- Madam President, may I first thank those Members of Parliament who have recognized that we have taken positive steps even if we have not solved the problem. Mr Lüttge himself was good enough to refer to what I had said as providing the first inkling of hope. The right way forward is not to engage in recriminations but, as Miss McIntosh said, to regard the Parliament as a body that can act as a catalyst. I think this debate has had that affect.
In answer to her question as to whether the Commission will continue to take initiatives, the answer is certainly Yes. I do not think there is any possible reason for denying the European dimension of the problem or the European Union dimension of the problem. I myself said at the outset that although in international law the responsibility is that of the states, for us that is not sufficient, particularly in view of the specific provisions of the Maastricht Treaty relating to these matters. And I very much hope that the Council of Ministers in November will deal with these matters and take them further forward.
Why then have we not done so until now? I will come to that, but before doing so let me say that a number of particular points were made about short-term problems, particularly relating to the islands and to the question of Marseilles and what happened at Aix-en-Provence. Obviously particular parts of the Communtiy are especially vulnerable because of the weaknesses of the present situation and their representatives have spoken with great force and conviction here this evening.
For the most part, the particular problems of specific areas can only be dealt with through a general solution rather than particular solutions. And they will benefit more from such a solution just as they have suffered most fomr the absence of such a solution. On the other hand, what has been said most recently by Mrs Bennasar - whom I should also like to congratulate on her excellent maiden speech - is absolutely right. There is a wide consensus on the need for action in the particular area of Marseilles. We do not have the power to impose that but if there are any further difficulties, action relating to that specific problem will be taken along the lines described.
One has to face up to the realities and ask the question why we have not solved the problem. It is not a new one. There is a wide degree of consensus over what needs to be done and some very fair questions were asked, for example, about the single market. Certainly what exists at the moment is a major obstacle to the proper realization of the benefits of the single market. What have been the obstacles to a solution? One has to be fair and say that the problem is a very complicated and technical one. Even if there was a complete consensus that would not produce an instant solution. The technical advances with regard to equipment and so on that have taken place represent real advances and I do not think anybody should try to deny that. On the other hand, Members of the House have rightly pointed out that more lies behind it than that. This is an area where national sensitivities are particularly acute.
(Interruption)
I am not justifying them and shouting is not going to bring the matter any further forward. I am merely explaining the facts and the House is entitled to have the explanation however unpalatable it finds it.
National considerations are very much paramount in this area, particularly because of the interface of the civil and the military. That is a fact. It does not mean that we should not do anything nor that we should not give it greater impetus. I have explained very precisely that we think the time has come in November to give it a further push at the Council of Ministers and this debate will help to do so.
If you ask me to answer the question why we have not solved the problem now, I have identified the factors, however unpalatable they may be. And there is a practical way forward. It would have been very easy for the Commission to come forward ten, five or three years ago with a comprehensive harmonization proposal and set up a new structure . The reason for not doing so is not a lack of courage. It is a very cheap sort of courage that puts forward a proposal which one knows stands no chance of success whatsoever because of certain sensitivities, however unjustified you may think them to be.
Therefore the Commission has taken a more piecemeal and pragmatic step-by-step approach. This has not solved the problem but has led to some improvement technically and an accelerating pressure on the Council of Ministers to take effective action. That pressure will continue in November at the meeting of transport ministers. It will be reinforced by what has been said today and I hope it will lead to an acceleration in the process of finding an effective solution not only for the short-term problems produced by strikes but the long-term problem which we can all identify. We all know the nature of the solution that should be produced. We have to get there and the important thing is to get there rather than to ventilate our frustration in less constructive forms.
