conclusions reached and ascertaining if there was sufficient consensus prior to the presentation of the bill to the President of the Council of Europe. If the council were to amend the document, a further step would be necessary. Thereafter, the national parliaments would have to decide whether or not to institute a debate between its definitive approval and the Biarritz summit. He believed that a constituent assembly was premature on the basis of a structure similar to that of the convention. It was thus necessary to decide, inter alia, on themes such as the creation of a federal Europe, the distribution of portfolios within the commission and the weighting of votes. The political agreements should, moreover, be made during the intergovernmental conference. Stressing the importance of the role of the European parliament in this matter, he observed that two members of the national parliaments are not able to represent the position of the chambers from which they came. The national parliaments should take action in the field of their ordinary operations of executive control. The meetings in the ambit of COSAC would make it possible to obtain reciprocal inspiration for a larger and more pacific Europe, in which all the citizens would live under the rule of law and with a prosperous economy. In conclusion, he thanked the Presidents of the Chamber and the Senate for their hospitality.

RIITTA UOSUKAINEN, President Eduskunta (Finland), premised that the Finnish government had furnished the Eduskunta with sufficient information regarding the processes taking place during sittings of the Foreign Affairs Committee and the so called big commission, which periodically approved the government's work at the IGC, and stated that the Eduskunta considered that the European Union should view the question of enlargement as a priority. The intergovernmental conference, on the basis of the conclusions of Helsinki, should set this phase in motion. Apart from this latter aspect, the revision of the treaties was not a priority issue. In Finland all the parties can participate in the decisions-making process and the parliamentarians can oblige the governments to guarantee an adequate flow of information given that the amendments to the treaties must be approved by parliament. The question of the charter of fundamental rights aroused contrasting reactions and many believed that the European Union should have long since endowed itself with a charter of rights, but in the light of the most recent developments these reserves could be overcome. The convention had adopted a well-balanced position with respect to the national parliaments and could represent a model for the future. Its structures created some difficulties for the Eduskunta in terms of its guideline-setting function with respect to the government as enshrined by the Finnish constitution; a role that could not be fully performed within the framework of the IGC. In the future the conventions, which had shown themselves to be efficient and transparent, could replace the IGCs, as the latter are difficult to handle in terms of the reform process of the institutional framework of the European Union. However, the creation of too many vaguely defined structures for parliamentary participation could weaken the "authoritativeness" of the parliaments, whose capacity to wield influence would consequently be much impaired. In conclusion, she advised caution with regard to the revision of the treaties of the European Union in order not to compromise the powers of the national parliaments.

HERMAN DE CROO, President Chambre des Reprèsentants (Belgium), after warmly expressing his thanks for the hospitality received, drew attention to the gradual erosion of the parliaments' powers of intervention, insofar as its members are called upon to justify decisions taken elsewhere before their electorates. While hoping for an exchange of views on the experiences acquired in their respective activities, commencing, for example, from the next meeting scheduled to take place in Sweden, he stressed the need to obtain information from governments on decision-making processes right from the start in order to be able to intervene before decisions are finalised, and not merely to act as a "conveyor belt" vis à vis the citizens. He wondered if the charter, once adopted, would become an integral part of the community agreement, if the new member states would implement it and if clauses would be included to avoid the repetition of situations such as that recently involving Austria. The present text presented shortcomings in terms of social rights while it contained novelties in the field of eugenics, biotechnology as well as on the use and abuse of parts of the human body. The text was a brave initiative but it would be premature to regard it as a possible legally binding European charter. It would be better to leave it for the time being as only a solemn declaration. He counselled a policy characterised by prudence and gradualism, although within a framework of what seemed a virtually irreversible process of European integration

LUCIANO VIOLANTE, President Chamber of Deputies (Italy), announced the conclusion of the day's debate and declared that a draft declaration on the Serbian elections had been prepared (see attachment).

BIRGITTA DAHL, President Riksdag (Sweden), stressed her convinced opposition to the death penalty and held that it would be appropriate to intervene at the level of the Council of Europe in order to bring the question to the attention of the representatives of each country. She declared herself willing to evaluate the inclusion of the theme in the agenda of the conference to be held next year in Stockholm. In this respect, she stated that she could prepare a written document that could represent the basis for a constructive debate. She considered that the question could be resolved in this manner.

LUCIANO VIOLANTE, President Chamber of Deputies (Italy), expressed his gratitude to President Dahl for her willingness to have the necessary documentation prepared for a session that the next conference of the presidents might dedicate to the question.

ALAN HASELHURST, Deputy Speaker House of Commons, (United Kingdom), objected that the issue in question could not be dealt with in the framework of the conference of the presidents of the European parliaments as it would represent a dangerous precedent. He could not, therefore, accept the proposed procedure.

LUCIANO VIOLANTE, President Chamber of Deputies (Italy), declared his surprise for the considerations advanced by the Deputy Speaker Haselhurst, considering that the debate on the death penalty was a humanitarian not a political question.

BIRGITTA DAHL, President Riksdag (Sweden), given that no political positions were to be taken, declared that she was not contrary to an exchange of views on this question.

RAYMOND FORNI, President Assemblée Nationale (France), expressed his dismay at the argument advanced by his British colleague. He declared the death penalty a matter on which all the European parliaments had overcome their political differences insofar as it was a question that regarded human rights. He also noted that the Council of Europe and other institutions had adopted numerous resolutions in the past when the death penalty had not been abolished in France. While respecting the positions of each of his colleagues, he insisted on the need to deal with the question and expressed his suspicion that the desire not to intervene was related to a reluctance to deal with a matter that had a bearing on the United States of America. He, therefore, insisted that a discussion take place.

LUCIANO VIOLANTE, President Chamber of Deputies (Italy), pointed out that in this session the issue under discussion was not a document as such but the possibility of inserting the question of the death penalty into the agenda for the conference to be held next year in Stockholm.

HERMAN DE CROO, President Chambre des Reprèsentants (Belgium), after premising that as everybody had his or her own opinion on the death penalty and had expressed doubts about preparing a document, held that the question should be put to the forthcoming meeting of the conference be on the basis of a preparatory document prepared by the Swedish parliament.

MARIA VAN DE HOEVEN, Vice-President Tweede Kamer (Holland), pointed out that the pronouncement against the death penalty was contained in the charter of fundamental rights of the European Union and considered that the conference of presidents should deal with matters that referred to the European context.

LUCIANO VIOLANTE, President Chamber of Deputies (Italy), reminded the conference that 142 countries in the world still maintained the death penalty as part of their legal system.

MARIA VAN DE HOEVEN, Vice-President Tweede Kamer (Holland), believed that this was precisely one of the reasons why it was held that the question should be introduced in the charter of rights.

LORD GEOFFREY JOHNSON TORDOFF, Chairman Special Commission for the European Union of the House of Lords (United Kingdom), noted that probably the President of the French National Assembly was more a political office than that of the office of president of the other national assemblies, who, regardless of their personal convictions, could not take official positions on certain themes such as the death penalty in the United States. In this specific case, moreover, it was also question of discussing the merits of the legal system in force in a sovereign country. He, therefore, held that the conference of presidents should abstain from making a declaration that impinged on this subject matter.

RAYMOND FORNI, President Assemblée Nationale (France), while understanding the arguments put forward, stated it would be appropriate to take a position on the question at issue, also in view of the fact that it would be the only body not to have formulated any declaration on the death penalty in the United States. He did not subscribe to the view that debates had to be limited to questions that concerned the member countries of the European Union and indicated the need to evidence the "bad conscience" of an albeit democratic country such as the United States, which in any case could not be compared to nations with dictatorial governments.

BIRGITTA DAHL, President Riksdag (Sweden), reiterated that it would be more opportune to deal with the question of the death penalty another time, that is when the programme of the forthcoming conference was discussed and proposed that the discussions on the document concerning the elections in Serbia be discussed.

LUCIANO VIOLANTE, President Chamber of Deputies (Italy), expressed his agreement with the proposal by President Dahl.

RIITTA UOSUKAINEN, President Eduskunta (Finland), noted that the situation appeared in a very different light if the question on the death penalty was dealt with in a non-extemporary manner but within the framework of the forthcoming meeting of the conference, also in view of the fact that Sweden would prepare adequate documentation. She considered, therefore, that the issue should not be debated that day.

MANUEL dos SANTOS, President European Affairs Committee Assembleia da República (Portugal), in extending his warmest compliments to the Swedish colleague, declared he was in agreement with her suggestion and hoped that the question could be included in the agenda of the next conference.

IVAR HANSEN, President Folketinget (Denmark), declared to have no objection to the suggestion that documentation be provided within the framework of the Stockholm conference and positions taken with respect to the problem of the death penalty and its abolition. However, he held it was not acceptable that this item be included in the agenda as a subject for full-scale debate as he considered that the conference, meeting once a year, was not a suitable platform for such decisions and should limit itself to European issues.

SEAMUS PATTISON, President Dáil Éireann (Ireland) was in full agreement with the positions expressed by this Danish and British colleagues. Moreover, he believed it was not appropriate to proceed to a vote in this conference.

LUCIANO VIOLANTE, President Chamber of Deputies (Italy), stated that no proposal to vote had been made.

WOLFGANG THIERSE, President Bundestag (Germany) declared his agreement with the proposal to include the item on the death penalty in the agenda for the next conference in Stockholm. He added that this decision did not in any way predetermine the manner in which the question would be handled. He stated that this was not an issue on which there were any divisions between parties but was a question which involved the European Union by its being a community of fundamental values and convictions. He emphasised that the taking of a position by the presidents of the parliaments of the European Union would not contradict their roles or that of the conference.

GUIDO PODESTA', Vice-President Parliament of Europe, in line with the absolute condemnation expressed by the European parliament on the death penalty and also its numerous pronouncements on this question by the President of the European parliament, he considered that the proposal of the President of the Swedish parliament did not conflict with the proper nature of the conference.

ESPERANZA AGUIRRE GIL DE BIEDMA, President Senato (Spain), feared that a protracted discussion on the question of the death penalty could preclude the conference from taking a position on the much more urgent declaration with regard to the democrat nature of the forthcoming elections in Serbia, upon which he invited the conference to take a decision.

LUCIANO VIOLANTE, President Chamber of Deputies (Italy), shared the concern expressed by the President of the Spanish Senate and stated that the President of the Swedish parliament had simply limited itself to express its willingness to include an item on the death penalty in the agenda of the next conference, which was the responsibility of the host nation.

ARMAND DE DECKER, President Sénat (Belgium) recalled that the regulations of the conference entrusted the fixing of the agenda to the assembly holding the presidency and that the latter had to take account of the indications given by the presidents of the other parliaments. Therefore, he held that it to be inopportune to insist upon the issue of the death penalty, whose inclusion in that agenda of the forthcoming conference was the decision of the president of the host parliament.

APOSTOLOS KAKLAMANIS, President Voulì ton Ellìnon (Greece), stated that the conference was about to approve a declaration that ran the risk of prejudicing the holding of free elections in Serbia. He, therefore, strongly urged it not to reproduce the same international climate that two years ago presaged military intervention in Kosovo, into which the European Union had enmeshed itself by circumventing the UN Security Council. He certainly hoped that the elections would be held in a democratic manner, although he was not very optimistic in this regard. He expressed serious concern for possible repercussions on the entire area of the Balkans and suggested, in conclusion, that the document prepared represent a declaration by the presidency, underlining the dangers inherent in the formulation found in the penultimate paragraph with respect to South Eastern Europe after the elections in Serbia, whatever their outcome. As regards the death penalty, he observed that countries - such as Turkey -which were candidates for membership still had this measure in their legal systems.

LUCIANO VIOLANTE, President Chamber of Deputies (Italy), declared that as there were no objections, it could be established that the inclusion of the question of the death penalty in the agenda for the next conference would be entrusted to the body that would decide upon the agenda for the next conference in Stockholm, according to the arrangements to be decided by the parliament having the presidency. He also declared that the document on the democratic nature of the elections in Serbia would take the form of a declaration by the presidency (applause).

GUIDO PODESTA', Vice-President of the European Parliament, proposed that an appeal be included to the effect that the election results be respected, as well as an request for transparency and correctness in the polling operations.

APOSTOLOS KAKLAMANIS, President Voulì ton Ellìnon (Greece), stressed the need to avoid that the Serbian people perceive themselves as a "target" not only the United States of America but also of Europe insofar as this would not help the country to evolve in a democratic manner, but would only exacerbate the situation. He, therefore, stressed the danger of counter-productive effects originating from the attempt to pursue secondary objectives and was afraid that "frivolous" or improvised acts would be undertaken.

LUCIANO VIOLANTE, President Chamber of Deputies (Italy), stated that the Vice-President of the European parliament had withdrawn his proposed amendment. As regards the observations of President Kaklamanis, he stated that the objective of the document is not to interfere in Serbian politics. The declaration, which he held to be a very balanced statement, did not anticipate a judgement on the election. Precisely to avoid this risk, the vice-president of the European parliament had withdrawn his proposed amendment as it could have been seen as interference in political questions. Each president could take the position that he or she held to be most appropriate. He invited the conference to consider the declaration as a document of the presidency of the conference drawn up at the conclusion of the debate.

APOSTOLOS KAKLAMANIS, President Voulì ton Ellìnon (Greece), held it was appropriate to point out that the declaration was a document of the presidency of the conference and not of the conference itself, stressing that he did not intend to sign a declaration that expressed a priori judgements. If it was intended to approve a declaration in order to affirm that the denial of visas, which was manifestly an antidemocratic act, entailed that the elections would not be free, he personally did not want to accept responsibility for the consequences that such a decision could produce.

LUCIANO VIOLANTE, President Chamber of Deputies (Italy), repeated that the declaration was to be considered as an act of the presidency of the conference, having taken account of the debate taken place. He stated that in his opinion there were no points in the document that could lead to the forecast that the elections in Serbia would not be democratic. The document only limited itself to expressing a concern.

APOSTOLOS KAKLAMANIS, President Voulì ton Ellìnon (Greece), stated that the document spoke of serous doubts concerning the voting procedure and asked for what reason a similar declaration had not been made for Kosovo.

LUCIANO VIOLANTE, President Chamber of Deputies (Italy), confirmed that the document was an act of the presidency of the conference. He announced the conclusion of the day's sitting.