Debates of the European Parliament - EN

WEDNESDAY, 12 DECEMBER 2007

IN THE CHAIR: MR PÖTTERINGPresident

1. Opening of the sitting

(The sitting was opened at 9 a.m.)

2. Preparation of the European Council (Brussels, 13-14 December 2007) (debate)

President. − As the next item we have the Council and Commission statements on preparations for themeeting of the European Council in Brussels on 13 and 14 December 2007.

Manuel Lobo Antunes, President-in-Office of the Council. − (PT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies andgentlemen, the forthcoming European Council will first note with satisfaction the signing of the LisbonTreaty, which is to take place in the Portuguese capital tomorrow, and the proclamation of the Charter ofFundamental Rights, which will take place here today in a little while. It will also call for the process ofratification of the Lisbon Treaty to be concluded swiftly so that the Treaty can enter into force on1 January 2009.

The Lisbon Treaty, as I have said, will provide the Union with a stable and lasting institutional frameworkthat will allow it to fully concentrate on the political challenges ahead, including globalisation and climatechange, as clearly underlined at the informal meeting of Heads of State or Government on 19 April. In thiscontext, the European Council will adopt a Declaration on Globalisation. The Declaration will make it clearthat, in view of the global challenges that confront us, the European Union has both an opportunity and aresponsibility to act. The Union’s internal and external policies need to be harnessed to that end. I am thinkingof delivery on the objectives of the Lisbon Strategy for Growth and Jobs, fulfilment of the ambitiouscommitments on climate change and energy agreed at the Spring 2007 European Council, definition of aglobal response to the recent turbulence in the financial markets, promotion of free trade and openness,work with our partners to pursue vigorous and coherent development strategies, development of acomprehensive European migration policy and efficient use of instruments and development of capabilitiesof the Common Foreign and Security Policy and the European Security and Defence Policy, so as to allowthe Union to play a growing part in building a safer world.

Finally, the European Union will help to ensure that globalisation is a source of opportunity rather than athreat and that it contributes to the prosperity of the individual. We also hope to establish at the forthcomingEuropean Council a Reflection Group, to help the Union anticipate and meet challenges more effectively inthe next twenty to thirty years. The European Council will review the progress made in the area of freedom,security and justice. We should mention, first, the abolition of controls at the internal borders of the newMember States, a measure of great significance and great importance for the daily lives of our citizens. Theimplementation of the policy on migration will also be examined and, in particular, the progress made inthe implementation of the Global Approach to Migration with regard to Africa and the Mediterranean, aswell as the Global Approach to the Eastern and South-Eastern neighbouring regions. There will be a report,in this context, on the organisation of the first Euro-Med Ministerial meeting on Migration, which will betaken into account in preparing the Joint Strategy and Action Plan for the second Africa/EU Summit, asreported here yesterday.

Other aspects to be examined in the area of freedom, security and justice will include the work to be undertakento combat terrorism, notably as regards radicalisation and recruitment, and the progress in judicialcooperation. On economic, social and environmental issues, the European Council will review the work thathas been done in the relevant areas with a view to the preparation of the next cycle of the Renewed LisbonStrategy for Growth and Jobs, to be approved at the European Council in Spring 2008. The discussion at theinformal meeting of Heads of State or Government in October sought to strengthen the external dimensionof the Lisbon Strategy and confirmed that the Renewed Lisbon Strategy is still the right framework to meetthe principal challenges that confront us, in particular the challenge of globalisation. It also confirmed thatEurope is making progress and that the objectives set are still appropriate, and the main focus of the newcycle will therefore be to maintain the necessary stability to consolidate gains and press on with reforms.

1Debates of the European ParliamentEN12-12-2007

The European Council will emphasise the need to strengthen European competitiveness with the advantagesof the single market combined with a sustainable industrial policy and promotion of innovation and skills.Development of the external dimension and improvement of the conditions in which consumers andundertakings, particularly small and medium-sized undertakings, operate will also be emphasised. In theemployment and social policy area, the European Council will endorse the agreement on the commonprinciples of flexicurity, underlining the role of the social partners in the design, implementation andmonitoring of the relevant policies. The European Council will also report the results of the European Yearof Equal Opportunities for All and invite Member States to strengthen efforts to prevent and combatdiscrimination. I must also stress the importance of carrying forward the Energy Policy for Europe establishedby the Spring European Council. The progress achieved in the discussions on the third internal marketpackage for gas and electricity and the debate on the Strategic Energy Technology Plan will also be noted.

The European Council will then review the implementation of the Sustainable Development Strategy and itis expected to agree that the objectives and priorities under the seven key challenges contained in that strategyremain fully valid. It will also welcome the Commission Communication on an integrated maritime policyand invite the Commission to come forward with the initiatives and proposals contained in the Action Plan.On external relations, the European Council is expected, on the basis of Ministers’ discussions at the latestGeneral Affairs and External Relations Council held last Monday, to concentrate on the process of definingthe future status of Kosovo, in particular, in an assessment of the period of negotiation. Since, as you know,Belgrade and Pristina failed to reach an agreement, it is hoped that the European Council will also discussthe role that the European Union may play in the process in future and the course of action to be taken inthis connection with a view to resolving the issue, strengthening stability in the region and helping to bringit closer to the Union. The European Council will stress the importance of the various summits held in thepast six months, in particular the summits with Brazil and Africa. The summit with Brazil was, as you know,an unprecedented and brilliant initiative and the EU-Africa Summit achieved some very encouraging results,which I had occasion to mention in the Assembly yesterday. Lastly, attention will be drawn to the progressrecorded in relations with other regions, notably the Mediterranean, and in the area of cooperation fordevelopment.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the European Council’s conclusions reflect the results of the intensework done in the past six months and show that the main objectives of the Portuguese Presidency have beenachieved. The European Union will still have a highly ambitious agenda of work before it. We believe thatunder future presidencies it will continue to proceed in the direction of a Europe of high growth, socialprosperity and sustainable development, strengthening its role in global terms and in its relations with itspartners at bilateral and also at multilateral level. Thank you very much, Mr President.

(Applause)

José Manuel Barroso, President of the Commission. − (PT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, at the lastEuropean Council in Lisbon in October we were able not only to reach political agreement on a new Treatybut also to launch a debate at Head of State or Government level on Europe’s interest and the best way topromote that interest in the era of globalisation.

The Lisbon Treaty will be signed tomorrow, and on Friday the European Council will start on its task ofseeking concrete results for a Europe at the service of citizens in the age of globalisation. I think it is importantto stress the link between these two facts. Europe is solving its institutional problems but it is doing soprimarily because it takes the interests of its citizens into account and also because it seeks to project itsinterests and values at global level. Both ways are, ultimately, ways of achieving the same objectives.

The signing of the Lisbon Treaty is no mere formality. It signals 27 States’ agreement on a Treaty and it markstheir acceptance of a common commitment to Europe. It is, without doubt, a highly potent symbol of thelong way we have come since the deadlocks of 2005.

Similarly, the proclamation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights by the President of the Council, the Presidentof the European Parliament and the President of the Commission, which will take place in this House in afew hours’ time, is proof positive that the European Union intends to keep the rights of citizens at the heartof its activities.

On Friday, the European Council will give us another opportunity to show a European Union that is seekingto define its position in the light of globalisation. This positioning is partly to do with the Lisbon Strategyfor Growth and Jobs. The truth of the matter is that what we are consolidating today is simply the externaldimension of the Lisbon Strategy, essentially the idea that Europe’s response to globalisation must be pro-active

12-12-2007Debates of the European ParliamentEN2

and confident, not negative and passive. Only yesterday the Commission adopted an important package ofcommunications and decisions preparing a new cycle of the Strategy for the period 2008-2010.

Mr President, the Lisbon Strategy is working: it is creating growth and jobs. We now have the best figuressince the 1980s in terms of job creation. The Lisbon Strategy is helping to position Europe and Europeancitizens to succeed in the age of globalisation. The Lisbon Strategy has given Europe a common, pragmaticeconomic agenda, fully respecting national differences.

However, complacency would be fatal to Europe’s prospects of shaping globalisation. Much more remainsto be done: progress is uneven between policy areas, and some Member States are moving much faster thanothers.

Yesterday’s package responds to the need for Europe to act, to face up to growing uncertainties in the globaleconomy, and to the need for an even higher priority for the social dimension, education and skills, but alsoinformation and communication technologies, flexicurity, the need to have a common energy policy andto fight climate change.

The declaration on globalisation that the European Council is about to adopt fully acknowledges the role ofthe Lisbon Strategy. The declaration should set out our conviction that the Union has every reason to feelconfident about its future. Today’s European Union is showing how the preservation of European political,economic and social values and the defence of European interests are fully compatible with a proactiveapproach to globalisation.

Today we are well placed to continue the internal reforms, to reinforce our ability to compete at global leveland, at the same time, to maintain our values of economic and social cohesion and solidarity. Today, we arewell placed to provide the global vision that the world needs for a multilateral order, a system of collectivesecurity, open and fair trade and sustainable development, which respects the environmental balance of ourplanet. Today, we are well placed to pursue European interests in the partnerships and in the relations withour allies and the world’s other great powers.

Two weeks ago, together with the President of the European Council, I was in China and India for the summitsbetween the European Union and these two emerging powers. It was fascinating to see the pace of economicdevelopment in that part of the world. We need to be attentive to what is going on in Asia. It is true thateconomic development has helped to take millions of human beings out of poverty. I have no doubts theirprogress will have a direct impact on future generations of Europeans.

The crucial question is: what are we going to do in the face of such a structural transformation? We shouldhave no illusions: globalisation also means deep changes in the world balance of power. The truth is that,not many years ago, here in Europe, when people spoke about globalisation, they were thinking mainlyabout Westernisation or, sometimes, Americanisation. Today, when we in Europe speak about globalisation,many people think, above all, of the growing, emerging economic powers in Asia.

So the world is changing, and I believe this is also making the need to adapt our common European projectto the new challenges more obvious. That is why, today, there are conditions for accepting the declarationon globalisation that European Union leaders will adopt this week. It is more obvious than ever that eventhe greatest powers of Europe cannot tackle the challenges of globalisation alone. It is obvious that, morethan ever, we need a strong European Union.

I believe that the rise of the powers of Asia on one hand and the awareness about the climate change challengeon the other are, in fact, two very important driving forces for the European Union, because they show usthat there is a challenge called globalisation and that there is also an opportunity to grasp.

Therefore, I think that this week’s European Council will have a very important meaning and a greatsignificance. Some years ago it would have been impossible for European leaders to agree on the declarationon globalisation they are about to support. Now it is quite clear that the goals of the European Union are notjust internal: the goals of the European Union are also global. We need to promote our interests and topromote our values in the new global order that is emerging. That is why I think we can take very importantdecisions this week. We should do that with full confidence in our capacities, above all trusting the abilityof European societies to rise to the circumstances.

In particular, we should not forget that, in Europe, we have impressive human skills, great traditions ofknowledge and critical knowledge, the capacity to adapt. We have sophisticated scientific and technological


knowledge. More importantly, we have free societies organised under the rule of law, and this gives us a greatadvantage in a world that is changing – and changing fast.

This is the European way of life. To preserve it and to improve it is our best investment. With the right policyagenda, we can face globalisation with confidence. Globalisation poses specific challenges. One of these ismass migration, which is, to some extent, a new phenomenon in Europe – at least with the dimension it hastaken recently.

Last week the Commission adopted a communication on migration, which will be discussed in the EuropeanCouncil. It stresses the need to see the issue in an overall perspective. It is, of course, central to our bordercontrols and security, but it also has huge economic and social implications, and demands to be a centraltheme in our relations with partners worldwide. Migration is close to the concerns and interests of citizens.It cannot be tackled by any individual Member State on its own. As I have said several times, also in thisHouse, it is completely absurd in a European Union of 27 Member States, where we have freedom of circulationof people, to have 27 policies of immigration. We need to have a common approach to immigration, andwe need to recognise that the problems some of our Member States are facing should also be considered asEuropean problems.

(Applause)

We need an integrated policy, one which makes sense to European citizens, to immigrants and to internationalpartners. The goal of our document presented to this Council is to spark debate, first at the European Council,but also in European societies, including, of course, this Parliament, and launch a process leading to acomprehensive policy. By addressing an issue that is a central concern of European citizens, just a day afterthe signature of the Lisbon Treaty, the Union continues its approach, one which is based on concrete resultsfor Europe and concrete results for our citizens. This is the right way to move forward, and I think this week’sEuropean summit can take us a step further in our wish and our will to shape globalisation and shape it withour values.

(Applause)

Joseph Daul, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (FR) Mr President, President of the Commission,President-in-Office, ladies and gentlemen, the Lisbon European Council marks a return to a Europe ofachievements and added value. For the people of Europe, this Council sets the seal on greater freedom ofmovement and closer integration. Many institutional problems have been resolved and two years of stallingand uncertainty are drawing to a close.

Tomorrow in Lisbon, 27 signatures on the Reform Treaty will confirm our shared destiny in a European21st century based on our common values, our prosperity, security and solidarity. From January 2009 weaim to apply our new method of operation. This is important because the Lisbon Treaty provisions will havean impact on the next European elections and thus on the appointment of the President of the Commission.

Ladies and gentlemen, the Charter of Fundamental Rights is the major innovation in the Lisbon Treaty becauseit delivers a clear response to two basic questions: who are we and what is the nature of our joint endeavour?The Charter embodies our sharing of values and, at the same time, reflects a consensus on our unity indiversity. If we neglect either one of those elements we will incur opposition and reluctance on the part ofour peoples. I hope that both the spirit and the letter of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights willapply across the widest possible area of Europe, for this Charter truly does enshrine our individual identificationwith the European Union and our connection to a European Community of shared values.

The Reform Treaty also extends the scope of democracy by enhancing the power of the European Parliament,establishing a fairer voting system in the Council, giving the national parliaments a bigger role as guarantorsof subsidiarity and bringing the Union closer to ordinary people, who will now be entitled to initiate legislation.

The European Parliament will have more duties and more responsibilities to Europe’s citizens. Our Assemblymust therefore be more rigorous, and it needs a higher profile. My group is ready to contribute both in thelegislative process and in bringing forward new ideas. I also support the proposal to set up a ReflectionGroup. It will have a crucially important role to play in charting our course over the next 20 or 30 years. Ifwe intend to build a Europe founded on prosperity and security, as well as values and a shared sense ofsolidarity, we need the capacity to reflect on the future of the European social model.


Once the treaty has been ratified we shall be able to focus on those policy areas where people want Europeto do more. Issues like climate change, energy, immigration and security need to be tackled at Europeanlevel.

Ladies and gentlemen, the second decision anticipated in Lisbon is of more than symbolic significance. Itconcerns extension of the Schengen acquis to those Member States which joined the Union in 2004. Freedomof movement is a sensitive issue, particularly for people who have borne the yoke of occupation and havebeen deprived of freedom. Living in a Community of shared values cannot be reconciled with the impositionof distinctions between people on the move inside the European Union. Having said that, equal treatmentalso implies equality before the law. If those principles fall by the wayside, we will never achieve socialcohesion, and the people we represent will turn their backs on Europe.

I also welcome the extension of police and judicial cooperation among the Member States. In an open Europe,it offers an effective means of combating the scourges of trafficking in human beings and illegal immigration.Ladies and gentlemen, Thursday’s European Council brings us one step nearer to achieving a more open,more democratic Europe and one with a capacity to act. And remember, too, that a Europe which guaranteesunity in diversity contributes not only to stability within its own borders but also to peace throughout theworld.

Martin Schulz, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the President of theCommission rightly referred to one of the core challenges of the present time, namely the question of howwe should organise home-affairs policy in Europe on the basis of the Treaty that is to be signed tomorrow,on the basis of the new legal structures of the European Union. He cited the problem of mass immigrationinto Europe as an example of the way in which an internal European area, by which I mean a legal area thathas external borders but no longer has internal borders, can be organised. We do that on an intergovernmentallevel.

No one should be under any illusions – the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement is not thelaw of the European Union; it is not Community law, but an intergovernmental instrument. That in itselfshows that we still have a structural defect, for intergovernmental instruments are primarily a form of lawthat focuses on national sovereignty rather than on the creation of an effective European framework. Thisis a fundamental distinction. The fact is that law based on national sovereignty enables every manifestationof national particularism and every individual reservation to block the progress of the Union. In view of thechallenges facing us in the field of migration policy, that is something we cannot afford.

To that extent, President Barroso is perfectly correct, for it is wrong that some – in southern Europe, forexample – should be under intense migratory pressure, while those at the other geographical ends of Europewash their hands of the problem. That cannot go on indefinitely. The step we are now taking in relaunchingthe integration process on the basis of a new Treaty is therefore a first step that must be followed by more,by which I mean closer integration in other areas, including those of the common home-affairs policy, thecommon security policy and the common justice policy.

This brings me to my second point, which is of particular importance to us at the present moment. We shallbe formally signing the Charter of Fundamental Rights today. Splendid! An exquisite table, magnificentchairs, a congenial atmosphere, as always.

(Interjection by Daniel Cohn-Bendit: And magnificent Members of Parliament!)

Yes, wonderful Members of Parliament too. Some Members, however, are nicer than others, Mr Cohn-Bendit.

(Laughter)

The setting will be marvellous, as always. Yet it all reminds me of a close friend of mine who has been marriedseveral times in his life and has also filed for divorce several times. And every time I attended his weddingand was about to go home after the solemn celebration and the magnificent function that had been laid on,I would say to him, ‘You gave us a great day, as always’. I feel a bit like that today. I was in Rome – along withyou, Mr Pöttering, and a number of other Members who are here today. We experienced that in Rome. Itwas like a wedding – celebratory, fine food, a wonderful ceremony, great music,

(Interjection by Daniel Cohn-Bendit: Beautiful city!)

a beautiful city, a splendid atmosphere, no Cohn-Bendit there, so just magnificent!

(Laughter)


We went home afterwards and experienced the divorce. And today we are off to the next wedding, this timein Lisbon: splendid atmosphere, wonderful city, no Cohn-Bendit – everything just as it should be. I only hopethat another petition for divorce will not follow in Ireland. In short, ladies and gentlemen, we have no reasonto celebrate until the Treaty has actually been ratified in all 27 countries.

It makes sense to ratify the Treaty. Those anti-Europeans who wanted to scupper the constitution becausethey believed they could halt the integration process that way have certainly been taught a lesson by thisTreaty. It is true that the Lisbon Treaty does not satisfy all our wishes, but it is better than destroying Europeby constantly opposing integration.

(Applause)

And those who rejected the draft Constitutional Treaty because they believed it was short on social policyand needed a stronger social element will not find that extra element in this new Treaty, but the proclamationof the Charter of Human Rights and its integration into the Treaty have made it possible to realise a numberof fundamental social rights.

There were no doubt reasons for the rejection of the draft constitution by extremists on both sides. I cansympathise more with those who rejected it on social grounds than with the anti-Europeans, who reject theTreaty on principle because they do not want this Union.

One thing, however, is quite clear: this Treaty can only be a stepping stone. It is a step forward, but it doesnot take us far enough. Nevertheless, it is a step that must be taken now in any event. I hope that this marriageis for life and that the divorce lawyers will stay at home, for none of the challenges of the coming years – andmy honourable colleague Mr Swoboda will shortly be speaking about Kosovo – will be surmountable unlesswe set Europe on firm institutional foundations.

(Applause)

Andrew Duff, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, Mr Schulz is perfectly correct that this is a weekof celebration, solemnly proclaiming the Charter protecting our citizens from abuse of the great powervested inside the Union, and the signing of the Treaty of Lisbon strengthening our capacity to act andimproving dramatically the quality of our democracy. I am delighted that Prime Minister Brown has finallydecided to show up, although, unfortunately, to show up late. I am afraid that is par for the course for Britishparticipation in the EU. Please be careful that Mr Brown signs in pen rather than in pencil!

(Laughter)

The European Council is our first chance to step forward decisively from this introspective period of reflectionand start to do some serious politics. First up is Kosovo, and here the Union is about to supervise theindependence of a country without the approval of the UN Security Council. It is crucial for the future ofKosovo and the rest of us that those who fear that such a bold step will create a precedent choose the wisepath of constructive abstention and do not seek to block the self-determination of Kosovans.

The European Council should also begin to take some firm decisions on the size and shape of the ESDPmission to Kosovo as a signal of its intention. We should also, moreover, reiterate our refusal to sign astabilisation and association agreement with Serbia before the delivery of its war criminals to the ICC. It isin this context that the Sarkozy-inspired groupe des sages could be put to some serious work to build up somealternative scenarios for the future of the Balkans, but it must not mess up our current commitments.

(Applause)

Brian Crowley, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (GA) Mr President, the EU’s leaders are assembled in Brusselsfor a European Council meeting on the day after the signing of the new Reform Treaty. Ireland is one of thecountries where the provisions of the Treaty will be put to a referendum; if the campaign in support of theTreaty is run on a visibly professional footing, I believe that the referendum will prove to be a great success.

And, further to what Mr Schulz said about the dangers of a negative coming from Europe, it behoves me, asa representative from Ireland, speaking at this round of the debate on the future of Lisbon, to point out anumber of home truths.

Firstly, to congratulate all those who have been involved in bringing about the final agreement on the LisbonTreaty. But that is only the written document, and we ask ourselves – and often in this Parliament we askourselves – what does Europe want to see? What do the people and citizens of Europe want to know about?


Yes, the citizens of Europe want more Europe. But more Europe, to them, does not mean what a lot of usinside this room might think. It does not mean new regulations, new laws – new restrictions, as they wouldsee it. It means a cleverer Europe, a Europe that delivers a response to their everyday needs. That is why theLisbon Strategy – the continuation and the improvement of the Lisbon Strategy – is so important as regardswhat would be happening within the Lisbon Council meeting.

Secondly, the whole issue of migration, which was touched on by many Members, is putting enormouspressure on resources, not just in financial terms as regards the cost to countries, especially those in thesouthern Mediterranean who are forced to expend huge amounts of money on tackling this problem, buton the social cohesion within those countries as well. It is creating enormous problems and drawing on thegoodwill and efforts that will be there.

Thirdly, and most importantly of all, the whole issue with regard to the kind of development of a Europeanvision that we want to see around the world as is now being played out in Bali at the Climate ChangeConference, as will be played out in the future at some other conferences in New York in the coming months,and, most importantly, that we have to tell our citizens and inform them properly of what comes beforethem.

Finally, could I say to President Barroso and to Vice-President Wallström, as we are having a referendum inIreland: no tax, no tax, no tax. The Treaties do not give you the power to come up with tax proposals. TheCommission should stay away from it.

Daniel Cohn-Bendit, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we havea wonderful gathering here. The President-in-Office and the Council have been diligent, and the summarythey delivered here was marvellous. What exactly they were summarising escaped me, but the headings werecertainly right.

The head manager of the Commission emphasised to us that the Commission has taken up the challengesof globalisation. He said ‘globalisation’ 87 times and ‘challenges’ 82 times, so it must be true.

And so to the wedding that Martin was so keen to describe. It is indeed an interesting state of affairs, for thebridegroom is marrying the same bride for a second time. That is unusual, even for the weddings you frequent,Martin. The only thing is that the bride is now a little older, a little more old-fashioned and less sexy than shewas in Rome. But this wedding is necessary. Today we are all invited. Because I am attending today and wasnot there the last time, it will go well. That makes all the difference.

Before I say something on two important problems, let me refer to the surreal performance of the BritishPrime Minister in Lisbon. He had discovered that a subcommittee of a committee of a subcommission wasmeeting in the House of Commons, and so he could not be present at the signing of the thing he did notwant to sign but intended to sign nevertheless, but then later, at the meal, he signed it after all. It was surreal,but that is Britain today. It is your problem, not mine!

Now, however, I would like to address two serious matters. The first is Kosovo. There is an old Jewish jokewhich says that, if you have two options, always choose the third. We have two options. If we do not recogniseKosovo’s independence, we shall have a conflict on our hands. If we do recognise it, we shall have a conflicton our hands. Both options lead to conflict, whether with Kosovo or Serbia. We in the European Union mustnow be resolute in showing how we can act, not just how we can talk. We must develop an Agenda 2020with a view to bolstering the rule of law in that region, and that agenda must be developed together withKosovo, with Serbia and with Bosnia and Herzegovina.

We must reinforce the rule of law throughout that region. We must develop an environment and climatepact. We must devise a regional development plan with components such as trans-Balkan route networks,giving the region the prospect of accelerated convergence with the European Union with the aim ofsimultaneous integration of all these countries into the European Union. The only means we have of preventingconflict is to ensure here that these countries are not only offered the European bonding agent but help todevelop it too. Then we shall see whether the 27 will be able not only to wed their brides but also to bringdifficult children into the family so that peace can finally advance in that region. I am actually talking aboutthe wedding night now.

The second point is just as critical, namely Iran. The Council will have to take a decision there too. In thiscase we can say that the threat of an Iranian nuclear bomb has apparently subsided, if we can believe the USintelligence service. We are all like little children, always believing what we want to believe. If people tell us


something that does not suit us, we say they are lying. It they tell us something that suits us, we say they areright. I do not know who is right, but it would suit me if they were right this time.

In Iran, however, the possibility of a nuclear bomb is not the only problem. There is also the problem offreedom or, more precisely, the suppression of freedom. The past few years have seen an incredible upsurgein the oppression of people in Iran. I believe Europe also has a job to do there. It is not just about avertingthe threat of a nuclear bomb. It is also about the freedom of people in Iran and about how we help civilsociety to win that freedom.

There are heads of government who think they are clever because they give wise advice and do great andclever things for Europe. Those who believe, however, that they can sell nuclear reactors in all parts of theworld, whether to Libya – a terrorist dictatorship – or to Tunisia, Algeria or Morocco, only to discover atsome later date that these nations all want a nuclear bomb, are being hypocritical. Yesterday’s New York Timeswrote something that we have all been saying for the last 30 years, namely that anyone who uses nuclearpower for civilian purposes will ultimately use it for military purposes too if there is no alternative. And wesell nuclear reactors to all African, American and other countries and think we are clever. We are stupid todo such a thing, That needs to be said.

(Applause)

Francis Wurtz, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (FR) Mr President, President-in-Office, President of theCommission, the forthcoming European Council will take place in the context of the signature of a newtreaty, immediately after a particularly important EU-Africa summit and also – let us not forget – during thefirst phase of implementation of the Annapolis process.

On the treaty, I believe the Union would be seriously misreading the situation if it thought that this summitagreement marked the end of the crisis of confidence which has dislocated entire sections of our societiesfrom the current thrust of Union economic and social policies. That problem remains intact. We would dobetter to recognise it and prepare responses to it.

A similar reality check seems necessary in terms of our relations with Africa. The Chair of the African UnionCommission, Alpha Konaré, has called on Europe to break with paternalism. He emphasised that Africa‘could not remain a hunting ground or become a new territory to be conquered’. He lambasted – and I quoteagain – ‘the logic of the Economic Partnership Agreements with their dramatic costs for the African people’.

Significantly, seven Latin American countries created the Bank of the South almost on the same day as thesummit, as a means of emancipating themselves from the IMF and of lessening inequalities in their region.The European Union needs to learn from that and take the measure of this general and growing demand fora fairer, more dignified partnership, including in its way of treating migrants.

Finally, the Middle East, which is apparently missing from the Council agenda: how could the Union agreein Annapolis to be completely sidelined from the structure responsible for implementation of the Roadmap?Does it intend to stand by and passively watch the agreement being violated – as was the case last week withthe affair of the East Jerusalem settlements? Generally speaking, what are our true aspirations for Europe andwhat resources are we prepared to invest in realising them? This is a priority question for the next EuropeanCouncil.

Jens-Peter Bonde, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – Mr President, tomorrow at 11.30 a.m. the PrimeMinisters will sign a final Treaty none of them have read. They are signing a bundle of amendments theycannot even understand. Yesterday the Danish Parliament refused a referendum on a Treaty they have notread. They breached the Danish Constitution and may be taken to court so we can have a referendum.

A few of them may have read a full draft; I doubt it. The final edition is still impossible to read for one simplereason: it is not consolidated. The IGC has decided that readable versions will only be printed when the Treatyis ratified by all 27 Member States. Do not read, sign, is a cynical moral. All negotiations in the IGC and thelinguistic lawyers’ group have been kept absolutely secret so far as many Members in this Parliament areconcerned. The numbering system has been changed three times to make any comparison technicallyimpossible before the signing. There is not even a table for comparison with the October published edition.

First they undo two referendums rejecting the Constitution. Then they negotiate in secret and keep thecontent under a new name. I still offer a good bottle of wine for just one example of a law which can beapproved under the Constitution and not under the Lisbon Treaty. Even the most experienced legal expertin the Danish Foreign Office has admitted there is not one.


In an expert hearing in the Danish Parliament, I asked three times to have some examples of national lawareas where the Lisbon Treaty, with its horizontal clauses and fundamental principles, cannot reach. I didnot get one valid example. The Lisbon Treaty will dissolve the existing EU, establish a new state with jointcitizenship, legal personality and all the tools of nation states. Most laws will be adopted by civil servants insecret. The democratic deficit will grow. My group proposes the signing should be cancelled until you haveread the final text.

(Applause)

Jim Allister (NI). – Mr President, again today many talk grandly about European values of democracy. Todaywe will have a pretentious affirmation of a belief in human rights yet, at the same time, the EU elite arepreparing to celebrate their greatest stroke of arrogance to date as they make ready to sign the repackagedConstitution without a backward glance towards their people and what they want or what they think.

The 2005 referendums showed Europe to be out of touch, but the lesson learned was not to abandon whatthe people did not want but to circumvent their opposition by determining this time not to ask them. Hencethe scandal that, across this continent, national powers will be stripped away, superstate structures will beestablished, a new EU citizenship will be created, legal personality will be bestowed on the EU and only ahandful of citizens will ever be asked.

Why? Because in most states, my own included, the leaders fear the verdict of their people, adding cowardiceto their arrogance. So on a day when there is much talk of human rights, I say: Give the people of Europethe basic political and human right to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to this Constitution, the right to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ in areferendum.

(Applause)

Carlos Coelho (PPE-DE). – (PT) President-in-Office, President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen,the Portuguese Presidency is coming to an end and it has a number of remarkable successes to its credit. Iam not among those who place undue emphasis on the diplomatic initiatives in connection with the Braziland Africa summits, among others: only time will tell whether they produce concrete measures or whetherthey were just great events with high media visibility.

But I would stress the structural measures that have been taken, for the benefit of Europe, in these six months.Three spring to mind: the end of the institutional crisis with the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty, which willbe signed tomorrow, the proclamation of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, which will be binding,the historic enlargement of the Schengen area with the integration of nine new Member States and almost4 million square kilometres, the achievement of strategic viability and the important GALILEO programme,which some people would rather not have, preferring to leave all that to the United States, Russia and China.

I should also like to stress the useful legislative work in cooperation with the European Parliament, and theexcellent understanding with the Commission and its President, Dr Durão Barroso. The interinstitutionalcooperation worked well and produced good results. President-in-Office, I wish you every success at theCouncil meeting on 14 December. We expect further important decisions, both in the area of foreign policy,with special reference to Kosovo, and with regard to Europe’s response to the challenges of globalisation.

I should especially like to congratulate the Portuguese Presidency on including the question of Europe’simmigration policy on the agenda for the Council, where President Barroso will be able to underline theEuropean Commission’s timely initiatives in this connection. There are problems and challenges that areclearly beyond the scope of individual Member States and that call for a common approach, this beingespecially obvious, as already said, in an area without internal borders.

Mr President, allow me to conclude with a national reference. Portugal has always done its best to serve thecommon interest when it held the Presidency of the Council. This was the case in 1992 with Prime MinisterCavaco Silva and with João de Deus Pinheiro, then Minister for Foreign Affairs and now a Member of theEuropean Parliament. It was the case in 2000 with Prime Minister António Guterres, and it is the case todayin the third Portuguese Presidency of the Council of the Union.

Allow me, Secretary of State, to draw attention to your personal commitment, the commitment of MinisterLuís Amado and Prime Minister Sócrates, and the commitment of all those who have been actively engagedhere, in Brussels and in Lisbon, in ensuring the success of the Presidency. I should like to draw attention tothe work of REPER, to mention the skills of Ambassador Mendonça e Moura and to express thanks for theeffective liaison with the European Parliament provided by Dr Alexandre Leitão.


Hannes Swoboda (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, President-in-Office, President of the Commission, it is thecrowning achievement of the Portuguese Presidency that the Treaty of Lisbon is now ready to be signed, andmany Members of this Parliament have certainly played their part too.

One of the functions of the Treaty of Lisbon is to strengthen the common foreign and security policy of theEU and to create an institutional basis for it. A treaty, however, can only create the right conditions, and thewill and vigour to pursue a common foreign and security policy are essential too.

It is correct, as some speakers have said, that at this particular juncture, when the Treaty is being signed,Kosovo will be a test of the Member States’ resolve to pursue a common foreign and security policy. Whateverwe decide with regard to Kosovo will pose problems in that region.

There is no new third option, as Mr Cohn-Bendit suggested, because a third option, namely devoting a greatdeal of money and initiative to that region, has already been pursued for some time. There is only the optionof independence for Kosovo, which will then give rise to a number of problems in the region, or else wecould decide not to recognise an independent Kosovo, which would also give rise to a number of problemsin the region.

It is quite clear, in my view, that we must abide by the principle that every step which is taken in the comingweeks and months must come from within the region and be taken together with the European Union. Thatcannot happen, however, unless the European Union has a common position on this issue.

On the basis of my own experience – and I have been working in that region on behalf of the EuropeanParliament for ten years now – I see only one feasible option, which is to move in the immediate futuretowards limited, restricted and supervised independence. I firmly believe, however, that it would be absolutelyintolerable and unacceptable if Kosovo declared its independence unilaterally and we more or less acquiesced.Many politicians from Kosovo are also saying that this process can be jointly pursued. I saw that at first handduring the recent elections there. The process can be brought to fruition if the European Union opts for ajoint approach.

In the closing days of this Presidency, may I also ask the Council to ensure that there is a common Europeanline, that the common responsibility for that region is exercised by all parties and that all steps that are takenin the coming weeks and months are accompanied by an EU presence in Kosovo. That is the main requirement.The decisive factor will not be recognition of Kosovo’s independence but energetic representation of EUsecurity policy in Kosovo, and the Portuguese President of the Council must play his part in making that areality.

(Applause)

Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE). – (NL) Mr President, the new Treaty is being signed at last after years of stalemate,but the parties to it must also at last act as the owners, the real leaders of Europe. It is high time they stoppedsimply crowing on the national stage about what they have achieved and started actively canvassing supportfor this Treaty and pushing for its ratification, so that it can come into force on 1 January 2009.

The biggest change is in police and justice cooperation. We need to be clear, and quickly, on how we aregoing to handle the relevant issues in 2008, during the transitional period. Where does the Council standon Commissioner Frattini's suggestions about applying the new procedures now, in anticipation of the newrules?

The Charter of Fundamental Rights is also being formally proclaimed today. And it is shameful that MemberStates have weakened the Charter by taking it out of the Treaty and especially by endorsing two opt-outs.They must now prove in practice that they really mean business on fundamental rights, rather than justpaying lip service to them.

Lastly, Mr President, the European Union is being made a bit more democratic and a bit more effective. Buta mature democracy must not only be vigorous, it must also scrutinise the exercise of power, and it must beresponsible. It is time for democracy, time to show responsibility – in the fight against terrorism too – socan we please have an explanation from the Council of the part Europe has played in the illegal activities ofthe CIA.

Mirosław Mariusz Piotrowski (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, history tends to repeat itself. Three years agothe Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe was signed. The leaders of the EU Member States were


greatly pleased and sure that the document would enter into force. However, two nations expressed determinedopposition in referendums.

The Heads of Government are now signing an almost identical text and count on being able to avoidreferendums this time round. Clearly, they underestimate this fundamental instrument of democracy. Thetime publicly designated as a period of reflection was wasted. Instead of being devoted to consultation, socialdialogue and discussion, it was spent in devising machinery for manipulation.

It must be emphasised that the so-called Reform Treaty is a very high-ranking document, since it leads infact to restrictions on the sovereignty of the Member States. It transfers many of the prerogatives hithertoreserved for nation states to EU institutions that are not subject to real democratic control. I am convincedthat if the nations of Europe were given a voice, the treaty being signed tomorrow would share the fate ofits predecessor.

Mikel Irujo Amezaga (Verts/ALE). – (ES) Mr President, a few months ago I telephoned the Ombudsmanin my country and while I was hanging on they played ‘Let it be’, which offered little grounds for optimismas regards the complaint being processed by the Office, as indeed proved to be the case.

This is a frequent sensation for those of us who still cannot see that the European Union is doing anythingto incorporate the regional issue or stateless nations into its institutional structure and politics. Every time,unfortunately, there are more people who believe that that day will never come, and the truth is that we arenot given many alternatives.

As far as Kosovo is concerned, we hear about the problems here but I have not heard anyone raise the questionwhich to me is the crucial one: what do the Kosovans want?

With regard to the Lisbon Strategy, we think that there is too much complacency and that this complacencyis due, in large measure, to the fact that the indicators for evaluating that strategy are based essentially ongrowth of GDP. When are we going to have some indicators of social and environmental progress so thatwe can evaluate the Lisbon results meaningfully?

Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL). – (PT) We are attending yet another rehearsal of the basic tenets of the neo-liberalpolicy which has been pursued during the Portuguese Presidency. The signing tomorrow of the Lisbon Treaty,containing the essentials of the so-called ‘European Constitution’, is undoubtedly the more serious issuerepresenting a qualitative advance in the neo-liberal integration that increasingly aggravates social problemsand inequalities.

Instead of responses designed to improve working conditions, they rely on flexicurity to make work evenmore precarious. Instead of responses designed to improve living conditions and address the problem ofpoverty which affects more than 80 million people, they present an even more neo-liberal version of theLisbon Strategy designed to pursue the liberalisation and privatisation of public services. So, as with theevents of 18 October and the demonstration in Lisbon, the workers and the people will continue the battleagainst this Treaty and these policies and the campaign for binding referendums on the Treaty after properlyconducted, pluralist debates.

Frank Vanhecke (NI). – (NL) Mr President, when Venezuela voted recently in a referendum, rejecting Chavez'splans for a radical change to the constitution by a very narrow majority, the would-be dictator of Venezuelabowed to the will of the people, as leaders ought to in a more or less free country. I think that we in Europemight learn a lot from his example.

We are seeing a 'European Constitution', democratically rejected in two Member States by a large majorityof the electorate, dished up to us afresh. Virtually unaltered, apart from a few cosmetic changes. There is noroom for any more real debate and certainly not for a referendum in countries likely to be critical of it or tovote no. The European Constitution – sorry, the Reform Treaty – is being signed in Lisbon amid much pompand ceremony and will then be rushed through the parliaments that support it with indecent haste. Europeis a sham democracy.

And the way in which the Eurocrats treat the voice of the people was again apparent very recently in whatCommissioner Rehn told us about the possibility of Turkish accession. He is on record as saying that nationalagreements or specific election pledges must not stand in the way of Turkish accession. The Europeanmandarins don't give two hoots about the election promises made to voters about Turkey's accession. InVenezuela there is still democracy for the time being, but sadly a lot less of it in Europe.


Giles Chichester (PPE-DE). – Mr President, there are some important issues on the agenda of the forthcomingEuropean Council. I look forward to hearing about improving Europe’s competitiveness, about progresstowards Europe’s ambitious goals for tackling climate change and about Europe’s commitment to workingwith the developing nations to alleviate poverty. Yet the focus this week will inevitably be on the signing ofthe Reform Treaty in Lisbon.

As we British Conservatives have consistently said, there was no substantive requirement for this far-reachingTreaty and, just this week, one of Europe’s leading academic experts published a report on the effects ofenlargement of the EU. She has stated clearly what we have been saying for some time, namely that the EUhas been operating perfectly well without this Reform Treaty. She says, and I quote, ‘The evidence of practicesince May 2004 suggests that the EU’s institutional processes and practice have stood up rather robustly tothe impact of enlargement’.

This is important bearing in mind all we have been told – that the EU could not cope with enlargementwithout institutional upheaval or even log-jam. All of this reinforces our view that this Treaty is all aboutpolitical symbolism rather than any objective assessment of what Europe needs.

In addition to challenging the rationale for this Treaty, we have also been very critical of the process thatbrought us to this stage. It beggars belief to claim that this Treaty is not in substance the selfsame EuropeanConstitution that was so emphatically rejected when it was put to the vote in France and the Netherlands.Alone among his fellow leaders, the British Prime Minister persists in perpetuating this myth that the Treatyand the Constitution are different. The British people do not believe him and the vast majority have repeatedlyexpressed their view that there should be a referendum. Mr Brown has ignored their wishes and this has donemuch to undermine his Government and the European Union more generally.

Robert Goebbels (PSE). – (FR) Mr President, President-in-Office, President of the Commission, in 1981one per cent of Europe’s population possessed 8% of its overall wealth. Twenty-five years on, the wealthiestone per cent has 17% of total income in the European Union. Meanwhile, one person in six – a total of74 million Europeans – lives below the poverty line as defined in the individual Member States.

Were it not for social transfers, around 185 million Europeans – almost 4% of the population – would slideinto poverty. Hence the need for an active social policy: a policy to redistribute wealth. The Union’s efforton the social front is, however, particularly puny. The vision that the Commission has just outlined, of amore socially orientated Europe in the 21st century, is conceptually flawless but bereft of any actual legislativeinitiative.

Commission President Barroso has just told us that the Lisbon Strategy is bearing fruit. He is right. Yet, atthe same time, the economic upturn in Europe is threatened by a particularly treacherous version ofglobalisation, in the shape of financial markets without frontiers. The so-called ‘subprime’ lending crisis hadits origins in frenetic consumerism in the United States. The global financial industry went in for ‘specialvehicles’ funded through unsound mortgages, and the cream of the banking, insurance and pensions sectortreated us to yet another triumph of greed over intelligence.

The financial sector itself, of course, risks nothing: it is ‘too big to fail’. National central banks and taxpayerswill ensure a safe landing for the golden parachutists, and that will not come cheap. Economic activity inEurope has already slowed down. Recession is looming in the United States. The dollar is sinking and pricesof raw materials, including basic foodstuffs, are soaring. The credit crunch is already affecting small andmedium-sized companies and would-be home buyers.

Reading the draft conclusion of the Lisbon Council, I find no prospect of Europe bouncing back, and I findthat bitterly regrettable.

Marco Cappato (ALDE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to start with the apparentlysmall victory that French President Sarkozy won by getting rid of the word accession from the negotiationsunder way with Turkey.

It changes nothing of course, the negotiations will continue; however, Sarkozy, who is currently the strongestand the most political of the European Heads of State, as borne out by the speech that he gave to this House,then comes to talk to us about Europe’s borders and the Mediterranean Union and people say ratherdismissively ‘he doesn’t know what he is talking about, what is this Mediterranean Union, he doesn’t knowwhat game he is playing’.


In my view, the game he is playing is very clear and concerns Europe’s borders: the Mediterranean Union isthe strategy of the Europe of nations. In practice, if the approach were solely one of a relationship betweennations, a Mediterranean Union could well be a reasonable way of solving economic, trade, and environmentalproblems. It is not reasonable, however, and an alternative needs to be found, if we want something else, ifwe want a Europe of law, of individual rights in particular, a Europe of citizens rather than a Europe of states.

That is the alternative that the Heads of State, the Commission and the European Union must use to counterSarkozy’s French strategy of a Europe of nations. We have to decide whether we want the Charter ofFundamental Rights, one day in the future, to be the Charter of Rights of Turkish citizens, the Charter ofRights of Moroccan citizens, the Charter of Rights of Israeli and Palestinian citizens; we have to decide whetheror not we want to give our Europe such a future, as otherwise the Europe of nations and states will prevail.

To conclude, some people are wearing ‘referendum on Europe’ tee-shirts: yes to a European referendum, noto national referendums, because referendums bring out all the populism, extremism, nationalism andcommunism of our Europe.

Mario Borghezio (UEN). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, fortunately there are still patriots inEurope and obviously we shall call for a national referendum. We shall continue to call for referendums,because we believe in a Europe of peoples, not in a Europe of high finance which supports and funds thatwhole technocratic policy, that whole way of running the bedlam of the European institutions.

That is precisely the picture that emerges from the restyling of your Treaty – the confirmation of an institutiondominated by a techno-bureaucracy answerable only to itself and feeding only itself. Where in this newversion is there anything, for instance, reflecting the strong call to defend the European social model whichemerged from the popular referendums; what answer have you given?

On the borders, no answer and continuing generic waffle about enlargement, without raising the geopoliticalproblem of Europe’s borders which, for us, is the key issue. An edifice such as Europe, which has its historicroots in the public law of the Holy Roman Empire, is not built by taking the value of the euro against thedollar as its spiritual horizon. There are other points of reference, especially, in our view, Europe’s Christianroots.

You will not solve the crucial problems facing Europe through your legal subterfuges or by letting yourselvesbe guided by the judgments of the European Court of Justice. States cannot be governed in that way, and norcan Europe’s future, Europe’s history. Long live the Europe of peoples, the Europe of Christian roots!

Miguel Portas (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Tomorrow the Prime Ministers and Heads of State will sign the LisbonTreaty in Lisbon. After that they will call for ratification. The difference is not in the text, which is a replicaof the Constitution rejected by the French and Dutch. The difference is in the method. Now they are askingfor rapid ratification without referendums. A few days ago, Mr Zapatero expressed here in this House hiswish to see the citizens of the various Member States pronounce that very day on the Treaty that will determineour common future.

At the summit on Friday, the governments will have an opportunity to dispel the suspicion that hangs overeach and every one of them, the suspicion that they want the new Treaty to be approved behind the people’sbacks. Let them seize Mr Zapatero’s suggestion with both hands. Let them set the day. Today, the LisbonTreaty is not really your Treaty. It will never be the Europeans’ Treaty while its viability depends on notholding referendums. Let them have the courage to meet the demand for democracy, because Europe itselfdepends on democracy!

Jana Bobošíková (NI). – (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, we often discuss how to bring the EU closer to thecitizens and make it more democratic without acting upon it. Tomorrow the heads of state or governmentwill sign the Reform Treaty and they have already been announcing in advance that they do not want referendato take place. It is sad that this Parliament has for most part applauded this. It is an expression of the highestarrogance and disregard for the citizens’ voice. I have the impression that the politicians are either too lazyto explain the new Treaty or – worse still – they are afraid of the citizens. The politicians do not want to haveto explain how the new Treaty will change the Member States’ share in decision-making within the EU. Thepoliticians do not want to have to explain to the citizens that they will not have ‘their’ Commissioner in theCommission. They do not want to have to defend the fact that issues such as migration, energy and transportwill not be dealt with in the individual states but in Brussels. Ladies and gentlemen, if we do not win thecitizens over for the rules governing the new configuration of the EU, if we do not explain to them, on theone hand, the advantages of integration and, on the other, the issues of loss of national sovereignty, which


the Treaty clearly implies in some areas, the gap between the political elite and the citizens will continue togrow wider and wider. This is why I consider referenda to be a key aspect of the Treaty ratification process.

Jacek Saryusz-Wolski (PPE-DE). – Mr President, the Lisbon Treaty will have a significant impact on theforeign policy of the European Union in the coming future.

Our discussions in the Committee on Foreign Affairs in this House allow me to pronounce a very positiveview on the new Treaty for a number of reasons. A single framework greatly enhances the coherence of theEU’s external action: the new Treaty implies a major step forward when compared to the existing arrangements.It provides an explicitly legal basis for the Neighbourhood Policy, establishes a single legal personality of theUnion as a whole and obliges Member States to consult one another and to demonstrate mutual solidarity.

In the institutional aspect, major improvements are made by enhancing the powers of the double-hattedHigh Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security who is at the same time Vice-President ofthe European Commission and by establishing the European external action service.

Most importantly, the new Treaty enhances the budgetary powers of Parliament over EU foreign policyspending, putting the European Parliament on an equal footing with the Council.

Moreover, the new legal basis for instruments or policies related to the common foreign and security policy(CFSP) are also established, for instance the sanctions against non-state entities, space policy and energysecurity, combating climate change, prevention of international terrorism and protection of personal data.

In fact, the greatest improvements refer to the European security and defence policy (ESDP), since the LisbonTreaty provides in particular for a permanent structured cooperation in defence between those MemberStates with the military capability.

From our point of view, however, the new Treaty also suffers from a few shortcomings: the EuropeanParliament should be consulted on the nomination of the new High Representative and Vice-President ofthe Commission, not only for the first person to take office on 1 January 2009, but also in the case of theinterim appointment afterwards and, obviously, when appointing the whole Commission, including itsVice-President for Foreign Affairs.

Let me also highlight the need for the new, newly-elected High Representative and Vice-President to effectivelyconsult Parliament ex ante on the main aspects of the basic choices of CFSP and ESDP.

To sum up: the Lisbon Treaty constitutes a milestone in the institutional development of the European Unionin foreign affairs and, as chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, I would like to warmly welcome itspending signature.

Genowefa Grabowska (PSE). – (PL) Mr President, three years after the end of the Second World War theUnited Nations Organisation proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which remains thestandard text in this field. Almost 60 years later the European Union codified human rights in its Charter ofFundamental Rights, a document meeting the needs and expectations of Europeans on the threshold of the21st century.

Why then have two States, Poland and the United Kingdom – so committed to the codification of humanrights at international level – objected to the Charter? Why do they not wish to give it to their own citizens?My disappointment as a Pole is all the greater as both Poland and the United Kingdom had previously acceptedthe Charter. Their prime ministers and ministers of foreign affairs signed it as the second part of theConstitutional Treaty in Rome on 29 October 2004. Their signatures not only obligated them vis-à-vis theirEuropean partners, but also constituted a signal to the citizens of their own states and a promise that theywould abide by the Charter.

The content of the Charter has not changed since 2004. What has changed is the attitude of Poland and theUnited Kingdom. My question is: why are the successors to Tony Blair and Marek Belka objecting to theCharter and depriving their fellow citizens of its benefits? I would also request the Chairman of the Councilof Europe to ask the present prime ministers of Poland and the United Kingdom why they are not honouringthe signatures of their predecessors. In foreign policy the principle of continuity is fundamental, and wecitizens – I refer to the Poles – need the rights embodied in the Charter.

Alexander Lambsdorff (ALDE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, a great deal has been said hereon the substance of the Treaty. We German Liberals have always attached vital importance to certain key


points. Firstly, the institutional compromise had to be preserved. Secondly, we wanted an EU foreign minister,not as an embellishment but as a genuine mouthpiece of the European Union. We agree entirely with whatJacek Saryusz-Wolski said a few moments ago about institutional improvements. We still believe, however,that the Common Foreign and Security Policy will continue for the foreseeable future to stand or fall by thepolitical will of the Member States, and that is regrettable. The third point to which we attached particularimportance was firm protection of fundamental rights, and for this reason we look forward eagerly to theproclamation of the Charter.

On the whole, it must be said that the Treaty of Lisbon is a success for German-Portuguese cooperation, forwhich both Presidencies deserve to be congratulated.

A real fly in the ointment, however, is the lack of progress in bringing decision-making processes closer tothe people. The Council’s decision not to present a consolidated text is what we would call Realsatire inGerman, meaning a real-life situation which is more absurd than anything a satirist could dream up. Thisdecision will soon be overtaken by events, however. I am sure that the public and the parliaments will obtaincopies of the consolidated text for themselves and read up on what the Treaty is really all about.

We must now enter a phase in which the European Union reverts from institutional navel-gazing to theadoption of a global outlook. We must discharge our international economic responsibility. The generalstate of the world economy raises the spectre of slower growth and job losses in Europe. In many MemberStates, including my own, I am aware of a reversion to complacency and a weakening of the will to enactreforms. That has to change.

My second point is that we must play our role in international politics responsibly. People want the EuropeanUnion to have a strong global role. The responsibility is ours.

Bogdan Pęk (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, Europe is not only an agreement among elites. It is not only theEuropean institutions. Europe is above all a matter of trust.

Yesterday, however, Udo Voigt, the chairman of the National Democratic Party of Germany, declared onGermany’s public television channel that Poland must immediately return Silesia to the Germans – thatPoland should immediately give Pomerania, Gdańsk, Wrocław and other cities back to the Germans. At thesame time he questioned the figures regarding the number of victims of the Holocaust.

I ask myself today, when the spirit of Europe moves upon the face of the waters and above this Parliament,why Mr Schulz has lost his revolutionary sensitivity. Why did the German Government not speak outstrongly? This is the kind of thing that led to the Third Reich.

We demand a sharp reprimand and delegalisation of the fascist party in question, which is doing somethingthat can inflict the greatest harm on Europe: it is destroying trust between European nations that are strivingfor the common good. Germany, as a leading European state, should be especially sensitive to this kind ofactivity and take action immediately for the good of the European Communities.

Alain Lamassoure (PPE-DE). – (FR) Mr President, I too should like to join in congratulating the PortuguesePresidency. The signing of the Lisbon Treaty and the EU-Africa summit will take their place as landmarks inEuropean history. However, we cannot allow these tremendous successes to be overshadowed by comingevents, and on that subject I must mention two concerns.

The first is about ratification of the forthcoming treaty. The fact of abandoning the draft Constitution andreplacing it by an ordinary treaty means there is now no impediment in any of the Member States – exceptIreland – to ratification by a vote in parliament. That is a key feature of the political agreement concluded atthe June and October European Councils. If, since then, any government has had a change of heart, the leastit should do, in the interests of fairness to its partners, is to inform them before signature of the treaty andnot afterwards. Mr President of the Council, I am confident the Portuguese Presidency will ensure that basicfairness prevails here.

My second concern – and it has already been mentioned by a number of my colleagues – is the situation inthe western Balkans. For eight years now we have known that Kosovan independence must come sooner orlater. Yet today, despite the considerable efforts invested by Javier Solana and the Commission, we are noless disconcerted by the situation than we were eight years ago.

We have said repeatedly that the western Balkan region is destined to become part of the Union, and weclaim to be embarking on a common foreign policy. Yet successive Presidencies of the Union have done no


more than pass the hot potato to the next in line. Things have changed since 1991. Sixteen years and300 000 deaths have intervened and it is time for the EU countries to show they have learned the lessons ofthat sad past. The future of the Balkans will not be decided in Washington or Moscow, or even in New York:it will be decided here in Europe, among the peoples who are directly affected and their European neighbours,friends and partners.

Gunnar Hökmark (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I shall speak first about Kosovo. In the Balkans and the Caucasus,we see a conflict between European values and nationalist tendencies, between European integration andmovements and ideas that are supported by Russia. If, in the future, we look back, I am quite sure that wewill never regret the efforts we can make today in order to support European integration with all the differentmeans we have, but we might very well, in the future, regret the efforts we have not made. I think it isimportant to discuss that at the European Council at the end of this week.

I wish, secondly, to speak about globalisation. I think it is important to remember that it is globalisation thathas made Europe into a leading world economy and that globalisation is a necessity if we are to be the world’sleading knowledge economy, because we will never be world leaders if we are only the best in Europe. Wecan never achieve results by protectionist measures. In the long term that will undermine the opportunitiesfor jobs and prosperity, but it will not give us the opportunity to be a world-leading economy as well asdefending European values.

That leads us to the conclusion that it is important that the European Council underlines all the efforts thatare needed regarding energy legislation, telecom legislation, the internal market, trade and competition.Competition is not a fight between different personalities or identities. It is an opportunity for all to participateand to move Europe ahead. That is the way we should choose, and that is how we can use the Treaty in theabsolute best way to respond to the global challenge. That opportunity has been given to us this week andwe should use it.

Enrique Barón Crespo (PSE). – (ES) Mr President, President of the Council, Vice-President of the Commission,ladies and gentlemen, I feel it right that we should start by publicly recognising the work of the PortuguesePresidency on a date which is very significant for the European Parliament, as exemplified by the ornamentalfront to the Presidency podium depicting the solemn declaration of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

The Portuguese Presidency received – and I say this as a representative of the European Parliament at theIntergovernmental Conference – a draft in which the Charter of Fundamental Rights was only declarationNo 11. It is also right to point out – as the President of the Council told me personally at the beginning – thatit was virtually impossible to change that status, and I believe that in the work of the IntergovernmentalConference we jointly managed to ensure that the Charter of Fundamental Rights was a legally bindingcharter. The Member States did not want to include it in the Treaty, but it is a Charter and has a constitutionalstatus.

I think we should remember the efforts made by many men and women over the years in the EuropeanParliament in order to achieve that Charter. I think we ought to remember the woman who embodies thetragedy and the power to overcome of 20th century Europe, Simone Weil, not to mention men such asAltiero Spinelli, Fernand Herman and many others who worked for so many years so that, finally, we couldhave a declaration of rights which would express our identity.

Mr President, I also think it is time, in a Parliament which legislates indiscriminately about cows, goats,cucumbers and finance, for us to talk finally about people, about the man and woman in the street. I find itregrettable that there are still a few States even today who are limiting the rights of their nationals as Europeancitizens.

Finally, Mr President, I would like to add another important comment, which is that the Charter and theLisbon Treaty strengthen the Union as a supranational democracy of States and citizens, and that is the firstresponse in an era of political globalisation. We are doing it at regional level, but I believe that it is an examplewhich we should follow for our own future and for that of mankind as a whole.

Othmar Karas (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we are preparing the summit, and Ido not expect this summit to spring any surprises. I do expect it, however, to open doors to the future andto position the European Union on many issues.

The first door it must open is the door to ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon. We expect ratification to beeffected quickly in all Member States and the result of the 2009 elections to the European Parliament to be


taken into account in the appointment of office-holders pursuant to the new Treaty. I also expect, however,that clearing the way for ratification will also mean that the Council and Commission finally begin tocommunicate and provide information on the content of the Treaty in the Member States.

Do not remain silent about the reasons why we support this Treaty. We welcome it because it strengthensour citizens, our parliaments, democracy and the European Union.

The second door we are opening is the door to freedom. Schengen will be discussed. We are pleased thatmore Member States now fulfil the Schengen criteria, because meeting the Schengen criteria means morefreedom within the European Union and greater freedom for citizens of the European Union.

Thirdly, the door will, I hope, be opened to enable the European Union to assume more global responsibility.Let me therefore say plainly that the scope for a negotiated solution to the Kosovo question has been exhaustedand that the European Union must jointly assume responsibility for Kosovo. It is our unequivocal view thatthe future of Kosovo and Serbia lies in the European Union and that we must make every effort to ensurethat people’s desire to be free and to live in peace with each other is satisfied.

My last point concerns the door to research and technology. Implement the Galileo decision, which couldonly be taken because the European Union shouldered its financial responsibility.

Manuel António dos Santos (PSE). – (PT) Mr President, President of the Council, the Portuguese Presidencyis leaving a legacy that is highly stimulating but also fraught with responsibilities. It is this political legacythat this week’s summit will be called upon to consolidate and develop. The signing of the Lisbon Treatytomorrow, the solemn ratification of the Charter of Fundamental Rights by the three institutions of theEuropean Union in a few minutes’ time, the establishment of a strategic partnership with Brazil withoutdetriment to the European Union’s special relations with Mercosur, the resumption of regular strategicsummits with Africa, and lastly the boost given to the Lisbon Strategy and many matters of decisive importancefor the future of Europe: these are notable achievements but they will only be of use if they produce thepolicies and achieve the objectives that are essential to make Europe stronger, more cohesive, more unitedand more decisive for world stability.

This is, in short, the responsibility that the Member States, the European Council, the Commission andParliament too inherit from the Portuguese Presidency. But it is also the incentive that will enable us all toemerge from the institutional crisis that has held Europe back and impeded the process of European integrationfor the past two years. To repeat what I have already said many times, my sincere congratulations to thePortuguese Presidency and I hope the forthcoming Slovene Presidency will continue on the same lines anddevelop what has been done. The sole aim of the forthcoming Brussels summit should be to create thenecessary political conditions for that to happen.

Francisco José Millán Mon (PPE-DE). – (ES) Mr President, I am pleased that the Lisbon Treaty is to be signedtomorrow. This will end a period of some uncertainty in which outsiders perceived the Union as sufferingfrom a certain paralysis. I therefore congratulate the Portuguese Presidency.

Once the Treaty is signed, I hope there will be no reason to sit back. It is a time for the Union, and hence theEuropean Council, to look outward and to be decisive in tackling the problems faced by citizens. I will singleout three.

Economic growth: the European Council must not become complacent. The signs are not good: the euro isfairly strong, making exports difficult; inflation is falling; the dollar is fairly weak and oil continues to beexpensive. All the studies – the most recent being that of the OECD – are lowering their forecasts of economicgrowth in Europe for 2007 and 2008.

Secondly, illegal immigration: this is a serious problem which the Conference of Euromed Ministers, amongothers, has been trying to tackle during this six-month period. In the action plan approved at the AfricaSummit I also saw references to readmission agreements and other instruments, but will those undertakingsbe honoured? How long has the European Union been negotiating readmission agreements with certainMediterranean countries?

Moreover, illegal immigration does not just depend on cooperation with third countries; we too need tofulfil our commitments, for example with respect to FRONTEX. Furthermore, the effective enlargement ofSchengen, which the European Council is to confirm on Friday, also means extended external borders. I hopethat the authorities and officials responsible for those new borders will be up to coping with the illegalimmigration network.


Finally, terrorism: the threat persists. There are the recent threats from Al Qaeda leaders; there are yesterday’sbloody attacks in Algiers; and I would remind you of what happened in France last week with ETA.

I am pleased that, during the Portuguese Presidency, there have been efforts to fill the post of Europeancounter-terrorism coordinator, which has been inexplicably vacant for over six months. If by chance therewas a lack of powers or resources, the reform of the Treaty was surely a lost opportunity to strengthen thispost.

Finally, I hope that the European Council will insist on rapid processing of the recent Commission proposalto amend the framework decision on terrorism to include condoning as an offence.

Paul Marie Coûteaux (IND/DEM). – (FR) Mr President, 2007 – this year of the German and PortuguesePresidencies – will go down in the history of European integration as the year of the ultimate snub to thepeoples of Europe and to democracy.

The treaty that will be signed tomorrow in Lisbon is neither simplified nor consensual. It is nothing morenor less than a rehash of the Constitutional Treaty, to which the French nation said ‘no’. Yet most of you,along with Mr Giscard d'Estaing, are noisily celebrating.

To those of my French colleagues who support this Constitution-with-a-makeover I must therefore addressa very solemn warning. The provisions of the treaty create a new state. That state is being imposed upon ourpeople against their will and it will therefore have no legitimacy. The consequence is quite specific, and quitedreadful: the organs of the European Union and the texts that they produce will have to be regarded asunlawful. Soon, therefore, we shall have a pressing duty incumbent on us under international law: the dutyof disobedience. I have nothing further to say.

Manuel Lobo Antunes, President-in-Office of the Council. − (PT) Mr President, Vice-President of theCommission, ladies and gentlemen, I should just like to refer briefly in my closing statement to an issuewhich has been raised several times and which is of the utmost importance, which is naturally on the EuropeanUnion’s external agenda and will most probably continue to be a priority in the coming weeks and months.I refer to the question of Kosovo. I should like to explain briefly the Portuguese Presidency’s position on thisvital issue.

In our view it was most important, after the Ahtisaari plan was presented to the Security Council, for theEuropean Union, Russia and the United States to form a Troika in order to seek, again in very close contactwith the parties, possible solutions on which the parties could agree. There were two main objectives, theobjective of trying to explore certain aspects of the Ahtisaari plan that could and should be explored. On theother hand, we are sure, we and the European Union, that we have done all that we could to make it possiblefor an agreed solution to be reached on the future of Kosovo. We had 120 days to do it.

We now know, and it is a matter of public knowledge on which the Troika too has reported, that it provedimpossible for the parties to agree on the future status of Kosovo, but all is not lost. In the first place, wemust record the excellent climate, the excellent atmosphere between the parties to the Troika and in therelations between the Troika and the parties. In the second place, as we hoped and expected, it was possibleto explore some of the aspects highlighted in the Ahtisaari report and new points of agreement naturallyemerged on that basis. In the third place, a most important aspect and one which has perhaps not receiveddue attention is the fact that the parties agreed not to resort to violent solutions to settle the question of thefuture status of Kosovo. We attach great importance to this political commitment and we only hope, naturally,that it will be respected.

The process has been referred to the United Nations again and will be debated again in the Security Council.The United Nations, let us not forget, has a fundamental role in this matter. But if it proves impossible atUnited Nations level for the members of the Security Council to agree on a solution that will determine thefuture status of Kosovo, we have no doubt that the international community and the European Union inparticular will itself have to take decisions which we all know will be complex and perhaps difficult ones.

Three observations in this connection are of fundamental concern to the Portuguese Presidency and will beof fundamental concern to Portugal as a Member State of the European Union after 1 January. Naturally, thefirst concern is to preserve the unity of the Member States. In our view, it is essential that when we are calledupon to decide and if we take a decision it must be a joint decision. We must present a united front. In ourview, this is absolutely essential. What we would not like or wish to see, what we would do everything possibleto avoid, is for Europe to be divided on the question of Kosovo as it has been in the past on so many


international situations, difficult international issues carrying great responsibilities. Unity must therefore beour watchword.

Secondly, the European Union must assume its responsibilities because Kosovo is above all a Europeanproblem, our problem, and while it is clear that we rely on all our international partners in seeking a solutionto this question too, Europe cannot turn its back on Kosovo, it must fully assume its responsibilities for aEuropean problem and, at the conclusion of the Presidency, I consider that the European Union is perfectlyaware of this fact and perfectly aware that it has a leading role to play in this matter.

Thirdly, we must not be precipitate, we must consider carefully the consequences of any decisions we maytake, we must naturally seek a consensus if possible in all circumstances and in all situations, and we mustalso naturally take a clear position on this question and convey that position in a very transparent and veryobvious form to all partners who are also involved in the question of Kosovo in any way.

Finally, any solution to the question of the future status of Kosovo must always and in all circumstancesrespect the values and principles that are fundamental to the European Union: peace and regional stabilityof course and also, obviously, respect for the law, respect for democracy, respect for human rights.

There is no other frame of reference for the solution to the problem of Kosovo and we must not, under anycircumstances, forget that the European Union offered the countries of the Western Balkans and Serbia inparticular firm and unequivocal European prospects, and we must work with the parties to that end also.The parties must know that their natural vocation is to be in Europe. Let us hope that the European Union,in solving the difficult question of Kosovo – and, let us have no illusions, this is a complex and a difficultquestion – we have no alternative, as I say, that the European Union, in all circumstances and despite anydifferences there may be on particular issues, must maintain its unity. This is fundamental and essential tothe credibility of the European Union and its external actions. That, in brief, is what I wanted to say to youabout Kosovo.

Finally, Mr President, I hope you will forgive and I am sure you will understand if I end on a personal note:this is the last time I shall attend a debate in the European Parliament as the representative of the PortuguesePresidency. This is therefore a farewell and a farewell that cannot pass without an expression of recognitionand gratitude for the support I have always received in this House from the President and from all the Members.I have learned with you and I have learned through you how important this Parliament is in strengtheningdemocracy in our Union and also, naturally, in strengthening the legality of the decisions that we take herewith a view, obviously, to creating a freer and more prosperous Union for the citizens of Europe.

So thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. I should also, naturally, like to thank the Commissionersand the members of their staff, and the President of the Commission, who often participated with me inthese debates and with whom I was able to establish much common ground in our work, objectives andefforts. Thank you, Commission.

I should also, I am sure they will understand, like to thank the officials of the European Parliament andespecially, if they will forgive me, my compatriots who work here. Finally, and I hope I have not forgottenanyone, I should like to thank my interpreters, the Portuguese interpreters, of whom I am very proud. I willend with the English expression: "I will miss you all" or, in Portuguese: “Já sinto saudades”. Thank you verymuch.

President. − Obrigado, Mr President-in-Office. We shall see each other again in Lisbon tomorrow, of course,and next week you will be here again to accompany the President of the Council, José Sócrates, but sincethis was your last speech here in plenary, I should like to express our very sincere thanks to you and toreaffirm that our cooperation with you has been a great pleasure and, above all, a great success. Thank you,Manuel Lobo Antunes.

Margot Wallström, Vice-President of the Commission. − Mr President, thank you very much for this wide-rangingdebate, which I think will provide valuable input to the meeting in Lisbon and to the summit in Brussels.

I would like to focus on a few areas that have been raised this morning, starting with the Treaty of Lisbonand the Charter. First of all, I think that the Portuguese Presidency, like the German Presidency before it,deserves great credit for getting us to this point. The signature in Lisbon tomorrow will underline thecommitment of all signatories to achieving ratification of the Treaty.

I would also like to use this opportunity to again thank the Parliament representatives for the important rolethat they have played in allowing the Union to solve its institutional difficulties. Of course, the Commission


has also actively engaged throughout this long procedure, not least through the Citizens’ Agenda and the‘twin-track approach’, which President Barroso referred to earlier on. Do not forget, those of you who saythat, after all, the Union works even without these changes, that there are a number of new elements in thisReform Treaty that will help us and explicitly allow us to tackle more effectively climate change and thewhole energy challenge, as well as providing for more openness through public Council meetings and theincreased role of national parliaments. So I think it will also help us to become more transparent, more openand more democratic.

Whatever ratification procedure is decided by the different Member States, we all have an obligation tocommunicate with citizens. Of course we will have to do that in partnership and also respecting the differentneeds and wishes expressed by Member States about this debate. I think today’s proclamation of the Charteris also symbolic of another important achievement of the negotiations, a symbol of the fact that – exceptfor special arrangements in two of our Member States and as long as the Treaty enters into force – the Charterwill be legally binding, guaranteeing the fundamental rights of Europe’s citizens.

The second point I would like to comment on is the ‘Reflection Group’, because I think we must make surethat it focuses on the policy challenges of the future and not mainly on the institutions. It needs to focus onthe expectations of Europe’s people, and I also hope that this group will be representative of the diversity ofthe Europe of today.

My third comment concerns migration. I think that an integrated approach to migration involves a mix ofEuropean Union and national policies. It requires coherence between our policies on legal and illegal migration.It involves actions in development policies, social integration, freedom of movement, border security andvisas, to name a few. It is excellent that this Council will also be discussing these questions globally, but Ithink that Parliament can make a substantial contribution to this discussion. The Lisbon Strategy, as thePresident said, is delivering, and I think this should be a cause for celebration on all sides of this House.Equally, there is a consensus on the need for actions to address all aspects of sustainable development as partof the strategy. This includes flexicurity, social inclusion and climate change. If we can agree on the policydirection, we will be able to generate real political commitment to solve the real problems that have beenmentioned by some of you.

Finally, let me also say, on the issue of Kosovo, mentioned by many in this House, that the Commission fullyshares the concerns expressed by a number of Members on the situation in Kosovo, and the European Unionhas done everything possible to reach a negotiated solution, but it is clear now that the status quo isunsustainable and that the UN Security Council will have to address this when it looks at it on 19 December.The European Council will have to take stock of the situation, and it should reaffirm the European Union’scommitment to solving Kosovo’s status and to playing a leading role in implementing a settlement, theframework being, as many of you have mentioned, the European perspective for the whole region.

Finally, this Council, together with the signature of the Treaty and the proclamation of the Charter, does not,perhaps, draw a line under the events of 2005, but it marks the beginning of a new phase of the developmentof the European Union. We have learnt the lessons of 2005, and I hope that we can enter the next 50 yearsof the Union with, hopefully, much more confidence.

President. − That concludes this item.

Written statements (Rule 142)

Janusz Lewandowski (PPE-DE), in writing. – (PL) Mr President, preparations for the EU’s December summitin Brussels are taking place in a better atmosphere than was expected. That is obviously due to the approvalof the Reform Treaty and the prospect of its untroubled adoption in Lisbon. The compromise reached inPoland –which consisted in maintaining the previous government’s line on the Charter of FundamentalRights so as not to endanger the whole treaty – has played its part.

It must be stressed, however, that the atmosphere created around the new treaty has exaggeratedly linkedits adoption or non-adoption with the European Union’s chances of survival. Following enlargement in 2004and the admission of Bulgaria and Romania – i.e. with 27 Member States – the Union functioned on the basisof the Treaty of Nice. That it was functioning effectively was proved by the adoption of the Financial Perspectivefor 2007-13. Admittedly, it was adopted with some difficulty, but agreement was reached about money,which seems to be the most difficult issue and is therefore a test of the usefulness of the existing institutionalrules.


Despite this and other agreements, an impression of crisis in the EU was created artificially. That in turn hadrepercussions in terms of the declining confidence of citizens in the European institutions and the advisabilityof further enlargement. This dangerous spiral, halted to some extent in the second half of 2007, should serveas a lesson and a warning for the future.

Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (PSE), in writing. – (RO) The signing of the new Treaty in the European Council of13-14 December achieves a reform of the European institutions but, mainly, it increases the Europeancitizens’ power to state their opinion on the European legislation.

After the new Treaty is ratified, the Parliaments of the Member States will include the legislative proposalsof the Commission into their own agenda, thus increasing the degree of democracy in the Union. We wouldhave wished a chapter of this treaty to be the very European Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EuropeanUnion. Unfortunately, it is only an appendix of the Treaty, but the legal basis for making its provisionsmandatory is thus created. The six chapters of the Charter guarantee the right to dignity, freedom, solidarity,equality, justice and citizenship. The adoption of its provisions will make impossible any future discriminationof European citizens on criteria of nationality, ethnicity, religion, age, gender, etc.

The Treaty also offers the Union the possibility to promote the fight against climate changes at an internationallevel and guarantees adequate social protection to all its citizens. The Union is not based only on economiccriteria. We have to build a Social Europe, based upon solidarity, economic, social and territorial cohesion.

The adoption of the new Treaty requires unanimity in the Council and its ratification by all signatory Statesby June 2009.

IN THE CHAIR: Diana WALLISVice-President

3. Voting time

3.1. EC/Morocco agreement: Euro-Mediterranean aviation agreement (vote)

- Report: Johannes Blokland (A6-0416/2007)

3.2. EC/Morocco agreement: Euro-Mediterranean aviation agreement, protocolfollowing the accession of Bulgaria and Romania (vote)

- Report: Paolo Costa (A6-0458/2007)

3.3. Mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (vote)

- Report: Reimer Böge (A6-0485/2007)

– Before the vote:

Reimer Böge, rapporteur. − (DE) Madam President, may I ask you to ensure that Members are seated for thevote, because we need the prescribed majorities. That is very important for the next three reports, otherwisethere will be a problem tomorrow with the vote on the budget for 2008. I therefore request that you ask myfellow Members kindly to sit down and take part in the vote, otherwise we shall have a serious problem.

President. − Thank you, Mr Böge, you are absolutely right. Can I ask those colleagues who are not yet sittingdown to please come and take their seats. We have roll-call votes which require a qualified majority; theyare important votes. Please, can you go to your seats?

3.4. Mobilisation of the flexibility instrument (vote)



3.5. Amending the IIA (multiannual financial framework) (vote)


3.6. Information provision and promotion measures for agricultural products (vote)

- Report: Bogdan Golik (A6-0461/2007)

3.7. Common organisation of the markets in fisheries and aquaculture (vote)

- Report: Pedro Gueirrero (A6-0467/2007)


Pedro Guerreiro, rapporteur. − (PT) I should like to begin this short statement by welcoming the decisionby the European Parliament Committee on Fisheries to produce a report on the Common Organisation ofthe Markets in fisheries and aquaculture products. It is known and recognised that this COM has still notrealised the objectives for which it was created, namely to ensure stable markets for fisheries products andto secure a fair income for producers. That being so, we appreciate the European Commission’s albeit tardydecision to undertake an in-depth evaluation of the existing COM and call on it to carry out its urgent revisionin order to boost its contribution to guaranteeing incomes in the sector, ensuring market stability, improvingthe marketing of fisheries products and increasing the value-added generated, notably by a significant increasein financial resources.

Despite the fact that some of our initial proposals did not obtain the necessary consensus in the Committeeon Fisheries, we consider that the report now put to the vote contains valuable measures, such as measuresto determine whether the existing intervention mechanisms are the most suitable ones and whether theyare sufficiently flexible to meet the relevant needs in the various Member States; to introduce a compensatorypayment for sardines like the one already existing for tuna; to meet the need for the Structural Funds tocontribute to the modernisation and creation of support infrastructures for producers in the context ofproduction/marketing; to provide genuine support for the creation and funding of producers’ organisationsand above all for small-scale coastal and traditional fisheries; to ensure the application to imported fisheriesproducts sold on the internal market of the same rules and requirements as those applied to Communityfisheries products. These are matters which, though they may not mean much to some Members, are mostimportant for fishermen.

3.8. European Aviation Safety Agency (vote)

- Report: Jörg Leichtfried (A6-0482/2007)

3.9. Nutrition and health claims made on foods (vote)

- Report: Adriana Poli Bortone (A6-0464/2007)


Margot Wallström, Vice-President of the Commission. − Madam President, the Commission makes the followingdeclaration. The Commission, sharing the views expressed by Parliament, acknowledges the urgent need tohave a scientific evaluation of children’s health claims already on the market. Therefore, it will give priorityto the necessary procedure to allow for a rapid decision on claims referring to children’s development andhealth and will also ask the European Food Safety Authority to give priority to processing the evaluation ofsuch claims. Furthermore, the Commission confirms that, pending the establishment of nutrient profiles,the process of evaluating such claims can start without delay.

3.10. Legal protection of designs (vote)

- Report: Klaus-Heiner Lehne (A6-0453/2007)


3.11. Common organisation of the market in wine (vote)

- Report: Giuseppe Castiglione (A6-0477/2007)

3.12. Indirect taxes on the raising of capital (vote)

- Report: Werner Langen (A6-0472/2007)

3.13. The fight against terrorism (vote)

- Motion for resolution (B6-0514/2007)

– Before the vote on Amendment 3:

Claudio Fava (PSE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the oral amendment that our Group isproposing involves replacing the words ‘all forms of glorifying’ by the word ‘apology’. We consider that theword apology better reflects the type of behaviour to be curbed. If Mr Díaz de Mera is in agreement, ourGroup will vote in favour.

(The oral amendment was accepted)


Cristiana Muscardini (UEN). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, on the basis of Rule 151(3),you, as President, can decide on the admissibility of paragraph 6, on which we are about to vote. That recitalstates that terrorism can no longer be eradicated. Can this House really make it official that terrorism cannotbe eradicated? I feel that there must either be a translation error in some texts, or a very serious politicalmisjudgement, and for those reasons I ask you, Madam President, to decide on the admissibility of thatparagraph.

President. − Ms Muscardini, all the admissibility checks have been done by the services, and it was open toamendments, so I am afraid we are where we are now.


Claudio Fava (PSE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I ask whether the proposer of theamendment would agree to remove the two phrases which currently read: ‘in some rare instances’ and ‘whichmay not be lawful’ from the sentence. If these two phrases are removed from the amendment, we would bewilling to support it.

(The oral amendment was accepted)

IN THE CHAIR: MR PÖTTERINGPresident

4. Proclamation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights

President. − Mr President of the European Council, José Sócrates, Mr President of the European Commission,José Manuel Durão Barroso, ladies and gentlemen, it is a great pleasure to welcome you here to the heart ofEuropean democracy, to the European Parliament, today on the occasion of the formal signing of the Charterof Fundamental Rights of the European Union. This is indeed a happy day, particularly for the citizens ofthe European Union.

Fifty years after the founding fathers created the European Communities out of the ruins of a shatteredcontinent, our intention today is to proclaim solemnly the common values that form the core of our Europeanidentity.

The Charter of Fundamental Rights that we proclaim today symbolises the momentous journey towards aUnion of the people of Europe which we have been making together over the past fifty years.


This Charter is proof that, when we laid the foundations of the European Union, we had learned the mostimportant lesson from European history, and today we continue to regard respect for the dignity of eachand every human being, preservation of the freedom that has been won and of peace and democracy andapplication of the rule of law as the driving forces of European unification.

Freedom cannot develop without respect for the rights of others, and peace cannot flourish without fairaccommodation of each other’s interests. Freedom, peace, justice and social welfare are achievable only asan integral whole; none of these goals can be obtained at the expense of the others.

The founding fathers understood this and established Europe as a community based on the rule of law. TheEuropean Union is not governed by the concept that might is right but by the principle that power emanatesfrom the law. Therein lies the true modernity and vision of our Union, a community rooted in shared values.Only true justice can guarantee peace for all of us.

This vision of the founding fathers has come to fruition. Far more than that, in the struggle between twosystems, in which freedom and democracy were pitted against dictatorship and oppression of the individual,it proved to be the stronger and the more successful vision.

The miracle of our generation has been the end to the division of our continent. The fall of the Iron Curtainand the accession of twelve countries to the European Union were possible because the voice of freedomand democracy and the power of equal rights for all were stronger than those of inhuman ideologies in thetwentieth century.

The Berlin Declaration, which was adopted on 25 March of this year to mark the 50th anniversary of thesigning of the Treaties of Rome, states an important fact when it says that ‘We, the citizens of the EuropeanUnion, have united for the better’, for it is indeed our good fortune that freedom, democracy and humanrights have become a reality for all of us in the European Union.

Today’s solemn proclamation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights gives us a great obligation and opportunityto bring home the real essence of European unification to the people of the European Union, who numberalmost 500 million, and to future generations.

The essence of the European Union, ladies and gentlemen, transcends economic cost-benefit calculations.While these are important and will continue to influence our lives in the EU, we are first and foremost acommunity based on shared values, and solidarity, freedom and equal rights are part and parcel of oureveryday existence. These common values, central to which is respect for inviolable human dignity, asenshrined in Article 1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, form the foundations of European unification.

(Applause)

For this reason, the European Parliament has regarded legally binding recognition of the Charter ofFundamental Rights as a vital component of any agreement on the reform of the European treaties, and theEuropean Parliament has got its way on this point.

The reference to the Charter of Fundamental Rights in Article 6 of the Treaty of Lisbon, which the Heads ofState or Government will be signing tomorrow, lends the Charter the same legally binding character thatthe Treaties themselves possess.

That 21st-century Europe should possess a comprehensive catalogue of human rights and fundamentalfreedoms which are equally binding and legally enforceable for all citizens of the Union is perfectly natural;more than that, it is the very core of our perception of the European identity.

(Applause)

People and human dignity are at the heart of our policies. In this way the European Union constitutes aframework that enables us, as citizens of the Union, to build our common future in peace.

Without the firm foundations of our shared values, of which we must be ever mindful, the European Unionwould have no future. Nor would we have any grounds to insist on respect for human rights in the widerworld if we failed to recognise our own values as legally binding in the European Union.

(Applause)


Nor shall we let anyone, whether inside or outside the European Union, set limits on our resolute defenceof human rights. We in the European Parliament have a moral and political duty to defend human dignityat all times.

(Applause)

In our world of today, we Europeans must project ourselves as a community united by shared values andstand up for human dignity, and we must seek intercultural dialogue. We can do that with confidence, andwe must do it with untiring commitment – and no one will stop us.

(Applause)

In the drafting of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the new open and democratic convention method wasused for the first time in the history of European unification. That method proved highly successful, and theconvention became the model and the starting point for the entire reform process.

The European Parliament has played a particularly active part in the drafting of the Charter of FundamentalRights and has brought decisive influence to bear on the substance of the text.

The Charter is the first instrument to enshrine economic and social rights with the same status as politicalrights and personal freedoms. It protects fundamental rights within the sphere of activity of the Union andin the application of Community law. It also gives all citizens of the European Union a right of recourse tothe European Court of Justice in Luxembourg. We hope that the day might come when the Charter ofFundamental Rights is legally binding on all Member States.

(Applause)

Human rights and fundamental freedoms are indivisible. I therefore appeal to all Member States of theEuropean Union without exception to subscribe, in the interests of all citizens of the Union, to this Europeanconsensus.

Today’s solemn proclamation should also be an occasion for all European citizens who can assert their ownrights on the basis of the Charter to reflect on their duty to the community of Europeans, the wider worldand future generations. There are no rights without responsibilities. Solidarity is what unites us.

(Applause)

We are creating a people’s Europe and giving our European Union a solid foundation of common fundamentaldemocratic rights. Today’s solemn proclamation shows that our community based on shared values is aliveand growing. Today that set of common values will be embedded in the lives and minds of the populationof the Union. This day is a great triumph for the citizens of the European Union, and all of us can rejoice atthat with heart and soul.

(Loud applause)

(Uproar in the Chamber)

(Several Members protest loudly and display banners and placards.)

President. − Please remove these placards now. Show some courtesy to our guest here in the EuropeanParliament.

Mr President of the European Council, may I now ask you to address us.

José Sócrates, President-in-Office of the Council. − (PT) Mr President of the European Parliament, President ofthe European Commission, ladies and gentlemen. Today, in a solemn sitting of the European Parliament, weare proclaiming the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and I should like to state clearlyto you that this day – 12 December – will now be a fundamental date in the history of European integration.A fundamental date in the history of Europe.

(Applause)

(Uproar in the NI and IND/DEM ranks)

President. − Be patient, please. You should at least have the decency to let our speaker deliver his address.


Mr President, the floor is yours.

José Sócrates, President-in-Office of the Council. − (PT) However much some may shout to try to stop othersfrom speaking, this is a fundamental date in the history of Europe. And I want to say to you too that thisdate, this ceremony, is probably the most important ceremony in which I have had the honour of participating.The most important ceremony of my entire political career.

I feel deeply honoured as a European to sign a Charter and to proclaim a Charter of Fundamental Rights andI feel particularly honoured that this Charter is being proclaimed during the Portuguese Presidency. I feelhonoured as a European and I feel honoured as a Portuguese citizen, especially as it was during our Presidencyin 2000 that the Convention which gave rise to this Charter started its work. That is why I want to say to theEuropean Parliament that it is an honour for my country to be associated in this way with an important stepin the project of European citizenship.

This Charter represents a commitment to values that gave birth to European civilisation, values anchoredin the defence of human dignity, and we are here to proclaim that we are true to those values, values thathave their source in the constitutional tradition common to the Member States of the Union and also ininternational legal instruments, as in the case of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the EuropeanConvention on Human Rights. And to emphasise this compatibility, the Treaty of Lisbon itself provides forthe Union to accede to the Council of Europe Convention and thus recognises what the protection offundamental rights now represents in modern democracies.

This is why today is a such an exceptional day because from today on, though some may not like it,fundamental rights will be formally and irreversibly established as part of the Union’s common heritage, amoral heritage, a political heritage, a heritage of citizenship and of the best aspects of European civilization.

But this Charter is also an instrument for political action, an instrument for the institutions because theCharter will shape their activities. They will be duty bound to respect the rights and principles set out in theCharter and promote the application of those rights and principles, but it is also an instrument for action bythe citizens because it shows that the project of the Union is a project of citizenship and it shows that theUnion is at the service of its citizens and that it protects and promotes their rights.

The Charter embodies, in the European context, the projection of human dignity and the rule of social rights.This is why it also has a social component, because it projects human dignity in the world of work, in theworld of employment, in the world of health, in the field of social security and welfare, and also humandignity with regard to protection of the environment. It is the Charter of equality and solidarity, the Charterof the battle against discrimination of any kind, and it is a Charter for equality because it enshrines a specialattention, the special attention that we pay to children and young people, to equality between men andwomen, to the role of old people, and to the substantial issues of protecting personal rights and personaldata.

I must also draw attention to the freedoms that are enshrined in the Charter, the freedoms connected withEuropean citizenship and the political rights associated with it, and the economic freedoms based on theTreaty of Rome, whose 50th anniversary we are celebrating this year. We are therefore true to our traditionand we repeat the ban on the death penalty, and I especially welcome the decision taken by the Council lastweek to mark the European Day against the Death Penalty.

Finally, I should like to point out that the Charter covers the rights of citizens and the rights of people,addressing a body that extends beyond the actual citizens of the Member States, and this is no less importantbecause it represents, as of today, a fundamental element in our conviction that a better world is a world inwhich these rights and freedoms are universally respected.

This Charter, as of today, will be at the service of the external policy of the European Union which aims toestablish a world in which all these rights and freedoms are universally respected and guaranteed. It willtherefore act as a pointer, a pointer to the position of the European Union on the international stage and inany action that is proposed to secure global respect for fundamental rights.

This is why the citizens of Europe can, in this way, recognise themselves in a Union that is their Union. Theycan recognise the rights that the Union guarantees them and realise that Europe is a project of peace anddemocracy, a project in which the rights of the individual are fully respected. It is our moral authority andit is the sentiment of this ceremony that unites the three institutions. We are proclaiming this Charter on theeve of the signing of the Treaty of Lisbon, a Charter which has the legal status of a basic law and a legal status


which is equal to that of the Treaties, for the benefit of many and to the displeasure of some. This Charter isin the Treaty.

(Standing ovation)

(Renewed uproar in the NI and IND/DEM ranks)

President. − You should at least have the decency to let our guest finish speaking.

Loudness is not an argument. Leave the Chamber!

José Sócrates, President-in-Office of the Council. − (PT) In this globalised world, in which many claim thateconomic and financial rules are absolute, the fact that twenty-seven European States are reiterating in thecontext of the Union this firm commitment to values and objectives designed to protect and safeguardfundamental rights is a signal contribution to the regulation of globalisation itself. Fundamental rights area common tradition of democratic states under the rule of law, ways of limiting the power of the authoritiesand fundamental instruments for the protection of the individual.

In binding the institutions and states of the Union, the Charter limits the power of the authorities in the nameof protecting the interests of the citizens and their organisations. And in formalising this limitation on thepower of the authorities, the limits on its application will strictly observe the principle of subsidiarity andstrengthen the eminently democratic nature of the Union itself. The defence of fundamental rights is clearlya value that is essential to the European identity, that is part of our genetic code, an element that structuresthe whole European project and enables Europe to be defined as a Union of values, and the unconditionalaffirmation of these values is what the world expects of Europe.

This is the Europe I want to belong to, a Europe that defends these values. And we are well aware, I and allthe Members, that the battle for fundamental rights is a daily task and probably an endless task, a task forstates, a task for civil societies, a task for industrial undertakings and trade unions, a task for each and everycitizen. That is why, in proclaiming the Charter, we rejoice in the agreement reached on the Charter, in therecognition of its legal value on an equal footing with the very Treaties establishing the Union.

But in addition to marking a day for rejoicing, the proclamation of this Charter represents an agreement bythe institutions of the Union to be respected and applied daily in its actions. Only in this way will we live upto Europe’s history, only in this way will we be worthy heirs of the best features of our collective identity andour common tradition: a collective identity and a common tradition that do honour to a Europe that fightsfor the rights, the freedoms and the guarantees of its citizens. I thank you all.

(Renewed standing ovation, with the exception of the GUE/NGL, the NI and the IND/DEM)

President. − Ladies and gentlemen, I should like to convey some information to you, and I ask you to providenow for the necessary calm. The King of Jordan is in the European Parliament and will address us immediatelyafter the solemn proclamation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Please ensure, not least out ofconsideration for our guest from Jordan, that we have no more interruptions so that we can complete thisproclamation in a dignified manner.

José Manuel Barroso, President of the Commission. − (PT) Mr President of the European Parliament, PrimeMinister of Portugal and President of the Council of the European Union, ladies and gentlemen, on the eveof the signing of the Treaty of Lisbon, the Presidents of the three political institutions of the European Union– the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission – are signing here, in Strasbourg, the EuropeanCharter of Fundamental Rights.

It is, for me, a great personal honour to participate in an act of such high significance. The proclamation ofthe Charter of Fundamental Rights enshrines a culture of law in Europe. In the European Union, which isabove all a community under the rule of law, institutional changes require the reinforcement of respect forfundamental rights.

Honourable Members, today the three European institutions reaffirm their commitment – the commitmentthey made in December 2000 when the Charter was proclaimed for the first time. But, seven years later, wego a crucial step further.

The Charter of 2000 was not legally binding. With tomorrow’s signing of the Treaty of Lisbon, and thenratification, the Charter will be part of the Union’s primary law and will have the same legal value as theTreaties themselves. This progress will have very concrete benefits for European citizens. Let me illustrate


this point by looking briefly at the content of the Charter. The 54 articles cover rights that until now had tobe recognised by the Court of Justice on a case-by-case basis. Now they are brought together.

The Charter, recognising the basic principles of human dignity, incorporates first of all the classic civil libertiesalready included in the European Convention on Human Rights: freedom of speech, freedom of assembly,freedom of religion, equality before the law and the principle of non-discrimination.

The Charter also confirms economic and social rights. It includes the right to property and the freedom toconduct business, but, at the same time, the rights of workers and of social partners, and it enshrines topicssuch as social security and social assistance.

The Charter also covers the new challenges facing society today. It therefore includes guarantees on dataprotection, on bioethics and on good administration, known as ‘third-generation rights’. These will be highlyrelevant in many of our areas of activity, be it in research policy, in the area of freedom, security and justiceor in our permanent quest for good governance.

(FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Charter of Fundamental Rights will help to anchor the EuropeanUnion within a genuine culture of fundamental rights. By signing the Charter today, we – the Presidents ofthe Union’s three political institutions – are undertaking, as a priority, to respect those rights in all that wedo. That commitment might, on the face of it, seem easy to uphold, but in reality it will be an ongoingchallenge to ensure that civil liberties are fully respected in all EU policies, whether in legislating for theinternal market, managing immigration or endeavouring to combat terrorism.

The Charter is the first legally binding document ever produced at international level which brings togetherin a single text not only civil and political rights but also economic and social rights, making them all subjectto the same system of legal supervision. It is undoubtedly a major achievement and one that the EuropeanUnion should be proud of. It is, I believe, particularly significant that this should be possible now in the newenlarged Europe, a Europe formerly divided by totalitarian and authoritarian regimes which disregardedhuman rights, whereas the Europe that we have today is a Europe united around the values of freedom andsolidarity.

(Applause)

If we work together to promote the culture of human rights, we shall make a crucial contribution to achievinga Europe genuinely rooted in values – tangible values that are credible in the eyes of ordinary people.Strengthened by the Charter, Europe has become more determined to promote its values at world level. Eversince the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Europe has led the way in the fight for basicrights. From now on it will be better equipped to pursue that fight successfully in the interests of freedom,peace and democracy.

(Standing ovation)

(Several Members loudly voice their opposition, waving flags and banners and chanting: ‘Referendum!’)

(The President of the House, José Sócrates and José Manuel Barroso proceed to sign the Charter of Fundamental Rights)

5. Formal sitting - Jordan

President. − Honourable Members, Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner, ladies and gentlemen, it is a particularhonour for the European Parliament to welcome to Strasbourg today His Majesty Abdullah II, King of theHashemite Kingdom of Jordan. We bid Your Majesty a warm welcome to the European Parliament.

(Applause)

I also welcome the high-ranking delegation accompanying King Abdullah, particularly the Speakers of bothHouses of the Jordanian Parliament.

(Applause)

Today’s visit by the King of Jordan is the third since 2002, when His Majesty first addressed the EuropeanParliament. In November 2004 the King visited the Conference of Presidents in Brussels. His visit and hisspeech in the European Parliament today are both a sign of the strong partnership between the Hashemite


Kingdom of Jordan and the European Parliament and an encouraging signal for our common future in theMediterranean region.

Your Majesty, I had prepared a far longer speech, but since we had to ask you to wait for a while, I shall cutmy speech short and simply say that it is wonderful to have you here with us, and it now gives me greatpleasure to invite you to address us.

(Applause)

Abdullah II, King of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. − Bismillah ar-Rahman ar-Rahim, Mr President, Membersof Parliament, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your warm welcome and, on behalf of the people ofJordan, I am honoured to come before this distinguished institution again.

My friends, a changing Europe and a changing Middle East are here today. A Europe of expanding membershipand a visionary mission: for cooperation across borders and growth without barriers. A Middle East of newhorizons and growing hope: for peace among neighbours, opportunities for our people and a future for ouryouth.

These trends do not take place in isolation. The achievement of the hopes of our regions will advance stabilityand create new possibilities for security and prosperity worldwide. It is deeply in our interest to succeed.And a critical opportunity is before us.

Two weeks ago, with the support of the European Union and nations from both our regions, Israelis andPalestinians met at Annapolis. They pledged all-out negotiations toward a peace treaty in 2008 and immediatesteps to implement their obligations under the Road Map. For the first time in years, we see movementtowards a permanent settlement and an independent, sovereign, viable Palestinian state.

(Applause)

This progress is the work of many friends of peace, including leaders in Europe and the Arab states. Webelieved that, after years of worsening crisis, a change of strategy was required. We urged a new commitmentto the two-state goal and a targeted process that could achieve it – with tight timelines, measurablerequirements and milestones for action.

Second chances are rare, but I believe we have come to one. Very real challenges lie ahead, but Annapolishas created a new spark of hope. We can and must fan that spark into a blaze of confidence, action andtangible results.

As our near neighbour, Europe shares our interest in solving this, the central crisis of our age. All sides respectEurope’s neutral role and model of regional progress and peace. For years, you have been our partner in thesearch for solutions. And you will be our partner, too, in the benefits of success: a vibrant zone of peace andprosperity throughout our shared hemisphere.

These realities give Europe an important and prominent role in the future of peace. I speak especially of theEuropean Union, and you, the voices of Europe, here in the European Parliament. And I have come heretoday to urge your active engagement, to seek your specific, practical skills and investment in the future, andto offer Jordan’s own commitment in the days of work that lie ahead.

My friends, there are major areas where action must begin now. The first is to support the negotiations andtheir goal: a final settlement creating an end to conflict, security for both Palestine and Israel, and at longlast, a sovereign, independent and viable Palestinian state.

(Applause)

We must not underestimate the difficult days ahead. The issues are complex and decades old. Real grievancesmust be faced – and left behind. On the positive side, Israelis and Palestinians understand their deep, sharedstake in ending the conflict. And a great amount of work has already been done. From Oslo, through theRoad Map, through the Geneva Accords, and other initiatives, the parameters of the solutions are in focus.I believe the parties can get to the endgame.

But for this to happen, it is vital that the international community be engaged. Europe has a unique experienceof the mechanisms and process of post-conflict recovery and reconciliation. This includes creating a securityframework that can offer assurance to both sides. European peacekeeping forces have played a constructiverole in Lebanon. Your commitment can help bring great trust to a Palestinian-Israeli settlement.


On the ground, there is a need, not only for resources but for partnership – to boost economic opportunities,create confidence that the political process works, and help create the conditions that will sustain peace.Both Palestinians and Israelis need to see tangible results, and quickly. That means security from violenceand an end to occupation; but it also means better conditions of life. In the occupied territories, thehumanitarian situation for Palestinians remains dire. People need access to jobs and education, effectivepublic services and more. Such action will provide a major infusion of hope and be a powerfulcounter-argument to extremist predictions that nothing can change.

Next week, donor nations and institutions will meet in Paris to make commitments and plan the way forward.European nations and the European Union are already providing help, a commitment respected by peoplethroughout the region.

A second and related imperative is to understand and articulate the potential of peace. We must begin nowto re-envision the future: a region where conflict has given way to cooperation, where a regional economybrings together the capabilities and resources of 22 countries – more than 300 million people, from theAtlantic to the Indian Ocean – and where cross-border partnerships advance development, health, theenvironment and more.

It is a future that empowers people to be full participants in global progress. And it will unleash a new scopeof partnership with our European neighbours, in science, technology and trade.

This promising future is why we must move swiftly on a comprehensive settlement, with action on the Syrianand Lebanese tracks. Indeed, the entire Arab world has recognized the importance of moving forward. TheArab peace initiative was affirmed, unanimously, last spring. And it has received the support of Muslimcountries beyond the region. The opportunity is here, at long last, for a sovereign, independent, and viablePalestinian state and full, normal relations between Israel and 57 Arab and Muslim nations. This meansacceptance; acceptance by key countries, with billions of citizens, representing almost a third of themembership of the United Nations. And that opens a shared future of security, peace and new partnerships.

Achieving such a peace will also make a substantial impact on other issues. Within the region, it will createnew strategic space, allowing the resolution of other serious issues, from poverty to proliferation. Aggressiveforces will no longer be able to exploit the Palestinian cause to serve their own ambitions and interests.

(Applause)

Resources and attention will be freed to advance the region’s potential through development and reform.

We in Jordan are ready to meet that future. We have pressed forward with our reform programme, despiteregional instability. In the last decade, we have achieved significant gains: strong economic growth, risingper capita incomes, and a model education system. And Europe has been an important partner, throughprivate-sector investments, as well as official assistance. Allow me to say that we deeply appreciate the supportand friendship of this Parliament and the European Union.

(Applause)

And we believe that in the days after peace, our partnership can only soar higher.

My friends, today we can think of a larger neighbourhood, one that stretches from north of the Baltic Sea tosouth of the Mediterranean, one that is shared by Europe and the Middle East. It is the basis of the Euromedpartnership, our region-to-region platform for cooperation and development. It is a relationship with greatshared interests and unlimited potential. And it is up to us to develop our partnership to its fullest.

Today, young Europeans are coming to adulthood who never knew a divided Europe. Their youngcounterparts, Palestinian and Israeli, have no such positive experience. They have grown up in a world ofdivision and conflict. Now, together, we have an opportunity to remove the barriers to their future, and leavethe past behind.

Today, the European Parliament represents significantly more Member States than when I spoke beforeParliament only five years ago. That is the result of a region-wide commitment to increase the zone ofpartnership and progress. The Middle East is tackling the same important task. Now, together, we can helpthat work succeed.


Today, a renewed peace process has begun. We have seen such beginnings fail in the past. But this time, aunique confluence of events has created new openings for success. Now, together, we can and we must, fulfilthe promise of peace.

(Applause)

My friends, we in Jordan know that when an olive tree takes life, planting is only the first step. A hundredprocesses are then activated to create the cells and structures of life. Roots emerge, growth occurs, and a coreof strength ensures survival. From outside comes water and support to sustain life and create new fruit.

In the arena of the Middle East, a new olive branch has just been planted. Now the real work must begin. Itis in our hands to create the process and structures that will give peace roots, help it grow and sustain it intothe future.

I urge you to share in this effort. Our partnership can create an historic transformation and a rich harvest –years of peace and prosperity that will benefit our peoples and our world.

(The House rose and accorded the speaker a standing ovation)

President. − Your Majesty, we thank you for your visit to the European Parliament. We thank you for thisgreat speech. We are all – and the applause showed this – deeply touched by your convictions. There are fewpersonalities, few leaders, who are as committed as you to peace in the Middle East. You call us friends, andI say to you, on behalf of the European Parliament: We are at your side to create a Palestinian State that canlive in safety...

(Applause)

... and to have a State of Israel that can live in safety. We in the European Parliament believe in the dignity ofthe human being, and the dignity of the human being applies to each human being in this world.

(Applause)

Your Majesty, we want close cooperation with your country and you are one of the very few who have visitedthe European Parliament more than once. We in the European Parliament and the European Union want astrong partnership, relationship and, if possible, friendship with all countries in the Middle East. We are atyour side. Let us work together.

Shukran jazilan. Thank you, Your Majesty.

IN THE CHAIR: Diana WALLISVice-President

Martin Schulz (PSE). – (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, in consideration of the formal sittingwith the King of Jordan, all my fellow chairs of the political groups have no doubt been unable to take theopportunity to make a statement under our Rules of Procedure about the preceding occurrences. I shouldlike to do that now.

I believe I speak on behalf of many Members when I express my thanks first of all to the President of thisHouse, to Mr Barroso and to Mr Sócrates for the dignified way in which they defended this solemn act, thesigning of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. They had the overwhelming majority of this House behindthem.

(Applause)

There are, however, two things I wish to say to the House, and I say them entirely in a personal capacity andnot on behalf of my group. I speak for myself.

I should like to draw the attention of the House to a matter to which I am privy as chair of a political group.It is not normal practice to report on the deliberations of the Conference of Presidents, but you shouldcertainly know, ladies and gentlemen, that the only group chairman who asked at the meeting of theConference of Presidents for an invitation to attend the formal signing of the Treaty in Lisbon was Mr Bonde.I believe the House should know that. No other group chair made that request. Mr Bonde, who makes sucha racket here, was determined to be there at the signing of the Treaty. These are the kind of double standardswe have to live with here.


Another comment I wish to make is that I learned at grammar school in Germany about the way in whichthe tactic of collective chanting was used to shout down political opponents in the Reichstag of the WeimarRepublic. The political group that introduced the practice was the one led by Adolf Hitler. Today’s occurrencesreminded me of that. Thank you.

(Loud applause)

Joseph Daul (PPE-DE). – (FR) I shall be quite brief. I too was extremely shocked earlier today. This is adebating chamber where democracy rules, and there is no need for a carry-on such as we witnessed thismorning for the benefit of the TV cameras. Communication is something to which all of us here are entitled.To those responsible for this morning’s commotion in a chamber dedicated to democracy and freedom, Iwould simply say that they behaved disgracefully. We will discuss it again this afternoon in the Conferenceof Presidents, with a view to preventing any deterioration of the situation.

(Loud applause)

Francis Wurtz (GUE/NGL). – (FR) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to express – bothin a personal capacity and I hope, given what we witnessed, on behalf of my entire group – the strongestpossible condemnation of the disgraceful, chauvinist, anti-European demonstration that was staged hereearlier today.

(Applause)

My group is certainly in favour of a referendum on the new treaty and it has questions and misgivings aboutcertain articles of the Charter. But all that is quite unrelated to what took place here this morning and it isimportant that there should be no confusion. For our part, we support a Community of values, we supportthe promotion of fundamental rights, we support a Europe of democracy and there is no place in our visionfor chauvinism and bad behaviour!

(Loud applause)

Graham Watson (ALDE). – Madam President, on a point of order, I wish to make a formal request tosafeguard the dignity of our House. The behaviour of certain Members of this House in shouting downrepresentatives of Parliament, the Commission and the Council during the signing ceremony was intolerableand must not be tolerated. It brings the worst of the football stadium into Europe’s highest Chamber andrecalls the actions of the Communists in the Russian Diet and the National Socialists in the German Reichstag.

(Applause)

My formal request, Madam President, is this: my group demands that in future the Presidency use the powersgranted to it under our Rules of Procedure to evict from the Chamber Members behaving in that fashion.

(Loud applause)

Daniel Cohn-Bendit (Verts/ALE). – (FR) Ladies and gentlemen, I think I need hardly add that we, like allour colleagues, were quite appalled by the demonstration earlier. I would say this, however: ‘Do notover-dramatise! There may be 50 nutcases in the chamber but there are 700 Members who oppose them,so do not inflate the fact that 50 lame-brains disrupted the signing ceremony into an affair of state. Let uscalm down and, Graham, let us not insist that those responsible be thrown out. In my view, a free Parliamentis a Parliament that can tolerate a few nutcases, irksome though they might be.

(Applause)

Brian Crowley (UEN). – Madam President, on behalf of my own Group, whilst we all welcome theopportunity of a robust engagement, which should be allowed within any parliamentary assembly, whathappened this morning went beyond what should be allowed to take place in any democratic institution.However, rather than prolong this argument, could we please get on with the vote and get to our lunch assoon as possible as well.

Jens-Peter Bonde (IND/DEM). – Madam President, I was attacked personally by Mr Schulz; therefore, Ithink we should go to the vote. I took part in a peaceful manifestation against a celebration of a Charterwhich was part of a Constitution where I cannot even get the consolidated text and see the relevance andthe meaning, and you cannot either. What you are going to sign tomorrow is a Treaty none of you has readit, simply because it is not possible to read it. You take over our voting time to celebrate a victory over


democracy, and, therefore, I will not attack my colleagues, but I have to say to Mr Schulz that I did not takepart in a crime.

I understand it entirely, but we have a different tradition in Denmark, so I was there with my T-shirt, callingfor a referendum, and I think all of us should call for a referendum. This is the democratic norm you aredefending.

Dimitar Stoyanov (NI). – (BG) I am taking the floor pursuant to that provision of the rules which gives methe right to personal explanation because Mr. Cohn-Bendit insulted people in this hall. These are personalinsults for which, Mr. Cohn-Bendit, you have no right to hide behind your parliamentary immunity. Say thatyou relinquish your immunity and then insult Members of Parliament! As to what happened here, it is onlythe freedom of expression which every Member of this Parliament has.

I would like to address Mr. Daul. Mr. Daul, if you want Members of Parliament to be forcibly taken out ofthis hall, aren’t you like Hitler who did exactly the same in the German Reichstag?

The greatest democracy is direct democracy. And we raised our voice, we exercised out right to free expression,to direct democracy rather than circumvent the European nations as you did. What is going on here is thedictatorship of the new proletariat taking shape in the new Union. Which, this time, is not Soviet but European.

Joseph Daul (PPE-DE). – (FR) Madam President, my name was cited in the call for the lifting of parliamentaryimmunity and expulsion from the Chamber. May I suggest, ladies and gentlemen, that you begin by gettingMembers’ names right before you address the House.

President. − I am now going to move to the vote, but I would just make one comment before I do so.

On 29 November 2007 this House approved the Charter of Fundamental Rights by 534 votes to 85, with21 abstentions.

(Loud applause)

6. Voting time (continuation)

6.1. Commission legislative and work programme for 2008 (vote)


6.2. Economic Partnership Agreements (vote)


6.3. European contract law (vote)


7. Explanations of vote

Oral explanations of vote

- Report: Adriana Poli Bortone (A6-0464/2007)

Renate Sommer (PPE-DE). – (DE) Madam President, today we finally saw the introduction of a transitionalperiod for existing nutritional and health claims on the labels of food intended for children. The Commissionhad forgotten that and tried to leave Parliament holding the baby. We have prevented it from doing so. Wehave compelled the Commission to make a statement acknowledging the need to introduce transitionalperiods for claims relating to children’s health and development too. The only problem, however, is that theCommission’s long-standing refusal to present a proposal to this effect has distorted competition. Productshave already been taken off the market because the Regulation has entered into force in the meantime. It hasbeen a seriously botched job on the part of the Commission.


In addition, I tabled a motion on behalf of my group for the deletion of Article 4. That was a politicaldemonstration. We stand by our opinion that this Regulation is senseless. It is not possible to produce nutrientprofiles for all foodstuffs. Almost half of the Members of this House share that view. EFSA, the EuropeanFood Safety Authority, has now stated that it cannot see itself being able to provide nutrient profiles for allproducts. Nonsensical red tape – a superfluous piece of legislation!

Hannu Takkula (ALDE). – (FI) Madam President, I think it is very important that we should try and havehealth claims on products, but it is right that we need to ensure that they are true and based on knowledge.It is not appropriate for a company to produce the research and ‘commercial arguments’ itself, as if that wereenough to win the arguments about health. In other words, the research and knowledge must be found tobe proper and correct and therefore reliable.

It is very important to ensure that nutrition and health claims are correct and that this would also enablesomeone to switch to a healthier diet. This is especially important with children and young people becausewe know the serious problems which there are at present in Europe with obesity, type II diabetes and otherrelated conditions. We need to make sure that the nutritional value is good and that the health claims aretrue.


Zuzana Roithová (PPE-DE). – (CS) Madam President, I voted against the report on the liberalisation of thesecondary market in spare parts. It is an inconsistent strategy.

On the one hand we insist that the industry develop cars that are increasingly safe and we combat industrialpiracy. However, in contradiction to this Parliament has today legalised the production of copies of spareparts, which allegedly makes them cheaper. Consumers, however, will not be guaranteed an uncompromisedstandard of safety in the repaired vehicle. Liberalisation supporters, mainly from the UK, affirm that SMEswill benefit from this policy. The majority of cheap copies of patent spare parts today, however, are producedin Asia, not in Europe. In spite of this, in the 10 Member States where design has not been protected to date,the cost of spare parts is 7% higher than in the remaining 17. The latter continue to protect design like Japanand other major car industry leaders. I would like to draw attention to the fact that in the case of an accidentboth car users and pedestrians will be now be more at risk because of non-original spare parts of a lowerquality. This directive is unfortunately an example of inconsistent EU strategy.

Jan Březina (PPE-DE). – (CS) Madam President, I would also like to express my disagreement with limitinglegal protection of industrial design for spare parts. We are witnessing an unprecedented level of interferencein the area of industrial rights. If there are abuses of monopolies by industrial rights owners, ordinary legalinstruments such as licence requirements can be applied. The creation of an industrial design incurs significantcosts, which is why legal protection is pertinent from an economic point of view, too. Its abolition will notlead to liberalisation of the spare parts market as expected by the Commission, but in all likelihood to anincrease in the price of the end product. The foreseeable reaction of producers to the presence of independentproducers in the spare parts market will be to offset their losses through higher prices. It is also of concernthat the lower cost of independent producers’ spare parts will result in lower levels of safety and quality.What troubles me is that in the final analyses it will be the customer who will be placed at risk.


Michl Ebner (PPE-DE). – (DE) Madam President, I wish to say that I voted for the Castiglione report andthat I believe it to be a very balanced report, particularly if we consider the way it started out, with 800amendments tabled in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. The efforts of both therapporteur and numerous Members have undoubtedly borne fruit in a sector beset with severe difficulties;it is absolutely essential that we give winegrowers the prospect of better times ahead.

I believe this report lays the foundations for progress, and I hope that the European Commission, acting inthe spirit of the new Treaties, will take due account – full account, if at all possible – of the decisions of theEuropean Parliament.

Anja Weisgerber (PPE-DE). – (EN) Madam President, today’s vote on the reform of the wine market is aresounding success for the European Parliament and for the various vine-growing regions and wine producers.For example, we were able to ensure that it will remain permissible to enrich wines with sucrose. Parliamentalso rejected the Commission’s plans to enact provisions at this stage prescribing the lifting of the ban onnew planting in 2014. In this case we proposed a practicable solution whereby the decision on liberalisation


would not be taken until a study had been presented in 2012. With regard to the labelling of individualwines, we also reached an agreement that takes due account of the various designation systems used inEurope. We succeeded, moreover, in incorporating a safeguard into the wine-market regulations whichprotects the Bocksbeutel, the specially shaped bottles used in my home region of Franconia.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have presented a very balanced framework today which will be a good basis forthe forthcoming negotiations in the Council. The ball is now in the Council’s court; we in Parliament haveperformed our task and performed it very well.

Ryszard Czarnecki (UEN). – (PL) Madam President, I am delighted that the European Parliament hassupported the Committee on Agriculture’s proposal, and especially the Polish Members’ amendmentauthorising the use of sales designations such as ‘fruit wine’, ‘apple wine’ or ‘currant wine’. Such wines havebeen produced in my country since the 13th century – for almost 800 years – and I am pleased that theEuropean Parliament has recognised the reality and the fact.

In conclusion, I would congratulate the President on her excellent conduct of the proceedings, especially intoday’s heated – sometimes over-heated – atmosphere. Madam President, I pay tribute to you as a truerepresentative of the British school of parliamentary behaviour.

Armando Veneto (PPE-DE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, on the vote on the commonorganisation of the market in wine, I should like to point out that I voted for Amendment 294, tabled byMr Lavarra of the PSE and of which I am co-signatory, because I consider that consumers have the right toknow whether saccharose has been added to the wine they are drinking and because product traceability isnow a general principle advocated by the Union and I do not see why it should not be applied in the winesector.

For the same reason, I voted for Amendment 310, tabled by the UEN Group; neither has an impact on thecompromise that Mr Castiglione has worked so hard to achieve. Lastly, as to the differing line that I havetaken on these issues with respect to the Group to which I belong, citizens’ interests mean that the onlypolitical stance which I feel I have to obey is one of accepting any proposal which protects those interests,whatever the Group from which it comes.

Danutė Budreikaitė (ALDE). – (LT) The Commission’s position on the Council regulation on the CommonMarket Organisation for Wine discriminates against certain countries, especially the new Member States.

The project to promote EU wines in third countries is intended to boost trade, but for some reason it happensto be linked to the areas of previously exploited vineyards and data on average wine production over the lastthree years. The Commission intends to support wine exports and certain labels. Producers and exportersin the countries supported would benefit from competitive advantage. The fact that wine producers inLithuania and some other countries with no vineyards are not receiving any support is unacceptable.

I voted against the report.

Zuzana Roithová (PPE-DE). – (CS) I supported the reform of the wine market, which will improve thequality and competitiveness of European wines. This primarily concerns Italy, where illegal vineyards shouldbe grubbed-up and subsidies for overproduction of poor-quality wines should be discontinued. The reform,however, must not favour Southern producers over Northern ones. I am categorically against any grubbing-upof vines in Moravia, where everything that is produced is used and where traditional wine production is ofgreat importance both culturally and for tourism in the area. I object to a ban on sugaring in Eastern Europe,including Moravia, unless wine acidification, practised in Southern countries, is also banned. I do notunderstand why Moravian winegrowers should buy expensive must from Southern countries, only to replacea 200-year-old tradition of sugaring, thereby changing the traditional bouquet and taste of their qualitywines. This is contrary to the principles of competition in the internal market and I cannot but disagree withit. I thank those colleagues who during voting time stood behind us and in doing so let common sense prevail.The Commission will now have to conform.

Jan Březina (PPE-DE). – (CS) We have seen the southern European states that have a strong viticulture sectordefend tooth and nail their wine surpluses. In the meantime, due to excessive subsidies, the low prices ofsurplus wine are pushing quality wines from other Member States out of the market. I object to the fact thatwhile the Commission treats the European wine industry leaders with kid gloves, countries like the CzechRepublic are treated in a strict and even harsh manner. How else can we interpret the proposal to maintainthe frequent use of must in the southern parts of the EU, while banning the addition of sucrose. I am therefore


very pleased that Parliament approached the reform responsibly and brought to it an element of equal andjust treatment. By supporting the addition of sucrose, Parliament benefited the Czech Republic among othercountries, demonstrating its impartiality and resistance to influences based on conflicting national interests.I understand that a reform of the wine market is necessary. I do not doubt the fundamental goals, rather themanner in which they are being achieved. I highlight the importance of maintaining the principle of equaltreatment and non-discrimination.

Hynek Fajmon (PPE-DE). – (CS) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted against Mr Castiglione’sreport like the other Members from the Czech Republic who belong to the Czech Civic Democratic Party(ODS). A reform approached in this way will be of no benefit to Czech, Moravian or, for that matter, Europeanwine-growing. Instead of liberalisation and a reduction in regulation and the administrative burden, whichwould be of real help to the wine sector, there is a tendency towards more regulations, restrictions and orders.Central planning has never shown to produce positive results; nor will it do so in the wine sector. That is thereason why I did not support this report.

Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE). – Madam President, my constituency of south-east England is the fastest-growingwine-producing region in Europe. The consequence of climate change is that a greater acreage of Englandis now given over to viticulture than at any time since the reign of Henry II, during the last period of Europeanwarming.

Home Counties winegrowers have never looked to the EU for subsidy. Kent and Surrey, Sussex and Hampshire,Oxfordshire, Buckinghamshire and Berkshire are planted with commercially viable vineyards that stand orfall by the quality of their produce. Yet their very success now threatens to count against them as theyapproach the limit of permissible commercial cultivation.

Having remained outside the European regulatory regime and having eschewed the handouts, they now findthat they are to be regulated anyway.

Just as we do not ask Brussels for money, so we do not want Brussels restrictions. All English wine-producersask is to be left free to compete.

Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I gave a definite ‘no’ to adocument further impaired by the adoption of various amendments which have made it worse, and inparticular because of the introduction of sugaring which we had managed to stave off for years, taking theview that sugaring is no more than a way of making up for nature.

The majority of this House rejected must aid which, even though it is no more than a financial measure,would nevertheless have mitigated the damage brought about by allowing sugaring. This is a victory for thecountries of the North and a defeat for the countries of the Mediterranean area which have been unable todefend the highly vocational nature of their territories. This CMO is detrimental to the quality and the typicaland genuine nature of products, and damaging for wine growers, producers and consumers.

- Motion for resolution: The fight against terrorism (B6-0514/2007)

Antonio Masip Hidalgo (PSE). – (ES) Madam President, I think that it has been very positive today, the factthat we have given a charter of rights to the alliance of civilisations which were supported in their time byPresident Zapatero and the UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan. I believe that this is a good start.

Moreover, I believe that the Charter of Fundamental Rights which we have signed today enshrines the truenature of our civilisation and not the integrismo of those who came here today to oppose it, an attitude whichis regrettable and violent. It is also regrettable and violent when Islamic radicals adopt this same doggedadherence to ingrained traditions. These two forms of radicalism, are what we need to eradicate in order tohave peace and not terrorism.

Mario Borghezio (UEN). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to point out that Ivoted against, although in error I voted for – and I give official notification of that – the report on terrorism.

A hypocritical report, a report which shows the cowardly attitude of the Europe of institutions towardsterrorism. It does not even have the courage to call it by its name: Islamic terrorism. Then, this House votedagainst an amendment tabled by myself and other UEN Members in which we called Europe’s attention toAl-Qaeda’s infiltration of the Maghreb. We obviously tabled it a few days ago, and unfortunately yesterday’sevents proved us right beyond our most pessimistic forecasts. The Islamic butchery of Al-Qaeda has hit the


poor people of Algiers, and also causes the Islamic butchery of those people, who are probably themselvesIslamic.

It is shameful that this is happening at Europe’s door and this House throws out an amendment which callsfor retaliatory action, because Europe cannot close its eyes to the threat on its doorstep.

Dimitar Stoyanov (NI). – (BG) I abstained in the vote on the resolution against terrorism because, of course,I do not support the development of terrorism but I cannot support such a document either, which, to mymind, only spreads further panic among European citizens and further contributes to the attainment of theultimate goal of terrorism, i.e. terror itself. Still, I was satisfied with the proposed amendments by the Unionfor Europe of the Nations Group, which were adopted, stating that everything has to be treated from thecause, as the ancient proverb goes that each illness has to be treated from the cause. Therefore, if, for instance,we fail to exert pressure on Israel to stop its segregationist policy and the building of its wall separating theArabs and depriving them of basic human rights they have, we shall contribute much more to the fightagainst terrorism than we could by tapping telephones and organizing surveillance of web sites. Still, theamendments proposed against by the Union for Europe of the Nations Group should not have been rejectedas it called for attention to the development of terrorism inside Europe because in my country banned terroristorganizations develop under the umbrella of the ruling MRF party.

Hannu Takkula (ALDE). – (FI) Madam President, I think this resolution is fine but slightly inconsistent asyou get the impression in some places that one is, as it were, surrendering to terrorism. In other words, itdoes not seem to accept the idea that terrorism should be eliminated entirely, that it should be pulled up bythe roots; and Mrs Muscardini of the UEN Group raised this point in her oral amendment. To me this is oneof those issues which perhaps should have been examined in more detail when this report was being discussed.

I think the European Union line should be absolutely clear on terrorism. We promote democracy, humanrights and freedom of expression, and can under no circumstances approve of terrorism. I would also haveliked to see more weight given to the importance of education when addressing its causes. For example, thefight against terrorism in the Palestinian Autonomous Territories should mainly be based on education, sothat future generations can be educated and brought up free of hatred and can therefore learn to live inpeaceful coexistence with their neighbours.

Hubert Pirker (PPE-DE). – (DE) Madam President, in the fight against terrorism, we must deploy all meansthat are effective, available and compatible with the rule of law. If the Union wants to win that fight, it mustcooperate with partners.

I voted against this resolution because of its anti-American tone. Instead of standing up against terrorism,the author and many others take a stand against partnership with the United States in the fight againstterrorism. Another reason why I voted against the draft resolution is that it calls on the Commission and theCouncil to bring detainees from Guantánamo to Europe. That would amount to importing terrorism intoEurope. It would be a misguided act.

The third reason why I voted against the resolution is that it rejects measures which are demonstrably usablein the fight against terrorism, namely the extension of passenger name records to Europe and a reinforcementof Europol.

Written explanations of vote

- Report: Johannes Blokland (A6-0416/2007)

Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) The Aviation Agreement with Morocco is the secondagreement relating to the so-called ‘common European airspace’ and the first concluded, in this context, witha country outside the continent of Europe.

On a more prominent political note we regret the fact that this agreement - as also unacceptably happenedin the case of fisheries – does not explicitly make it clear that ‘territory under the jurisdiction of the Kingdom ofMorocco means territory under Moroccan sovereignty in accordance with International Law’, thus ensuring respectfor international law and the legitimate and inalienable rights of the Saharan people.

Moroccan sovereignty over the territory of Western Sahara is not legally recognised under international law,as the International Court of Justice at The Hague emphasised in its opinion delivered in October 1975.Morocco, which is occupying the territory of Western Sahara illegally, consequently has no sovereignty orjurisdiction over that territory.


Moreover, this agreement is based almost exclusively on support for two aims which we oppose: the openingof markets and the harmonization of regulations to promote competition in air transport.


Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) In June and July this year, the Commission received thethird and fourth applications for mobilisation of this Fund. The applications related to two Germanundertakings and a Finnish one, all operating in the telecommunications sector, in the manufacture of mobilephones to be precise.

Both applications are connected with the relocation of production to third countries, causing 4 211 workersto be laid off.

So far, in addition to these two applications and two French requests which have already been approved, theCommission has received further applications from Italy, Malta, Spain and Portugal. These applications willhave to be approved early next year.

As we have mentioned, the existence of this fund cannot serve to ‘cushion’ the unacceptable social andeconomic costs of relocation of undertakings and the associated redundancies.

We therefore insist that a regulatory framework must be established to prevent and penalise relocations ofundertakings. We consider that any grant of public aid to undertakings must be conditional upon long-termcommitments by those undertakings in terms of regional development and employment, and they must notbe granted any aid that may be used to promote relocations. Equally, it is essential to strengthen the role ofworkers’ representatives on the boards of directors of undertakings and in the taking of management decisionsof a structural nature.

Nina Škottová (PPE-DE), in writing. − (CS) The total funds taken from the European Globalisation AdjustmentFund represent around 3.6% and involve only three countries. Globalisation, however, affects all humanactivity to a greater or lesser extent. The low level of use of these funds invites at least two questions: first,are the effects of globalisation so limit, and second, do we know how to obtain resources from the Fund? Inother words, firstly we can ask whether we need this Fund. If we think we do, then, secondly, we need toprovide a better definition of the potential effects of globalisation and review the rules for obtaining fundingso that the Fund becomes accessible and intelligible to other countries and their more problematic regions.Indication of economic, social and other elements would also help in this regard. Justification, such as‘unexpectedness’ on the part of the Commission, is difficult to accept. Based on the above doubts, I votedagainst the proposal.


Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) The mobilisation of the Flexibility Instrument, along withthe amendment of the Interinstitutional Agreement, is an integral part of the draft Community budget for2008.

Thus, in addition to the correction of 1 600 million in the multiannual financial framework, with themobilisation of the Flexibility Instrument it is also proposed to supplement the funding for the Europeanglobal navigation satellite system programmes (EGNOS-GALILEO) by approximately EUR 200 million.Moreover, through the mobilisation of the Flexibility Instrument, the EU Common Foreign and SecurityPolicy (CFSP) is also to receive a further EUR 70 million in funding.

It should be noted that the rapporteur emphasises that ‘external actions in general, and the CFSP in particular,are not sufficiently catered for in the long term compared to the demands now identified’. He explains thatthe ‘demands identified’ include reinforcement of the EU ‘missions’ in Kosovo and Afghanistan. In this way,added impetus is given to the EU’s increasing interference and military intervention in support of NATOoperations, both in the Balkans – an example being the preparations to support the ‘unilateral declarationof independence of Kosovo’, in violation of international law -, and in Central Asia, notably by funding these‘missions’ out of the Community budget. These are political and military objectives with which we clearlydisagree.

Janusz Lewandowski (PPE-DE), in writing. − (PL) Madam President, mobilisation of the Flexibility Instrument,like revision of the financial perspective, is the natural outcome of the conciliation agreement of 23 Novemberconcerning the budget for 2008. The Flexibility Instrument is intended in principle to safeguard the budget


plan in exceptional circumstances that are difficult to foresee. In my modest experience, however, use of thisexceptional instrument rarely meets the criteria laid down in the interinstitutional agreement.

Such is the case with the draft budget for 2008. Both the EUR 200 million to finance the Galileo programmein 2008 and the sum of EUR 70 million under Heading IV, to cover increasing needs in the CFSP area, aresolutions to problems that were foreseeable. Despite the reservations of the European Parliament delegation,which pointed to a lack of adequate funding for satellite navigation and insufficient funding in relation tothe European Union’s international ambitions, it did not succeed in convincing the Council of the need toincrease the relevant budget allocations.

In its final form, the financial perspective boded difficulties that manifested themselves in preparing thebudget for 2008. The truth of the matter is that, in the course of the conciliation procedure, Parliamentresolved problems created by the Council. Given the misrepresentation of this situation in the media, weshould draw the right conclusions for the future.

- Report: Bogdan Golik (A6-0461/2007)

Jan Andersson, Göran Färm, Anna Hedh and Inger Segelström (PSE), in writing. − (SV) We cannotendorse a system in which taxpayers’ money is used to market European agricultural products in thirdcountries. We think that restraint should be exercised in such ventures, particularly in developing countries,since we risk damaging domestic industry. We think that the EU should be encouraging local agriculture inthese countries, not undermining farmers there. Thriving local production can mean a chance for thesecountries to develop economically and a way forward for democratic development.

Duarte Freitas (PPE-DE), in writing. − (PT) Simplifying the European legislation on information provisionand promotion measures for agricultural products on the internal market and in third countries is mostimportant for the development of a simpler and more manageable CAP.

I approve the Commission’s proposal to improve the system, in particular the regulatory consolidationinvolving the merging of the two regulations relating to the internal market and to third countries.

I am voting for the Golik report, and would highlight the reference it makes to the need to pay more attentionto the issues of information and promotion in the WTO negotiations.

Bogusław Liberadzki (PSE), in writing. − (PL) Madam President, I am voting in favour of the adoption ofMr Golik’s report on the proposal for a Council regulation on information provision and promotion measuresfor agricultural products on the internal market and in third countries.

The rapporteur rightly points out that in order to make progress in formulating a simple and effectiveagricultural policy for Europe, the Community system of information provision and promotion measuresfor agricultural products on the internal market and in third countries needs to be simplified.

I agree that information campaigns should serve to make consumers fully aware of sustainable CAPproduction, the high quality of EU agricultural products, organic farming and the health aspects.

.

Diamanto Manolakou (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) In view of the fact that the discussions at the WTOand the commitments will result in the abolition of export refunds, cuts in Community aid amounting toEUR 20.1 billion, and price cuts of 48% - 73% for most EU agricultural products, there will be severerepercussions on agricultural income.

With the proposal for a regulation, the Commission aims to counteract the negative consequences arisingin the past from GATT and the previous CAP reforms, which will be intensified to a greater degree with theWTO and expected CAP reforms. The consequences will be felt mainly in the distribution of agriculturalproducts, both to third countries and to EU countries, since import duties and internal aid for Communityagriculture will be drastically reduced at the same time.

Promotion and information programmes are therefore being proposed. However, the funds allocated tothose programmes can do nothing to counteract the consequences. The result will be an aggravation of theproblems of distributing Community agricultural produce to third countries and also within the EU, areduction in prices paid to the producer, and outright disaster for small and medium-sized farmers, who


already earn only a borderline agricultural income. On the other hand, the programmes will be of benefitmainly to large agricultural enterprises with competitive production costs.

- Report: Pedro Gueirrero (A6-0467/2007)

Duarte Freitas (PPE-DE), in writing. − (PT) The Common Organisation of the Market (CMO) in fisheries andaquaculture products, one of the four pillars of the Common Fisheries Policy, is to be the subject of in-depthrestructuring.

The priorities are revision of aspects relating to consumer information on fisheries products and a moreequitable distribution of the value added to the products along the whole marketing process (with specialemphasis on the initial point of sale).

The EU is also to find solutions to counteract the ‘social dumping’ which is now common practice in somethird countries and which is reducing our fisheries products’ ability to compete.

National interests are protected in this report and it therefore deserves to have my vote.

Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) We welcome the approval of the report on the CMO infisheries products, which sends a clear signal to the European Commission that an ambitious revision of thisCMO is urgently needed in order to increase its contribution to guaranteeing incomes in the sector, improvingthe marketing of fisheries products and increasing the added value of these products, notably by means ofa substantial increase in funding.

Given that the CMO should provide an effective response to the objectives for which it was established andthat the insecurity of incomes in the fisheries sector is attributable largely to the form of marketing in thesector, the price formation at the initial point of sale and the irregular nature of fishing, we regret that theCommittee on Fisheries rejected our proposals which really go to the heart of the matter, including amongothers:

- the introduction of maximum rates of profit;

- the need for public aid and the establishment of effective market intervention mechanisms;

- the consideration of production costs in the definition of guide prices;

- the introduction of financial compensation for voluntary temporary reductions in the catch or the fishingeffort.

We shall nevertheless continue to put the case for these fair measures.

Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. − The common organisation of the market in fisheries products isintended to ensure stability in the market and security of income for those involved in the sector. These aimsand, indeed, the aims set out in the EC Treaty are worthy and should have led to prosperity in Europe's fishingcommunities.

Unfortunately, the past two and a half decades of centralised Brussels control in the form of the CFP havebeen disastrous for those communities. A thriving market with job security are not achievable within thecontext of the CFP, and control of fisheries management must be returned to the nations dependent onfisheries.

- Report: Jörg Leichtfried (A6-0482/2007)

Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) As we have pointed out, the national authorities have longcomplied and ensured compliance with the requirements in force under international agreements in the areaof civil aviation. Cooperation between the EU Member States and between those states and other countriesis already a reality, a reality that could be further encouraged and developed but which already ensures respectfor each country’s sovereignty, for workers and their rights (guaranteeing social harmonisation, in particular,by the application of the most favourable conditions), and for the rights of users.

However, the powers of each Member State in the area of civil aviation are gradually being transferred to theEU, a process that is particularly negative when it occurs in an area in which there are no clearly definedlimits.


Essentially, the establishment of the European Aviation Safety Agency signifies another ‘step’ in that direction.It should be stressed that this agency will be responsible for exercising powers that are at present exercisedby each of the national authorities. Basically, this is a measure designed to bring about what has been calledthe ‘single European sky’ and the liberalisation of air transport and air navigation at EU level. This liberalisationfor the sake of financial profitability calls into question workers’ rights, quality of services and safety levels.

Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. − The Leichtfried report marks the culmination of complexnegotiations involving the Parliament, the Council and the Commission. The extension of the powers of theEASA is an important development for aviation safety in Europe and my group was able to support the finalcompromise.

Luca Romagnoli (NI), in writing. − (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I confirm my previous votefor the Leichtfried report. The negotiations between Parliament and the Council, with the assistance of theCommission, have led to this text which, although it does not completely satisfy some of the demands whichI have supported, is a good compromise. I should like to stress the important role that the European AviationSafety Agency will play as regards the monitoring not just of aviation but also of company practices. TheAgency will be responsible for renewing and issuing certificates and licences and for monitoring the applicationof uniform safety standards.

It will also be able to impose fines if safety is not properly implemented. I am therefore pleased by thecompromise reached with Amendment 15 which makes the Agency fully independent and impartial,including in matters relating to the revocation of licences and the imposition of fines. I should also like tostress that staff will have a major role to play in the development and the work of this body. As a result, Ifully share the rapporteur’s concern to improve the status of this work, possibly by drawing on the potentialoffered by the European Union’s Staff Regulations.

Brian Simpson (PSE), in writing. − I shall be voting for this report and I must congratulate the rapporteuron what is a technical issue of great importance. I would however like to make a few points.

Regarding cabin crew licensing, clearly this issue causes some concern in certain Member States and hasresulted in a determined lobbying effort by the cabin crew trade unions. I believe the rapporteur has founda compromise that allays fears held by some Member States, yet recognises the importance of the role cabincrew play. Some airlines frankly abuse cabin crew by not only treating them as mere ‘waiters in the sky’ butby employing them on contracts that pay minimum rates, for maximum hours, after paying for their owntraining.

Secondly it is important to recognise that EU-OPS, as approved by this Parliament, now come under EASAcompetence. But I would take the opportunity to remind the Commission and EASA that flight and dutytimes as contained in Subpart Q of the EU-OPS Regulation cannot be changed until a study into fatigue hasbeen commissioned and the wider industry consulted.

Finally I hope now that other aspects of aviation safety and security can be introduced EU wide, includingcockpit door and baggage hold surveillance.

- Report: Adriane Poli Bortone (A6-0464/2007)

Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) As is generally the case with regulations in this area, thespecific objectives of this report are based on harmonisation of the laws, regulations and administrativeprovisions of the Member States in order to promote the development of the European internal market, inthis case with respect to nutrition and health claims made on foods.

The proposal consists of two amendments to Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliamentand of the Council on nutrition and health claims made on foods, and the purpose of the proposal is toprovide for an adequate transitional period for health claims referring to children’s development and health.

Nutrition claims which have been used in a Member State before 1 January 2006 in compliance with thenational provisions applicable and which are not included in the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006may continue to be used for three years after the Regulation comes into force. Health claims other than thosereferring to children’s development and health also benefit from transitional measures detailed in Article28(5) and (6) of the Regulation. Similar transitional measures are now provided for claims referring tochildren’s development and health.


Peter Skinner (PSE), in writing. − I voted to approve this report because of the checks that need to be madeto ensure the health and nutritional claims made. Whilst healthy eating for many is essential for a prolongedand active life it is also essential that adequate information is provided to the consumer. For too long claimsmade by some manufacturers of popular consumer products have led to consumers being misled over thenutritional and health properties of these products. I call on the Commission to devote as much time asneeded to ensure adequate clarity for European citizens.


Bert Doorn (PPE-DE), in writing. − (NL) Liberalisation of the market in car parts has been the subject ofheated debate ever since 1993. I think the abolition of design rights in respect of visible car parts is longoverdue. So I wholeheartedly support the Commission proposal, because at present there is no properlyfunctioning single market in these parts.

When functional items such as wing mirrors and lights have to be replaced, the parts needed to restore thecar to its previous condition must be readily available. I am for European liberalisation as swiftly as possible,so I favour a transitional period that is as short as possible – five years. I shall of course be voting againstamendments which make it possible for Member States to drag their feet over liberalisation during thetransitional period.

Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) This report contains some amendments to the proposal fora directive to liberalise the secondary market in spare parts, applicable to the motor vehicle industry, themachinery industry and the capital goods and consumer goods industries.

The Commission proposal advocates unprotected markets, whereas this report advocates a transitionalperiod of 5 years for countries where there is market protection, as in the case of Portugal.

We know that, on the one hand, protected markets lead to large undertakings having a monopoly on thetrade in spare parts since, in protected markets, the consumer has to buy a replacement for a defective ordamaged part from the original producer. The argument used is that the design of the product must not bealtered, the best known example being that of the motor vehicle industry, although this proposal for adirective also applies to other industries. But there are practical cases where the replacement of a simple partrequires a whole combination of parts, with the associated costs for the consumer.

In the meantime, on the other hand, there are factories in Portugal connected with the motor vehicle industryin particular, which continue to operate thanks to their production of spare parts for the well-known makesand for which the ‘liberalisation’ of the market could cause serious problems.

Janelly Fourtou (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) In the Lehne report on the legal protection of designs, I decidedto support and lend my signature to an amendment proposing an eight-year transition period before completeliberalisation of intellectual property rights on component parts of complex products, such as motor vehicles,used for the purpose of restoring their original appearance. So far, impact studies have not shown anysignificant reduction in the consumer price of these parts in the Member States where the system has alreadybeen liberalised.

I am also convinced that the European Union is undermining its own interests here. Other parts of the worldare engaged in protecting their manufacturing by means of industrial property rights, and the EuropeanUnion – while declaring its desire to protect consumers and to combat counterfeiting – is making the wrongchoice.

The issues at stake are economic balance in the automotive sector and the safety of European vehicle users.

Bruno Gollnisch (NI), in writing. – (FR) The directive on the legal protection of designs and models, assubmitted to the House, proposes complete liberalisation of the market in component parts, notably in themotor vehicles sector.

The rapporteur’s text alters the proposal significantly by advocating that Member States be permitted toretain legislation strictly protecting designs and models for a further five years. Retaining the manufacturers’monopoly on the production of component parts is a means of preventing the loss of Community jobs tocountries like Turkey, Brazil and Korea, where production costs and quality are lower.

Over-hasty liberalisation of this sector could also entail major risks, notably in terms of safety. If vehiclemanufacturers are to have no responsibility for the production of component parts, there will be nothing


to guarantee their compliance with specifications and no assurance of quality. Surely we must put vehicleusers’ protection and safety before any economic or political considerations.

So, having attacked the postal service, the railways and the energy and electricity sectors, Brussels now hasvehicle manufacturers in its sights. There would seem to be no limit to the logic of ultra-globalism and forcedderegulation for ideological reasons.

(Explanation of vote cut short pursuant to Rule 163(1) of the Rules of Procedure)

Małgorzata Handzlik (PPE-DE), in writing. − (PL) Madam President, the internal market is a highly complexstructure that has balanced the interests of the various groups dependent on it for many years in succession.

The aim of this directive is to achieve complete liberalisation of the secondary market in spare parts. On theone side, therefore, we have broad groups of manufacturers of spare parts who are demanding that theirrights in respect of free competition and the prohibition of a market monopoly be taken into account; onthe other, we have car manufacturers (and here we are obviously focusing on the automobile industry) whobase the defence of their spare parts production on the legal protection of designs.

In this situation, which at first sight seems insoluble, I support the approach of the rapporteur, who proposesa system under which designs would be protected for a limited period. In practice, the protection periodwould be closely based on the life cycle of the complex product.

I also agree with the rapporteur that upon the introduction of a new protected design, the protection of spareparts involved in the old design should lapse. It should also lapse when a design that does not have areplacement ceases to be manufactured. That proposal seems to me the most suitable arrangement and theone that will best protect the interests of the groups involved.

I also support the proposal for a transitional arrangement whereby Member States under whose legislationdesign protection exists for component parts may retain such design protection for five years after the entryinto force of the directive.

Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. − I supported the compromise package and rejected those amendmentsseeking to extend the transitional period for the "repair clause".

Gary Titley (PSE), in writing. − I support a competitive European market for spare parts. This will help drivedown costs for consumers and boost business for small and medium enterprises. As a result, I support theCommission proposal, which would open spare parts markets to competition.

As such, I am unable to support amendments which increase the time allowed for the market to be liberalisedfor up to 8 years. This would slow the progress of achieving our goal of a competitive market for spare parts.


Jan Andersson, Göran Färm, Anna Hedh and Inger Segelström (PSE), in writing. − (SV) We vote againstthe report and the Commission proposal for the following reasons:

- We had hoped that the reform would mean a saving for the Union’s taxpayers and that the wine industrywould be decoupled from financing through the common agricultural policy. In the long term, we thinkthat Community subsidies for European wine manufacturing financed by taxes must cease.

- We think that it is reprehensible to use taxpayers’ money in order to market European wines. It is in conflictwith Parliament’s alcohol strategy, which promotes a restrictive view on the marketing of alcoholic beverages.In that context, to increase spending on marketing measures is an unfortunate reflection of double standards.

- We are also opposed to the proposals which advocate the use of European taxpayers’ money to marketwines in third countries. We think that caution should be exercised in the marketing of European wines,particularly in developing countries, since it poses the risk of stifling domestic industries. The Union shouldnot undermine local producers in developing countries but, instead, support them.

Alessandro Battilocchio (PSE), in writing. − (IT) Madam President, I am voting against this report, notbecause of Mr Castiglione’s general approach which includes some positive points such as imposingquantitative limits and environmental compatibility on grubbing-up, banning the use of must from outsidethe EU and extending measures which can be managed independently by the Member States. In my opinion,however, endorsing the practice of sugaring and the provision under which this practice does not have to


be indicated on the information label for consumers are critical points. The passage on the so-called fruitwines is also entirely questionable, as is the report’s general approach in relation to must. I hope, as an Italian,that Minister De Castro and his colleagues will be able to negotiate a legislative reference framework that ismore respectful of quality and consumers’ rights.

Adam Bielan (UEN), in writing. − (PL) Madam President, I fully support Mr Castiglione’s report on theproposal for a Council regulation on the common organisation of the market in wine.

The creation of a wine market governed by simple and effective rules on production and principles of healthycompetition on the Community market will not only improve the quality of European products; it will alsoraise the fruit farmers’ standard of living.

It is also important that consumers should be aware of the production cycle of a given product and its preciseorigin.

Furthermore, these arrangements will be decidedly beneficial for the production of fruit wine in my owncountry, and that is the main reason why I support the report.

Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) We are voting against this report because it does notsignificantly alter the most important aspects of the European Commission’s bad proposal for the vineyardand wine sector.

As we have always said, we disagree with this liberal position, which claims to be a move towards dismantlingthe common organisation of the market in the wine sector. The European Parliament itself examined thisand went so far as to allow the addition of sugar and increase the possible rate compared with the levels thenin force.

But one of the most serious aspects is the fact that it leaves the whole question of liberalisation of plantingrights from 2013 open, although the rapporteur recognises that this will only serve to concentrate productionin the hands of the biggest wine-growers, who already enjoy the benefit of substantial public aid and otherprivileges.

Equally, we regret that the proposals we made to maintain planting rights and support the restructuring ofwine-producing areas, especially family farms, small and medium-sized wine-growers and wine cooperativeswere not adopted, although we note with satisfaction that some proposals were approved, notably theproposal advocating the distillation of alcohol intended for drinking.

Duarte Freitas (PPE-DE), in writing. − (PT) Although I agree with the need to reform the CMO in the winesector and broadly speaking support the European Commission’s proposal, I consider that the Castiglionereport has made an important contribution, proposing some amendments which substantially improve theCommission’s document.

I note, among other positive aspects, the introduction of the possibility of continuing aid for the distillationof alcohol intended for drinking.

I voted for Amendments 33 and 223 because I consider that the liberalisation of the sector should not beabrupt, and I rejected Amendments 314, 347, 293 and 217 because I do not agree with the introduction ofthe possibility of continuing the procedure of enrichment with sugar, a practice that could cause imbalancesbetween producers, and I therefore support the European Commission’s original text here.

Françoise Grossetête (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) I welcome the general thrust of this report with its thoroughoverhaul of the European Commission proposal, which had included, by the way, a massive grubbing-upoperation affecting 400 000 hectares of vines. That proposal ignored the social realities of the wine-growingsector and would have resulted in further land lying fallow, to the detriment of the landscape. The reportviews grubbing-up as a potentially useful measure, to be proposed on a voluntary basis.

Another positive proposal concerns the possible implementation of restructuring measures in the wineindustry. The European wine industry needs powerful, successful operators in order to withstand internationalcompetition.

On the other hand, the proposals on crisis prevention, while necessary, do not go far enough. Given theextent to which production fluctuates, the proposed measures would be merely palliative. What is lackingis a proper crisis-management mechanism that adds something new to the existing measures.


Lastly, I am sorry there is no provision for indication on the label of enrichment through the addition ofsucrose: this would have been a straightforward, transparent means of information for the consumer.

Christa Klass (PPE-DE), in writing. − (DE) In the common organisation of the wine market, the Commissionseeks to take account of the special characteristics of wine-producing regions by delegating more responsibilityand creating more scope for initiative.

Today the European Parliament has set down these very aims on paper. We have absolute confidence in ourproposals, which were adopted by all Members of Parliament from all Member States. Viniculture in Europeis part of our heritage. The cradle of global wine production is here in Europe. Viniculture means business,income and jobs. It is not the task of the Commission to seek market balance by limiting our production orby changing the rules to make production impossible. It is, however, the Commission’s task to safeguardour share of global markets and to ensure that our products enjoy the international prestige they merit. Theaim must not be to restrict the market but to open up new markets. Why should we alter winemakingmethods for wines that are selling well? Our winemaking methods are rooted in ancient cultures and traditions.

Today the European Parliament has clearly reaffirmed its support for more market measures, national budgetsand scope for regional initiative, for socially sensitive phasing-out of intervention measures and for thepreservation of existing oenological practices, in other words the addition of sucrose and rectified concentratedmust (RCM), with these additives being placed on an equal footing by means of additional RCM subsidies.

I hope that our proposals will be incorporated into the new common organisation of the market in wine.

Jörg Leichtfried (PSE), in writing. − (DE) In years when conditions are unfavourable for vine-growing andwhen there is too little sunshine, the fructose content of grapes is insufficient to produce the volume ofalcohol required for fermentation. For this reason we add sugar, which does not alter the taste of the wine.The crucial point is that the sugar is added before fermentation and not afterwards, which means that it isnot a matter of sweetening sour wine, and the addition of sugar is only permissible for table wines and vinsde pays.

This should remain the case in future. The Commission’s plans to replace beet sugar, which has hithertobeen the standard additive, with grape must from the southern regions with production surpluses, do notstand up to scrutiny. Apart from the impassioned debate among experts regarding variations in flavour,there is also an environmental argument. It does not make sense to me to transport grape must all the wayacross Europe to areas that already have their own supply of sugar beet.

Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM), in writing. − (SV) The amendments to the report which we had to consider intoday’s vote are quite ludicrous. An example: the amount of sugar to be contained in different kinds of wineshould in fact be left to the consumers who buy the products themselves to decide. It should not be determinedin decision-making processes between the EU institutions.

Producers in other parts of the world have managed to produce wines which appeal to the tastes of Europeanconsumers and at the same time are cheaper than European wines. According to the majority in the EuropeanParliament, this must be combated by pumping more money into the agricultural policy and by conductingvarious campaigns.

There is no doubt that excellent wines are produced in Europe. The question of principle is whether it is rightfor poorer countries to be crowded out in order to favour European wine production.

It is important to have a perspective which takes all factors into account, including the public health interest,when wine production is discussed. This is lacking in the report.

For these reasons I have voted to reject the Commission proposal and the European Parliament report onthe matter. Wine producers should operate in a free market and not, as at present, receive huge subsidiesfrom the EU.

Jean-Claude Martinez (NI), in writing. – (FR) The wine-growing people of Languedoc and Roussillon – ofthe red-grounded Cross of Toulouse, symbolising the century of revolt that began with Marcelin Albert in1907 and continued with André Castéra in 1976, the people whose land stretches from the Rhone to theGaronne – are under threat from the European Commission. It wants to remove them and plant their landsinstead with colonies of retired Brits. Tea drinkers are to oust the men who live by harvesting grapes andmaking wine in the Minervois, in Corbières and Costières and the Picpoul vineyards.


This is a crime against civilisation! And it is being perpetrated under the mendacious cover of allegedover-production. But what is the truth?

The truth is the 150 000 hectares of illegal vineyards in Spain and Italy. It is those illegal vines that ought tobe grubbed up, because what is being talked of as excess production is, in fact, excess importation – amountingto 12 million hectolitres every year.

Moreover, for every vine that we grub up, a new one will be planted on the Pacific Rim; and when Chinadevelops a taste for wine we are likely to find ourselves with a worldwide shortage.

Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. − (DE) With its proposal for the reform of wine production, the Commissionseems to have come up with yet another pièce de résistance. On the one hand, it is trying to dry out Europe’swine lakes by giving financial rewards for reductions in the total vineyard area, while on the other hand itintends to allow vine-planting everywhere after 2013. If the growing restrictions are lifted, however,labour-intensive hillside vineyards will become unviable.

As if it were not enough to make these wine producers fear for their existence, the planned sugaring banwould deprive the whole of northern Europe of its harvest in years with relatively little sunshine, while theabolition of aid for concentrated grape must would ultimately make wine production impossible in southernEurope too. Add to that the mooted ban on the designation ‘table wine’, which would inevitably result in asurfeit of varietal wines of the lowest category, and it becomes impossible to avoid the notion that the plannersof this reform simply lack the necessary expertise and sensitivity. The Castiglione report is an improvementon these proposals, which is why I have voted for it.

Pierre Pribetich (PSE), in writing. – (FR) My colleagues and I backed Giuseppe Castiglione’s report on thecommon organisation of the market in wine by a large majority.

In particular, I supported four amendments that I consider essential not only for safeguarding the Europeanwine-growing industry, especially in Burgundy and Franche Comté, but also for making it more competitive.

I voted in favour of Amendment 271, opposing the Commission plan to put an end to chaptalisation. It is,in fact, vitally important that we should maintain the wine-making traditions of chaptalisation that are carriedon in many regions of Europe, including Burgundy and Franche Comté – which I happen to represent.

I also supported Amendments 33 and 223, opposing complete liberalisation of planting rights from 1 January2014: the interests of wine-growers dictate that we should wait until the end of the grubbing-up scheme, tosee how effective it has been, before we contemplate liberalisation.

Finally, I voted for Amendment 107, seeking to maintain compulsory distillation.

In general I am satisfied with the amendments that Parliament has made; I supported this report and I hopeit will have a positive influence on the Agricultural Council on 17-19 December, where the interests of ourregions will be at stake.

Luca Romagnoli (NI), in writing. − (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I am voting for the reportby our esteemed colleague Mr Castiglione. There has long been a need for a reform of the wine sector thatrestores the profile and competitiveness of Community wines and enables European producers to recaptureformer markets and capture new ones. European, especially Italian, producers are experiencing fiercecompetition from new producers.

This is due not so much to a downturn in internal consumption as to exaggerated production costs, toover-rigid and complex regulations, which often limit the possibility of adjusting production to suit changesin demand, and to over-timid promotion and marketing policies. We need to make the most of the qualityof European and Italian wines. To enable the European Union to consolidate its leading position in the winesector, the reform of the CMO in wine should focus on improving quality, and that means promoting,safeguarding and reinforcing regional, designation of origin and geographical indication wines, whichrepresent quality European products on the world market.

Karin Scheele (PSE), in writing. − (DE) In years when conditions are unfavourable for vine-growing andwhen there is too little sunshine, the fructose content of grapes is insufficient to produce the volume ofalcohol required for fermentation. For this reason we add sugar, which does not alter the taste of the wine.The crucial point is that the sugar is added before fermentation and not afterwards, which means that it isnot a matter of sweetening sour wine, and the addition of sugar is only permissible for table wines and vins


de pays. This should remain the case in future. The Commission’s plans to replace beet sugar, which hashitherto been the standard additive, with grape must from the southern regions with production surpluses,do not stand up to scrutiny.

Brian Simpson (PSE), in writing. − I voted for this report but there are still many areas of concern thatParliament has chosen not to address, notably to make the sector more competitive against third countryimports, and to improve the quality of wine produced at EU level. Sadly national and regional priorities havegot in the way of a lasting reform programme.

In Europe we must protect our quality wine, and we must also address the issue of producing quality winesat an affordable price. There is no doubt the Commission’s proposals have been watered down. Thankfully,however, my amendment to lift the de minimis criteria, and those amendments to allow chaptalisation havebeen accepted by Parliament. These amendments are crucial for northern countries and my own wineproducers in the United Kingdom.

The European wine industry still faces many threats, and in the EU we are seeing our own market sharedisappearing to New World countries.

But why? It is because they can produce excellent-quality wine at an affordable price and with a marketingstrategy that is based on what the consumer wants in the 21st century; not what the Romans planted in thethird. We need quality, not quantity, and we need to produce wine that offers value for money.

Peter Skinner (PSE), in writing. − The wine market in the EU depends upon the widest variety of choice andupon local production which is sustainable. For many, the issue of wine is as close to a cultural issue aslanguage itself. This is why this vote today was such a contentious one.

The impact of sugar labelling or of denying wineries from using sugar additives would have had a prohibitiveeffect on wine production in northern Europe. Many excellent wines now originate from the UK andparticularly in the south-east of England. This has been the case since the Romans first brought wine to theUK.

I voted to maintain this tradition and for an open market.

- Motion for resolution: The fight against terrorism (B6-0514/2007)

Philip Bradbourn (PPE-DE), in writing. − Conservatives voted against this resolution for the reasons that,firstly, the motion calls for more EU involvement through the proposed Reform Treaty and would thusextend the competence of the EU into the highly sensitive area of national security. Conservatives believe ina strong partnership at a global level with all those nations fighting the war on terror, and especially withour American allies. This motion fails to recognise the need for cooperation rather than harmonisation onthis issue.

Michael Cashman (PSE), in writing. − The British Socialist Delegation (EPLP) welcomed and voted in favourof the resolution on terrorism. Whilst the final version of the resolution adopted by the European Parliamentis not perfect, we recognise the importance of sending a clear, unequivocal signal to those who threaten ourway of life that we shall not succumb.

The EPLP is convinced that the EU can and will do all it can to defeat terrorism and that with neighbouringMember States and international allies working together we are more likely to achieve this ultimate goalthan by isolationist policies.

We take full responsibility for our role as parliamentarians to extensively scrutinise Commission proposalsin this field to ensure that any legislation which is adopted is appropriate, proportionate and respects thefundamental rights of our citizens. We will continue to be critical of allies’ policy where there are policydifferences, however we recognise and welcome the on-going co-operation between the EU and democraticstates, especially the important relationship between the EU and the US, in the field of Justice and HomeAffairs. We remain convinced that it is through co-operation with our allies not antagonism or retaliationthat we will defeat those who seek to destroy our values and principles through violence and hatred.

Sylwester Chruszcz (NI), in writing. − (PL) Madam President, the EU Member States have a duty to combatterrorism in all its forms, while remaining within the bounds of law and respect for human and civil rightsand freedoms. The fight against terrorism transcends national frontiers, and the need for internationalcooperation is obvious.


It is absolutely necessary that all institutions and authorities given special powers in the fight against terrorismbe subject to full democratic control by an independent judiciary.

The fight against terrorism must not – as the resolution adopted today attempts to do – serve to increase thepolice and judicial powers of Brussels at the expense of the nation states. That is why I did not support today’sresolution on terrorism in the EU.

Patrick Gaubert (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) Terrorism has become a greater threat than ever before to thesecurity of all European Union citizens. The EPP-ED Group has therefore made combating terrorism a priorityand it had hoped to see the adoption of a resolution to that end.

The resolution tabled highlights how hard and how necessary it is to strike the right balance between securityand respect for individual freedoms. In our European democracies we certainly do need to ensure thatanti-terrorism measures are proportionate to their purpose, so that they do not compromise the personalfreedoms of any of our citizens.

At the same time, we have to remember that the Union’s primary aim is to defend the right of every Europeancitizen to life and to security, and it pursues that aim by preventing and opposing terrorism.

It is unfortunate that a large number of distinctly disproportionate and, in some cases, unjustified provisionshave upset the balance in this text. Despite the amendments that our group introduced, the resolutionultimately adopted in plenary reflects neither the spirit nor the letter of our position on this matter, and thatis why I voted against it.

Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) Although it contains aspects that criticise, albeit mildly, theviolations of human rights committed in the name of the so-called ‘fight against terrorism’ – violations whichwe clearly and firmly condemned from the outset – this resolution does not dissociate itself from the fightor seek to challenge it when international law is flouted and State terrorism is practised in its name.

Yes, it certainly calls for criticism of the violation of the right to a fair trial and data protection, the lack oftransparency and democratic control, the refusal of the Council to answer ‘allegations of abuse of powers underthe pretext of counter-terrorism, in particular in the case of CIA extraordinary renditions and black sites’.

Nevertheless, we cannot accept that, under cover of the so-called ‘fight against terrorism’, Parliament should‘warmly welcome the adoption of the new Reform Treaty’ and call on ‘the Member States to ratify it’; that it shouldhighlight, once again, that ‘the US is an essential partner in this field’, adopting US foreign policy lock, stockand barrel; or that it should call for ‘the powers of Europol to be reinforced’ and for it to be accorded ‘independentpower to conduct investigations’.

Mary Lou McDonald (GUE/NGL), in writing. − I could not support today’s motion for a resolution on thefight against terrorism for a number of reasons.

Firstly, its enthusiastic welcome for the Reform Treaty (Lisbon Treaty) is not one I can share in. I believe theReform Treaty will not make Europe a safer place for citizens of Member States.

I also have concerns regarding the civil liberties aspects of this motion for a resolution. This motion for aresolution, although it has some excellent points, is unbalanced with too great an emphasis on legislationand security cooperation.

Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. − (DE) Europe has become more of a target for terrorists because it hasallowed itself to be reduced to the role of an accomplice in the breaches of international law and humanrights committed in the name of US foreign policy and also because it has not managed to act as an honestbroker on the Palestinian question. It is high time the EU recognised that mass immigration from the Islamicworld is a potential security risk, particularly since emigration to Europe has become a means of acquiringmartyr status and the infiltration of the Christian West by Muslim immigrants has been declared a religiousobjective.

Instead of acting accordingly and pressing for an immediate halt to immigration from Islamic countries aswell as getting to grips with the repatriation of illegal immigrants, the EU is adopting a softly-softly approachto avoid vexing the Muslims who are here already. It is chiefly because this report seems to regard the EUReform Treaty, with its disdain for democracy, as the cure for terrorism that I have voted against it today.

Cristiana Muscardini (UEN), in writing. − (IT) We asked the European Parliament to deal seriously with theproblem of terrorism at the July part-session. Some clever person decided, however, to talk about it in


September and vote in December: another five months wasted and yet more words aiming more to defendthe rights of freedom of expression of terrorists, who are making increasing use of information networks,than to protect the safety of European citizens and the other countries attacked by terrorism.

We award the Sakharov Prize to Mr Osman and we leave him alone to fight to defend the lives of millionsof people in Darfur, we continue to ignore the violence of the Islamic fundamentalists in Somalia and weweep crocodile tears for the 50 victims in Algeria.

Shame!

For that reason I cannot support your resolution and I shall vote against it.

Athanasios Pafilis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The European Parliament resolution matches and in manyrespects outstrips the reactionary policy and anti-democratic measures of the EU, which, on the pretext offighting terrorism, restricts the fundamental personal rights and democratic freedoms of workers. It callsfor still greater strengthening of police and judicial cooperation between the enforcement mechanisms andsecret security services of the Member States, Europol and Eurojust, and for greater effectiveness in theoperation of the SIS II and VIS databases, in order to extend and increase the effectiveness of the monitoringand filing of information on workers throughout the EU. Not only does this resolution align itself fully withthe new dimension which the EU is giving to its ‘counter-terrorism strategy’, i.e. combating and preventingso-called ‘violent radicalisation’, but it demands that the strategy should be fought for and that it should beaimed, amongst other things, against ‘incitement to commit violent actions’. This strategy against‘radicalisation’ reveals the real target of this so-called ‘counter-terrorism’ policy of the EU and its enforcementmechanisms: all those who resist and challenge its reactionary policy. However, no matter how manyresolutions are passed by the political mouthpieces of the monopolies, they will not stop the oppositionmovements and the steadily growing groundswell of opinion challenging the EU itself as an imperialistinter-state union of European capital.

- Motion for resolution: Commission legislative and work programme for 2008 (B6-0500/2007)

Colm Burke, Avril Doyle, Jim Higgins, Mairead McGuinness and Gay Mitchell (PPE-DE), in writing. −The Fine Gael delegation in the European Parliament voted against paragraph 16 of the resolution on theCommission’s Legislative and Work Programme 2008 as we are vehemently opposed to any EU initiativeto establish a European Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB). We welcome the fact that theCommission does not intend to propose legislation on this matter in its programme for next year.

Tax competition is vital for promoting growth, attracting investment and enabling Member States, especiallythose in the Eurozone, to manage their economy. The ECB sets interest rates and the Stability and GrowthPact sets borrowing and inflation requirements for the Eurozone, tax policy is therefore one of the mostimportant instruments left to Eurozone Member States under the Treaty and must be safeguarded.

The Fine Gael MEPs believe an EU CCCTB would lead eventually to the establishment of a single tax rate inEurope and are strongly against it.

Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) We are voting against this resolution because the proposalsexpressing our serious concern over the acceleration of the process of liberalisation and deregulation, whichis occurring in many sectors and which poses a threat to employment, the quality of services provided andthe future of public services in the EU, were not accepted. What remains is biased against the State as asupplier of services of general interest, since the whole emphasis is on liberalisation.

Monetary and fiscal policy in the EU has also been restrictive, the prime objective being to stabilise pricesand consolidate the budget in accordance with the Stability and Growth Pact even though we know that theprocess of nominal convergence has an adverse effect on economic growth and employment, economic andsocial cohesion, real convergence between the EU Member States, and public investment.

It also lays emphasis on the neoliberal Lisbon Strategy, which has been the principal instrument used in theEU to promote the liberalisation and privatisation of services and public facilities, flexibility and adaptabilityin labour markets, wage reductions and the opening up to private interests of most social security provisions,including pensions and health.

Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg (PSE), in writing. − (PL) Madam President, the work programme for2008 adopts a complex approach aimed at implementing a vision of Europe that meets its citizens’ futureexpectations. The European Commission's main priorities for the coming year are activities to promote


economic growth and employment, sustainable development, and the management of migratory flows.They also concern climate change, energy, future enlargement of the EU and action on the internationalscene.

It should be stressed that the work plan was elaborated in the light of detailed discussions with otherinstitutions, including the issues discussed recently in the debate on globalisation at the Council’s informalmeeting in Lisbon. The programme also includes priorities in the field of communications that are a furtherstep by the Commission in its efforts to improve the flow of information about the EU to the citizens ofEurope.

I was pleased to see the announcement of a new approach to implementation of the principle of subsidiarityand independent assessment of the consequences of proposed legislation to avoid mistakes in future. Theproposals for new legislation to improve the situation of women, especially in reconciling the demands offamily and working life – which is an important step towards combating the decline in Europe’s naturalincrease rate – are also very welcome.

Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) Among the many aspects that warrant criticism on thissubject, I would like to focus on one of the priorities for 2008, described by the President of the Commissionas one of the most significant: the ratification of the proposal for a Treaty on European Union.

The majority of the EP ‘welcomes the Commission’s commitment to supporting the ratification of the Reform Treaty’,‘urges the Commission ... to intensify its efforts to develop a more effective communication policy in order to achieve abetter understanding by citizens of EU action ... with a view to preparing the way for ratification of the Reform Treatyand the European elections in 2009’ and ‘calls on the Commission to set out clearly how it intends to put into practicethe content of its ... priorities, particularly the priority relating to the Reform Treaty’.

In view of the inadmissible role played by the Commission during the referendums on the so-called ‘Europeanconstitution’ conducted in 2005, such intentions, long proclaimed and now reaffirmed, will, if they arecarried out, represent a genuine interference in the process of ratification which is a matter for each MemberState.

What a contradiction on the part of the President of the Commission who, when asked about the processof ratification, replied that it was for each Member State to decide, but who specifically makes it one of hispriorities to meddle with that decision!

Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) Since it was impossible to secure private funding, as originallyplanned, to supplement the financing of the ‘Galileo’ project, the European Union ‘decided’ that it should befinanced entirely with public capital, notably from the Community budget.

This is the reason for the amendment to the Interinstitutional Agreement (IIA) – which established theFinancial Framework for 2007-2013 – increasing the ceiling for authorisations granted under subheading1a (competitiveness for growth) for the years 2008 to 2013 to a total of EUR 1 600 million at current prices,at the cost of under-budgeting and under-implementing the items under heading 2 (‘preservation andmanagement of natural resources’, namely agriculture, fisheries and the environment) in 2007.

With this revision of the IIA and the mobilisation of the Flexibility Instrument, the EU is securing the futureof its great ‘priority’ by guaranteeing its funding. It still remains to be seen whether, once the ‘Galileo’ projectis completed – completed, it should be noted, with public funding – it will not be ‘offered’ at some later dateto private capital, on the basis of some public-private partnership for example, with the public party bearingthe costs and private capital making the profits.

Marian Harkin (ALDE), in writing. − Do not support the creation of a Common Consolidated CorporateTax Base.

Monica Maria Iacob-Ridzi (PPE-DE), in writing. − (RO) I am in favour of adopting the EuropeanCommission’s legislative programme for next year and I believe it reflects the political priorities of theEuropean Union very well. Nevertheless, the legislative proposals the Commission is preparing regardingthe legislation of private companies and small and medium-sized companies should not affect the MemberStates policies that have significantly contributed to the economic growth over the last years, such as thesingle tax rate.

Also, the recent communication of the European Commission regarding the "Health Check" of the CommonAgricultural Policy is a good basis for interinstitutional negotiation. For this purpose, the European


Commission must suspend legislative proposals fundamentally amending provisions of the EuropeanCommission until the conclusion of debates between the European institutions and Member States.

Last but not least, I regret the absence of legislative initiatives in the field of common visa policy, as regardsthe reciprocity of granting free movement of persons between the European Union and third countries. Iremind the European Commission that 12 Member States, representing over 100 million citizens of theEuropean Union, are still excluded from the Visa Waiver Program for the United States of America.

- Motion for resolution: Economic Partnership Agreements (B6-0497/2007)

Genowefa Grabowska (PSE), in writing. − (PL) As a member of the ACP-EU Parliamentary Assembly, I wishto support the results of last week’s EU-Africa summit meeting in Lisbon. At the Parliamentary Assembly’slast session in Kigali we called for prudence and the avoidance of hasty further regulation of relations betweenthe EU and Africa. Clearly, the Joint EU-Africa Strategy must take account of the interests of both partners,and cooperation should not take place at the expense of either of them.

The fact that the European Union is the African countries’ most serious economic partner – and that mostaid to Africa comes from Europe – also imposes a special responsibility on the Union. That was made clearin the Joint Statement of the European and Pan-African Parliaments, which rightly called for greaterinvolvement of both bodies in shaping future relations between the two continents. The European Parliamenthas clearly stated its support for the Kigali Declaration of 22 November 2007, calling for extension of thedeadline for concluding negotiations on a new EU-ACP trade agreement, for the agreement to be a prudentone, and suggesting that the rigorous demands of the WTO need to be relaxed. It is good that the prioritiesset until the next summit in 2009 refer not only to peace, security, human rights, energy, climate changeand migration, but also to combating poverty through employment, investment in health care, and education.

Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) If there were any doubts about the EU’s real intentions withregard to the free trade agreements it proposes to establish with the ACP (African, Caribbean and Pacific)Group of States, agreements which are described as ‘economic partnership agreements’ (EPAs) and whichwere much in evidence at the recent EU-Africa summit because some African countries refused to sign them,a reading of the resolution that has now been approved would suffice to explain them. However, JoãoCravinho, Portugal’s Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and Cooperation, as President of the Council, hadalready made things quite clear at the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly at Kigali on 21 November.

Although obliged to retreat (for the moment), the EU sought to counter the resistance by coming up with a‘proposal to negotiate’ the EPAs ‘in two phases, starting with trade in goods’ and proceeding later ‘to include otherareas, such as services and investment’, at the same time promising millions and millions of euros as a pledge ofthe ACP countries’ sovereignty and independence (economic and, soon, political). That is the object of the‘General Affairs and External Relations’ Council decision of 17 November 2007.

The majority of the EP applauds and supports the decision. As for us, we denounce and oppose such intentionsand policies, by which the EU seeks to recolonise the ACP countries economically.

Karin Scheele (PSE), in writing. − (DE) I welcome the fact that a large percentage of the European Parliamentsupports the substance of the Kigali Declaration on Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) which wasjointly formulated in Rwanda by Members of Parliament from European, African, Caribbean and Pacificcountries. I am disappointed, however, that a jointly negotiated text which was approved by the Membersof the European Parliament and the parliamentarians from the ACP countries at the ACP-EU meeting inKigali has suddenly been rejected by the EPP-ED and Liberal Groups in Strasbourg. I firmly believe this sendsentirely the wrong signal in the context of negotiations on an issue which is of vital importance to the ACPcountries.

Margie Sudre (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) EPAs must not be seen merely as free-trade agreements in theWTO sense and, above all, they must not undermine the already vulnerable economies of communitiesoverseas.

These agreements must constitute proper partnerships that will make for the establishment of a new economicand trading environment to promote development in all the territories concerned.

I am grateful to the Members of the House for adopting my amendment, which points out that the interestsof overseas communities lie at the heart of these preferential, reciprocal agreements with the ACP countries.It is essential that we take more consistent account of the particular circumstances of the outermost regions


in the negotiations, on the basis of Article 299(2) of the Treaty. Overseas Countries and Territories adjoiningthe ACP also merit special attention, in accordance with the association agreements that already link themto the Union under Article 299(3) of the Treaty.

Even if the current discussions are problematic, especially on the issues of local markets and the list of sensitiveproducts, I would urge the Commission to seek compromises that respect the particular interests of theoutermost regions and the Overseas Countries and Territories in question.

(The sitting was suspended at 13.50 and resumed at 15.00)

8. Corrections to votes: see Minutes

IN THE CHAIR: MRS ROTHEVice-President

9. Approval of the minutes: see Minutes

10. Membership of political groups: see Minutes

11. EU/China summit - EU/China human rights dialogue (debate)

President. − The next item is the Commission statement on the EU-China summit.

Benita Ferrero-Waldner, Member of the Commission. − Madam President, I welcome today’s debate aboutthe EU-China human rights dialogue. As you know, the human rights issue was raised and discussed at thevery recent summit meeting in Beijing and the joint statement also explicitly refers to it.

I think it is fair to recognise that, although serious concerns remain and need to be addressed, China has alsomade remarkable progress in the human rights field over the last year. This is particularly true in the field ofsocial and economic rights but also in some other areas.

There are moves afoot to reform the ‘re-education through labour’ system. In this respect we welcome thenew legislative initiative that is under consideration and we also hope that concrete reforms will be put inplace soon. It is a fundamental principle of human rights not to deprive an individual of his or her libertywithout due justice and a fair trial.

China is also working to implement the recommendations of the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture. Forexample, the Ministry of Justice has recently directed courts not to rely on confessions on their own assufficient evidence of guilt, as such confessions can sometimes be made as a result of torture by police ordetention personnel. Similarly, China is initiating specific training measures targeted at these groups of publicorder personnel.

We are also pleased to note the progress made with respect to the Supreme People’s Court now exercisingfull review power over death penalty sentences issued by lower courts. And we understand that the result isa reduction in the number of effective death sentences and executions. This is gratifying for the EuropeanUnion. As you know, it has long been a priority area of intervention.

Nevertheless – and now of course I also have to say a few negative things – the Commission remains concernedby the situation of human rights in China in general and more specifically in the field of civil and politicalrights. We particularly have in mind here freedom of expression, religion and association and the protectionof the rights of minorities, for instance in Tibet and in the province of Xinjiang.

In this context, the repression of human rights defenders remains a key concern. Exercising the right to speakfreely often leads to beatings, to house arrest or even to terms of imprisonment. Access to the internet – theright to information – is closely monitored and restricted and those, for instance, who speak up in favour ofgreater autonomy for Tibet receive disproportionately long terms of imprisonment. The use of state secrecylegislation as well as other loosely defined criminal provisions facilitates the prosecution of those who speakor publish freely.

The Commission therefore urges the Chinese Government to permit expressions of all forms of opinion.This is also, we think, a very important factor for how the international public views China, particularly next


year in the run-up to the Olympics, when all eyes will be on China. History shows that allowing freedom ofexpression leads, in the long term, to a far more stable society. We all know that.

All these issues are regularly addressed in the EU-China human rights dialogue. Therefore, we welcome thefact that the most recent dialogue which was held in October in Beijing allowed a sincere and an in-depthexchange of views on all topics of our concern, with several of the discussions leading to follow-up activity.It is important to recognise that this dialogue provides an important forum where both parties can openlyspeak about their genuine concerns while contributing to a better understanding of our differences – andour differences remain notable.

In this context we regret the Chinese decision to withdraw from the Human Rights Seminar in Berlin overthe participation of two NGOs and that, for similar reasons, the Seminar could not be held in Beijing recently.We consider that civil society has a very important role to play and the Seminar provides the appropriateforum for NGOs to make their valuable contributions. I trust we are able to find a mutually agreed solutionso that this important exercise will continue its successful path in the future, as underlined by the EU-ChinaSummit.

Let me close by saying that there are two more important human rights issues which we regularly raise withthe Chinese side as a matter of high priority. One is the ratification by China of the International Covenanton Civil and Political Rights and the other one is the release of those who were imprisoned at the time of theTiananmen Square demonstrations or who later commemorated the 1989 events. Decisive action on bothsides would send a clear positive signal and would be highly welcome.

Edward McMillan-Scott, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – Madam President, I should like to thankCommissioner Ferrero-Waldner for that statement.

I think it is very important, following the EU-China summit – and particularly the EU-China human rightsdialogue – that there should be an opportunity for Members of this House to examine the outcome. I do notwant to spend time on the EU-China summit. I want to talk about the human rights dialogue, because thatwas what took me to Beijing last May when, jointly with Ms Flautre, I was preparing a report on the reformof the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights.

I want this afternoon to speak for those who cannot speak for themselves. That, of course, is the vast majorityof people in China, who want change and reform. But that movement is led by, among others, Gao Zhisheng,a Christian lawyer who has disappeared from his home in Beijing, where he was being held under housearrest following his conviction for ‘subversion’ this time last year.

While I know that his name was among those raised in the dialogue, I think that one of the problems thatwe find in this House is in relation to the dialogue. While I note that the Commissioner says that it was asincere and in-depth exchange of views – and I am sure that was true on the side of the Europeans – I am notconvinced that would be the case on the side of the Chinese. In my experience – since the time when I wasEU-China rapporteur back in 1997, 10 years ago when this process began – there has been absolutely noproduct in human rights terms from China in the sense that people’s lives have been improved or prisonershave been released or torture has stopped or the massive imprisonment reported by Harry Wu from theLaogai Foundation has ended. He estimates that there are 6.8 million people in one form of detention orother in China today, many of them there for religious convictions – and we think especially here of theFalun Gong practitioners, who are blameless but who are tortured for their beliefs and, in many cases, aredying.

I would like also to reflect on the imminence of the Olympic Games. One should not forget that Article 1 ofthe Olympic Charter states that countries should enjoin ‘universal fundamental ethical principles’. Thatmeans only one thing: that China cannot be held to be an appropriate host for these Games, especially sincenothing has fundamentally changed since 2001. I hope all Groups will support the joint motion, which callsfor an assessment by the IOC of China’s compliance with the terms which were agreed back in 2001. I fearthey will be found wanting. My view is that the Olympics should be transferred forthwith to Athens andremain there forever.

Hannes Swoboda, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (DE) Madam President, to come straight to the point, I believethe Olympic Games should go ahead in China, because we have a good opportunity to use these very gamesto step up our dialogue with China. That is in the joint statement too, Mr McMillan-Scott, and if you holdthe opinion you have been expressing, you are against the joint statement.


Mrs Ferrero-Waldner, one of your former opposite numbers, Madeleine Albright, observed when she wasUS Secretary of State that it was naturally far more difficult to raise human rights issues in China than inBurma, because in China geopolitical factors were part of the equation. It is a fact that we need China as apartner in the quest for a solution to many global problems. That, however, must not prevent us from raisingthe question of human rights and discussing it in great depth, though not necessarily in the tone ofschoolmasters or schoolmistresses who know it all. I am very pleased that the Charter of Fundamental Rightshas been signed today, because many speakers have made the point that we have no right to speak abouthuman rights issues unless we ourselves have a very good record of respecting human rights. We, indeed,are firmly convinced that it is in China’s interests not to trample human rights underfoot but to respect themproperly.

China wants stability. How is China to remain stable if the question of human rights is not raised moreemphatically? We do not want China to crumble. It makes no sense to build up Europe while seeking todestroy China, but failure to respect human rights puts China’s stability at risk. We want China to be governedin accordance with the principles of social justice. In the context of a monumental growth process, to whichMr Barroso also referred, the only way to safeguard stability is to take full account of social factors. It isimpossible, however, to strive for social justice if human rights are not respected, if people cannot form tradeunions or launch popular initiatives.

We want China to focus more sharply on environmental matters, because the environment is a majorcommon global asset. We know that many initiatives are taking shape in China for the purpose of massprotest against the violation of minimum environmental standards. It would be a good thing for China ifthe nation listened to those voices. It would be a step forward for China.

For these reasons I believe it is not a matter of European arrogance but of protecting our common interests.In the interests of China we shall raise the question of human rights, and enlightened representatives of theChinese political system would do well to listen to us and to this resolution, which is in China’s interests andwhich would help China to advance, something it cannot do unless it respects human rights.

Graham Watson, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Madam President, I much admire the contribution of Chinato the development of world civilisation. In terms of technology, in terms of society and in terms of culture,China has probably contributed more than any other country to the development of humankind.

I regret that China’s growing economic maturity is not accompanied by a growing political maturity. But Iregret, too, that the European Union is not doing more to push China in the right direction.

Two days ago, on the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Union proclaimedits commitment to the ‘promotion and protection of human rights throughout the world as a cornerstoneof our external action policy’.

And yet, two weeks ago, Messrs Barroso and Socrates left the summit early, having secured Europe’s economicinterests, leaving officials to negotiate the conclusions – conclusions which, unsurprisingly, made littlemention of human rights, supported the lifting of the arms embargo and opposed Taiwan’s bid to join theUnited Nations. They did much to undermine Mr Solana’s carefully crafted words the previous month.

I wonder what the world is coming to when the European Union, the self-styled protector of universal,interdependent and indivisible human rights, fails to speak out clearly against one of the world’s worst humanrights abusers.

I suspect that both the Chinese and others may come to regret the decision to host the Olympic Games inBeijing. The Chinese authorities themselves promised that they would bring a greater climate of freedomand openness. And yet figures from Human Rights Watch suggest that abuses have increased in the last sevenyears. Not only does China continue to execute more people than the rest of the world combined but it hasclamped down dramatically on internal dissent and media freedom in advance of the Games.

These developments violate the spirit of the Olympic Charter. They are in direct contravention of commitmentsmade by the Beijing authorities themselves in the Host City Contract which they signed with the InternationalOlympic Committee.

That contract has not been made public. Why? Because, if the world saw the complete and total disjunctionbetween Chinese promises and Chinese practices, we would have no choice but to boycott Beijing in thesame way that we boycotted apartheid South Africa.


I do not believe in boycotts. I have also maintained that engaging with a China committed to reform andopening would bring greater fruits than empty threats. But President Hu Jintao has to accept that a deal is adeal. The Host City Contract, the human rights clause in the Chinese Constitution, the Universal Declarationof Human Rights – these are promises made to China’s citizens. If China wants the Olympics to prove itslegitimacy and credibility to the world, then in return it must prove that it is willing to honour its humanrights commitments: by improving media freedom in line with the Olympic pledges, by suspending thedeath penalty in line with United Nations demands, by ceasing its support for military dictators from Burmato Darfur and by allowing elections by universal suffrage in Hong Kong. That is how China can win its placeat the heart of the international community.

Konrad Szymański, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (PL) Madam President, the People’s Republic of China isa country to be found on every list of infringements of human rights, whether it is a matter of freedom ofspeech and association, compulsory abortion, disappearances, torture, religious freedom or threats ofaggression against Taiwan.

China continues to persecute followers of the Catholic Church. A report by David Kilgour, the CanadianGovernment’s former secretary of state for Asia, shows that one of the most persecuted groups since 1999is Falun Gong, whose members have organs forcibly removed in Chinese work camps. People whose onlycrime was to meet with a vice-president of this Parliament, Mr McMillan-Scott, have recently disappearedwithout trace.

Meanwhile, our trade relations are blooming. China is extending its influence in Africa and will soon beinviting millions of guests to the Olympic Games. I cannot understand the absence so far of the most obviousresponse: the free world must boycott the 2008 Olympics.

Hélène Flautre, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (FR) Madam President, we are talking today toCommissioner Ferrero-Waldner, and that is welcome. However, at the 10th EU-China summit in Beijing on28 November, the European Union was represented by its President, by the Trade Commissioner and by theEconomic and Monetary Affairs Commissioner.

It is true that, since 2000, trade between the European Union and China has increased by 150%; it is alsotrue that it has become much harder to produce statistics on the deteriorating human rights situation inChina. There is nothing taboo about discussing human rights issues at the same time as trade issues. Thereis an obvious link between them, for example in relation to the freedom to join a trade union, and the abilityof workers in China to mobilise and demand better working conditions. The general attitude we encounteris deplorable, all the more so because its effect is to make us waste time: the decision taken in 2001 promiseda new openness in China and progress on human rights and democracy; the Chinese people are waiting forthat promise to be kept and they are looking to us.

They have been disappointed in their hope that openness would result from China’s staging the OlympicGames, and the sense of disappointment is bitter. Not only has the run-up to the Games so far broughtharsher repression but – even more regrettably – the organisation of the Games has itself had unforeseeneffects and has been used as a pretext for serious human rights violations. I am thinking here of the cases offorced expropriation and of the exploitation of migrant labour. All this may not be surprising, for the dissidentHu Jia informs us that the head of security in Beijing is also the person in charge of organising the OlympicGames there.

Perhaps we shall get round to expressing surprise or even dismay about that state of affairs when theintimidation and repression of foreign journalists – which has already begun – becomes even more drastic,for they are already being prevented from working. The arrest of two Agence France-Presse journalists on12 September, for example, shows that the rules introduced in January 2007 are being applied only patchilyand only insofar as the persons concerned cause no embarrassment to the regime. The undertakings givenby China are a dead letter; indeed, it is falling so far short of its commitments that it has resorted to compilingblacklists. There is currently a blacklist of 42 categories of people regarded as persona non grata during theOlympic Games, ranging from the Dalaï Lama to followers of Falun Gong and including dissidents.

In January this year, negotiations began on a new EU-China framework agreement. That is welcome becausea new agreement also means a new ‘human rights and democracy’ clause. It creates fresh scope for discussinghuman rights concerns with the Chinese authorities. However, 2007 was also the year that saw the cancellationof a legal seminar to prepare for the human rights dialogue because the Chinese authorities refused to allowtwo particular NGOs to participate – one of them the well-known organisation represented by human rightscampaigner Sharon Hom. It was certainly salutary to find the Union taking a firm stand on that occasion.


At the same time, of course, we have to ask whether seminars like this can continue. Our position is that thetwo things must not be mutually exclusive. It is very important to go on holding legal seminars. Equally,however, we cannot permit the Chinese authorities to dictate who may take part in them.

Koenraad Dillen (NI). – (NL) Ladies and gentlemen, in past decades this Chamber has been the scene ofmany ringing declarations on human rights. The proclamation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights hasonce again made us focus on what the essence of Europe really is. We are a community of values, based onsolidarity, tolerance and respect for human rights.

At least, that is the theory, but the reality is rather different. And the European Union's watchword on humanrights should really be rather different. In the last few weeks it has been abundantly clear that those who aresick of hearing about human rights are often the same people who apply that other principle of Realpolitik,namely erst das Fressen, dann die Moral, or 'food first, then morality', as Bertolt Brecht put it.

In Paris Nicolas Sarkozy, in exchange for lucrative contracts, is rolling out the red carpet for a mass murdererwho just a few days ago sought to legitimise terrorism, boasting that he did not waste words talking abouthuman rights in his country. In Lisbon a bloodthirsty tyrant like Mugabe is received with full honours, becausein Africa too we have to look after our commercial interests.

In China we are pursuing the same course. Last year Amnesty International reported that Beijing was laggingbehind on crucial issues such as the death penalty, judicial procedures, press freedom and freedom ofmovement for human rights activists. In the meantime the Chinese capital is undergoing a slick clean-up,says Amnesty International. Re-education by forced labour and imprisonment without charge are now beingused to punish offences like the unauthorised posting of bills, driving an unlicensed taxi and begging, toname just a few.

The human rights activists will be silenced, but the stadia will gleam and sparkle next year, ladies andgentlemen. A lot of European worthies will be jockeying for front seats at the opening of the Games. Andwhen they get home they will doubtless continue the fight against extremism in Europe. It is enough to makeyou sick.

Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE-DE). – (LT) It is impossible to deny that since 1998, when we saw the startof the summit meetings between China and Europe, relations between the EU and China – at political,economic, trade and scientific research level – have been developing intensely and have grown into a strategicpartnership. However, strategic partnerships, as we understand them, are based on common values, respectfor democracy and human rights.

Respect for human rights has always been and continues to be the foundation on which the EU is built. It isnot a short-lived declaration, as the EU’s history over more than half a century has undoubtedly proved. Itis time that all the countries, the EU partners, understood that there are some things that the EU would nevergive up and would never abandon. I would therefore like to point out that several hours ago in this veryroom a historic document – the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights – was signed.

At this point I would like to mention the fact that certain issues have a negative impact on the developmentof EU-China relations and the key to resolving these problems is in most cases in the hands of the Chineseauthorities.

During our talks with the Chinese representatives, even during negotiations on trade and economiccooperation agreements, we have always remembered and will never forget the fact that people in China arecontinuing to suffer in prison for their political views, for their religion or for belonging to ethnic minoritygroups, and for economic crimes, such as tax evasion, they receive the death penalty.

In recent years, with the approaching Olympic Games in Beijing, we have learned of other ‘developments’such as the fact that people’s accommodation is being demolished without compensation being awarded,in order to make way for the construction of Olympic structures, and the existence of a list of 42 categoriesof people not to be allowed to attend the Olympic games, including the Dalai Lama, his followers and humanrights defenders.

I can say only one thing: this is absolutely out of line with the traditions and spirit of the Olympic Games.My suggestion would therefore be to cancel these lists, which do China no credit at all, and ensure that inhonour of the Olympic Games all political prisoners and prisoners of conscience are released and a deathpenalty moratorium is declared.


I regret the fact that the EU-China summit meeting in Beijing has failed to become a historical event and thatthe participants were not the sort of politicians capable of taking EU-China relations to a new level. Just onething was missing: greater consideration and respect for people and their rights.

Glyn Ford (PSE). – Madam President, I speak in this debate on the EU-China summit and the EU-Chinahuman rights dialogue, although from some of the resolutions tabled by political groups in this House youwould not have known that the first half of this debate existed.

It is quite right that we raise with the Chinese the issue of human rights. The human rights situation in Chinais far from adequate. China continues to use the death penalty, as Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner stated inher opening statement. They repress campaigning organisations for Tibetan autonomy, religious groupsoutside a very narrow range of officially permitted groups, as well as others who promote their regions,promote press freedom and try and organise trade unions. We also have the insurmountable barrier withrespect to the hundreds of millions of migrant workers in China who try to organise themselves to endexploitation and to promote decent labour standards.

Yet there is a complete refusal on the part of many in this House to acknowledge any of the progress thatChina has made over the past two decades. The human rights situation in China in my view, although farfrom adequate, is far better than it was back in the days of Tiananmen Square. As the Commissioner stated,the death penalty, for example, now requires confirmation by the Chinese Supreme Court. My own experienceis that in China now there is a large degree of freedom of thought but not freedom to organise, because thatstill is the sine qua non in terms of what China and the Chinese authorities actually forbid.

We must continue to press China on these issues, but a refusal to recognise any progress positively discouragesthose progressive and liberal forces within the regime who are trying to push further, because they get norecognition for what they have done already.

China is now a global economic, industrial and political power. The EU needs to have a critical engagementthat rightly criticises China where it has gone wrong, where it must go further, at the same time as we engagein a dialogue on tackling global warming, the negative impacts of globalisation, African development andthe fight against terrorism.

Dirk Sterckx (ALDE). – (NL) Madam President, I very much welcome a strategic partnership with China.I am very glad that we now have more than just economic ties alone and that cultural exchanges betweenus, for example, have grown enormously in recent years. I am very happy to see so much attention beinggiven to the political dimension, and I will cite one example.

Africa: we must keep up our liaison with China on its Africa policy and we now have a forum in which todo so. I am pleased that Mr Michel is shortly going to Beijing to discuss that and other matters. And I find ita very good thing that we are increasingly working together on economic issues. But I am very concernedby imbalances in our economic relationship.

For example I find no hint of the fact that we should do more to pass on our experience of our Single Marketto the Chinese who, in this regard, might improve their own market considerably. The same goes for regionalpolicy, for the elimination of regional differences. We have experience in these areas. We have learnt a fewlessons. But I do not think the Chinese are so keen to play ball here.

Mr Mandelson has said that there is a fair bit of uncertainty about investing in China, and that this damagesour exports to China, and Chinese economic growth too. He is right, I think. You need the rule of law,certainty, in order for the economy to prosper. On matters of intellectual property, product safety or capitalmanagement. But you also need the rule of law when it comes to individual human rights, of course. Thatis just as important, if not far more so.

I am glad we are to have a report on the human rights dialogue. I think we should have one every time. Likeyou, Commissioner, I see a number of hopeful signs, but the European Parliament must maintain the focuson one or two things which have not yet been resolved: freedom of expression, policy on minorities, forcedlabour which regrettably still continues, abuse of power of which regrettably there is too much, and thedeath penalty which still exists. We as the European Parliament must continue to emphasise these things,and it is something we must do day in, day out.

Helga Trüpel (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe we are faced time andagain with the question of the right way to proceed in our political dealings with China. Mr Sterckx has justspoken again of strategic partnership, and rightly so. I find that an absolutely desirable aim. But we must be


realistic, and we are clearly not yet on that level at the present time, because we do not have a foundation ofshared values – human rights, fair treatment of minorities, rejection of the death penalty – on which a genuinestrategic partnership could be built.

I believe it was absolutely right – and I say this advisedly as a Green German MEP – for Angela Merkel tomeet the Dalai Lama, because it shows that we mean what we say about respect for human rights.

On the other hand, there is something I do not find at all right. President Sarkozy, when he recently spokehere, told us that human rights must be the hallmark of the European Union, only to travel to China threeweeks later and not make an issue of human rights there. These are European double standards, and they aresomething we must not tolerate.

I fervently believe that our dialogue with China, which I support and which we must have the political willto pursue, cannot be all fawning sweet talk but must also include confrontation. If we combine these andnegotiate with China in a self-assured manner, we must also express unveiled criticism. In the context of theOlympic Games too, the Chinese have to achieve the goals they set for themselves, and we Europeans shouldbe bold and frank and confront the Chinese with our criticism when the need arises.

Tunne Kelam (PPE-DE). – Madam President, a few hours ago the President of the European Parliamentsigned the Charter of Fundamental Rights and declared that ‘we have a moral and political obligation todefend human dignity. This applies to each human being in this world.’ And the Portuguese Prime Ministerstated that ‘the Charter is part of the EU foreign policy’.

Let me turn to China. We understand that, by becoming the host of the Beijing Olympics, the ChineseGovernment committed itself to fully respect both the Olympic ideal of human dignity and internationallyguaranteed human rights.

The European Parliament now has to conclude that there has been a recent increase in political persecutionsrelated directly to the Olympics. In addition, more people are being executed in China than in the rest of theworld combined – up to 10 000 a year.

Defenders of human dignity are being arrested, and up to seven million people are being tortured in thenotorious Laogai camps.

What should we do? I think the answer was provided here yesterday by the Sakharov Prize Winner Osman,who told us to put more pressure on the respective governments: to do something concrete. There is anunderstanding of the sin of omission – responsibility for what we could and might have done but failed todo. It is not enough to voice our concerns; it is time to apply the principle of conditionality and to declare,as our colleague, Mr Watson, told us: a deal is a deal.

The only way to make the Communist dictators in China respect their citizens more is to send a signal thatwe take our own values of solidarity and human dignity seriously enough to make dictators feel real painfor their abuses and arrogance.

Józef Pinior (PSE). – (PL) Madam President, the European Parliament has stressed the infringement of humanrights in China, and the lack of democracy in that country, on many occasions. These are obvious matters.Only yesterday, in discussing the European Union’s human rights report for the past year, we spoke of thelack of human rights, democracy and the rule of law in China.

On the other hand, it does not seem right to me to ignore the changes for the better that are taking place inChina. In particular, the coming year of the Olympic Games should be used by the European Union topressurise the Chinese authorities towards liberalisation, democratisation, the rule of law and the release ofall political prisoners.

On 20 November a delegation of the European Parliament’s Subcommittee on Human Rights to the UnitedNations Organisation in New York met with Liu Zhenmin, China’s representative to the UN. I consider it tohave been a constructive meeting. The Chinese side showed signs of openness and sensitivity to pressure onhuman rights and democracy – a fact that was also emphasised by representatives of Human Rights Watchand Amnesty International in talks with the Subcommittee’s delegation.

István Szent-Iványi (ALDE). – (HU) Madam President, Commissioner, billions of people are awaiting8 August 2008, the opening of the Olympic Games, with great interest. Not only sports lovers will bewatching, but also those who are expecting progress from China in the area of human rights. Unfortunately,


we cannot be satisfied with the results to date. The Chinese Communist Party can rejoice, since it must haveachieved a lot of success for the legitimisation of power. But we also have the opportunity to make the mostof the period running up to the Olympics and sternly to demand an explanation for the unlawfulness appearingin the area of human rights. The European Union-China dialogue on human rights has been going on for24 years. Unfortunately, its balance is not at all favourable. There is some progress, for example in the areaof application of the death penalty, but in many areas there is a strong sense of backing out, such as freedomof expression, freedom of the press and freedom of the Internet. In order for us to be able to bring aboutchange, we must also bring about change in the dialogue on human rights.

Firstly, we must say that the dialogue on human rights is not the only forum for raising such problems. EveryMember State is also obliged to act strictly and firmly on these matters in bilateral relations.

Secondly, the presence of civil organisations and transparency of negotiations must be ensured. Transparencyis very important for us to monitor what is happening there. Since dialogue is not a goal in itself, it is onlymeaningful if it makes a good contribution to improving the human rights situation in China.

Finally, I would like to speak about the situation of the Uyghur minority. Little is said about them and theyare a forgotten minority. They are not only afflicted by the general oppression in China, but they are alsothe victims of ethnic, religious and linguistic discrimination. I urge you to act in their interests too. Thankyou.

Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE). – (ES) Madam President, I would like to take this opportunity to issuea couple of reminders to European governments.

The first has to do with the lifting of the arms embargo on China, to which reference has been made onseveral occasions. I would like to point out that this House has frequently insisted that the lifting of that bancould only occur when there was genuine and meaningful progress in relation to those apprehended followingthe Tiananmen Square events of 1989, not progress in general terms, but specifically in relation to thatmatter, because that is what we are waiting for from the Chinese authorities at this point in time: somemeaningful progress which would enable such action to be taken.

Until that time I believe that it would not only be premature, but would convey entirely the wrong messageand give Europe a very bad image to lift an embargo which, I repeat, was imposed at the time for very specificreasons which have certainly not been clarified.

The second message, endorsing the opinion of my colleague Mrs Trüpel, is that it is unacceptable for certainEuropean countries to submit, and sometimes succumb, to pressure from the Chinese authorities aimed atpreventing them from holding official meetings with important Chinese personalities, in some cases dissidents,or representatives such as the Dalai Lama, in return for assured trade relations with China.

Especially today, when we have signed the Charter of Fundamental Rights, this is something which iscompletely at odds with the basic ethos which we seek to impose on the European Union.

Ana Maria Gomes (PSE). – (PT) At the Summit, Europe spoke clearly about how China is perverting WTOrules, failing to respect workers’ rights, exporting products that are harmful to health, pirating technologyand impeding European access to the Chinese market. The Chinese leaders were not used to hearing the EUspeak so frankly and they retaliated by holding up the joint declaration for a few days, but the Europeanleadership regrettably failed to keep up the pressure: not only did it make unacceptable concessions on thereferendum in Taiwan, it did not contradict the ‘One China Policy’ and it did not confront Peking on thesubject of serious human rights problems. Because there was not time, President José Sócrates told Portuguesejournalists, sometimes these things are discussed over dinner.

The death penalty and the release of prisoners held since the Tiananmen Square massacre: these are amongthe reasons why this Parliament is in favour of maintaining the embargo on arms to China. Arbitrary detentionand trial, corruption and forced evictions, persecution and repression of journalists and Internet users,repression of Tibetans and minorities, responsibility for the tragedies in Darfur and Burma: none of thesefundamental issues was on the Summit’s agenda. Clearly the EU is not alone in having a duty to call Beijingto account before it holds the 2008 Olympic Games. If the International Olympic Committee mediates aboutthe quality of the air, why not judge Beijing on respect for the Olympic ideal in its relations with its owncitizens and those of other countries? No one, least of all the EU Council and Commission, can continue toneglect the fight for freedoms and human rights in China. This is a marathon that will only gain impetus in


the context of the 2008 Olympics. Not only does it affect millions and millions of Chinese, it will haveconsequences for the whole of humanity.

Milan Horáček (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Madam President, the human rights dialogue between the EU and Chinahas been taking place twice a year behind closed doors for the last eleven years, and yet it has done nothingto improve the human rights situation in China. Reports of executions, torture in prisons and labour campsand the oppression of the Tibetans plainly show that we Europeans are not shouldering our responsibility.

The Olympic Games are coming up, and they give China good reason to furnish proof of genuine reformingzeal. At the same time, we must not practise double standards either. It is very gratifying that Federal ChancellorAngela Merkel received the Dalai Lama in spite of heavy criticism. It would only be logical if leaders inBelgium, France and other countries were to do likewise. The EU is accepted worldwide as the voice of humanrights, and it is high time we acted consistently in every context, including that of our dialogue with China.

Alexandra Dobolyi (PSE). – Madam President, today we are having a debate on the EU-China summit,which took place 10 days ago, and on the 24th Round of the EU-China Human Rights Dialogue, which tookplace two months ago.

Especially today, let me start with the second one. Respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms is acore principle of the EU and its policies and it is something that we all strongly care about and support. ButI am one of those who believe that the EU should follow a result-oriented approach in promotion of respectfor human rights rather than a purely principled one and, most importantly, we have to accept that theimprovements will only come step-by-step. That does not mean that the EU should hesitate in voicing itscriticism and using its power to insist upon democratic reforms.

I am also one of those who care about the high-level product safety that affects 550 million European citizens;who care about trade imbalance, effective market access, intellectual property rights and internationalcompetition policies that affect thousands of European companies and millions of European employees;and who care about cooperation on environment protection, international environment governance andclimate change that affects the whole population of the Earth.

Because we care about all the above, we strongly support the Commission and Council and its Presidencyfor addressing, negotiating and stressing continuously each one of the issues in regular dialogue with theChinese side. A simple reading of the 18-page joint statement of the last EU-China summit is enough tounderstand that the complexity, sensitivity and importance in the EU-China cooperation...

(The President cut off the speaker)

Benita Ferrero-Waldner, Member of the Commission. − Madam President, this debate again shows that societalchange takes time, and I think we always have to remember where China has come from. I think we alsohave to acknowledge a certain progress, as I said at the beginning. But, at the same time, it is true that we arenot yet where we would like to see China.

Therefore, I think the Human Rights Dialogue – also accompanied by the NGO seminar – remains thecornerstone for addressing our human rights concerns with China.

However, I think we need to be determined but also realistic. Determined to convince China that it is in itsown best interest to establish full respect for human rights across the board. Realistic, because we need torecognise that only through engagement and long-term effort can we really hope to achieve genuine reformsin China. In this context, I would also like to say that the continued holding of the NGO seminar is in themutual interest of both China and the European Union. This has also just been confirmed by the summit.

I think, therefore, there is a good chance that, back-to-back with the next human rights dialogue under theSlovenian Presidency, we will be able to resume this civil society seminar.

On a few other questions, let me just say that human rights were also mentioned in the joint statement thatis there, and I will just read out the first few lines. ‘The two sides emphasised their commitment to thepromotion and protection of human rights and continued to place a high value on the EU-China humanrights dialogue, including the accompanying legal seminar.’ You see: there it is. They underline the importanceof concrete steps in the fields of human rights and affirm their commitment to further strengthening dialogueand so on.


I would also like to say that there are a few concrete points that were highlighted in this discussion on whichwe want to see progress, such as the Falun Gong. The situation of Falun Gong followers who have beensubject to repression because of their beliefs remains a matter of concern for us. We raised this issue severaltimes, and more particularly on the occasion of the sessions of the Human Rights Dialogue. We asked, andwill continue to ask, the Chinese authorities to put an end to the harsh treatment imposed on Falun Gongfollowers.

Concerning the death penalty, I have said before that this issue is high on our agenda, and in this frameworkwe have been urging China – and will continue along these lines – to reduce the scope of capital crimes, witha view to ultimately abolishing the death penalty.

A first step would be to impose a moratorium on implementation. Then, as I said in my introductory remarks,would come a review of death penalty sentences by the Supreme Court as a first step which would becontinuously monitored.

I think the debate has shown very clearly that there is a mixed picture: there is progress, but there is still alot to be done, and I can only say we will further engage with China in order to encourage China to makeprogress. I think the Olympic Games will be a good opportunity for China to show that more progress hasbeen made by then.

President. − I have received six motions for resolutions, tabled in accordance with Rule 103(2) of the Rulesof Procedure.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Thursday, 13 December 2007.

12. Combating the rise of extremism in Europe (debate)

President. − The next item is the Commission statement on combating the rise of extremism in Europe.

Franco Frattini, Member of the Commission. − (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, first of all let meexpress my strong personal concerns about the rise in activities in Europe which have to be attributed toviolent and extremist groups and organisations.

In my view, therefore, today’s debate is extremely important, because it is not just extremism which leads toterrorist acts – extremism about which we have talked on many occasions in this House – but also thoseactivities and developments which are more properly to be seen as racism, anti-Semitism, xenophobia,nationalist extremism, Islamophobia, all those forms of intolerance which, as I said, are worryingly commonin Europe, and which, in my view, are absolutely incompatible with and run entirely counter to the valuesof the European Charter of Fundamental Rights which we proclaimed this morning. There can be no doubtthat extremism, by its very nature, is divisive and leads to violence.

That is why the first goal, in my view, is a political goal. That will obviously lead me to mention measureswhich have more to do with security and policing; however, faced with the problem of extremism and itsorigins, we need once again to promote a European Union which is ever closer to citizens and thereforemore able to pass on messages of tolerance, solidarity and respect for the Charter which, as of today, is oneof the cornerstones binding on Member States and on citizens.

I believe that there can never be any justification for extremism; while we have said that many times aboutterrorism, we also need to say it about racism, for instance, and about xenophobia. However, we also haveto explore the deep-seated origins of extremism and violence. We have a duty to do so, because we have aduty to introduce European policy measures that can help not just to counter but also to prevent and eradicateextremist developments and activities.

I should like to cite a few examples which, in my opinion, show that a European policy may be genuinelyuseful and more useful, if I may say so, than a policy which is solely national. From the point of view ofcitizens’ participation in the political life of Europe, it is very important for that programme – and it is notby chance that the European Commission is financing such a programme on fundamental rights andcitizenship – to contain policies and measures encouraging citizens to play more of a role in political life, inthe life of the institutions, and therefore, for instance, in events such as the European elections. 2009 offers


us a golden opportunity to foster a debate that leads to a large turnout to vote reflecting positive participationin the life of the institutions.

It is nevertheless clear that the other policy measure that we are expecting from Europe and that Europe iskeen to promote involves education, especially for the younger generations. In my view, that – a policy tokeep the memories of past tragedies alive in people’s minds and to do so among today’s younger generations,among students and among young people, even the very young – is also extremely important. For instance,all the programmes which we support and which I believe should be further encouraged, programmes whichkeep alive the memory of the victims of all the dictatorships, of all the totalitarian regimes that have devastatedEurope in the past, are, in my view, tools that can be put to good use in eradicating extremism and racism;from the history of the concentration camps, for instance, we can draw a lesson for today’s young peopleso that tragedies of that kind never happen again, not just in Europe but in any part of the world.

Then there is another policy measure that I believe we can and must bear in mind: those measures that moregenerally promote tolerance and dialogue between different cultures and obviously between different religions.We have two major opportunities, one this year, which is the European Year of Equal Opportunities for All– and we plan to review the initiatives that have taken place during the year – and one next year in 2008,which is the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue, of dialogue between different cultures and betweencivilisations. In my view, the 2007 review and the 2008 programme offer a golden opportunity to makepeople and, I would stress again, younger people, more aware of a spirit of dialogue which enriches, a dialoguethrough which everyone can grow together.

It is undoubtedly important to keep the public aware of the importance of promoting rights and eradicatingextremism, violence and intolerance. Here, the European Agency for Fundamental Rights has a role to play,which is what we wanted and what this House strongly supported; just as the Vienna monitoring centre onracism, xenophobia and anti-Semitism has in the past been an instrument for a very important sector, thefight against anti-Semitism, the Agency for Fundamental Rights will also be an instrument. The Agency, asthe main protagonist in this field, will have a very important role to play. There, as you know, we are preparingthe multi-annual framework which we are discussing in close cooperation with Mr Cashman, and we takethe view that the Agency’s multi-annual planning framework will provide us with useful instruments forour common action to prevent extremism.

Over and above that, we obviously have to react: while those are all important prevention policies, we alsoneed to react. I fought personally, in the Council of Ministers as well, for a European law – and we reachedagreement on this last April – for a European law under which acts motivated by racism and xenophobiacan be punished and those committing such acts are punished in the same way in any country of the EuropeanUnion.

It is not just the physical act, but also concrete incitement, the dissemination of hatred, those messages thatfrankly cannot be confused with freedom of expression which is a sacred right for all of us. Here, we arespeaking of concrete incitement to act, to commit violence. That framework decision was agreed by theMember States last April. Think of those awful manifestations of racism: at sports events, during footballmatches where people take the opportunity to shout neo-Nazi slogans, those are the kinds of act that theframework decision – which we genuinely wanted and which we agreed with the German Presidency – willpunish. I say will punish, using the future, as unfortunately, and this is an appeal to your sensibility, betweenApril and now the reservations of the national parliaments of some Member States have not been withdrawnwith the result that the procedure leading to the entry into force of this European law to punish racism andxenophobia has been blocked.

I say this with absolute respect for the national parliaments; however, as the government holding thepresidency of the Council of Ministers has given its agreement, I believe that it must take steps with its ownparliament, so that its reservation is withdrawn as soon as possible, and we can finally ensure that theframework decision comes into force after three and a half years of lengthy discussion.

In conclusion, ladies and gentlemen, we already have legislation in other sectors which punishes discriminationbased on race and ethnicity, and that legislation will undoubtedly be respected with the supervision, if I mayput it that way, of the European Commission which is responsible for ensuring compliance with Europeanlaw. I would point out, for instance, the recent directive on ‘borderless’ audiovisual services which very clearlyestablishes, from its entry into force, that audiovisual services must not contain any incitement to hatred ongrounds of sexual orientation, race, religion or nationality.


It is precisely to achieve all that that policing measures are not enough, criminal law is not enough,prosecutions are not enough: what is needed is a deep-seated culture of individual rights, of value for thehuman person! What we said this morning when we were celebrating the European Charter of FundamentalRights! I believe that this is one of the policies, at a time when we are preparing to ratify the Treaty of Lisbon,through which Europe can offer the world a lesson on the ways in which these hateful crimes against thehuman person can be eradicated.

IN THE CHAIR: MR MARTÍNEZVice-President

Manfred Weber, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen,it is scarcely believable. Four or five weeks ago I was invited to attend a counter-demonstration to ademonstration organised by parties of the far Right in my region. There were only 30 extremistsdemonstrating, whereas a large gathering of more than a thousand had assembled to demonstrate againstthem. In those circumstances, when you stand in front of those right-wing extremists, you say to yourself,‘This is scarcely believable’. After that century in Europe, how can anyone revert to extremism, go back tostrutting about full of hatred and arrogance and agitating against others?

The debate we are holding today is welcome and important. Extremism is a cancer in our society. Time andagain we politicians appeal to people’s moral courage, expecting them to rise up and protest against thisextremism. I believe it is also time to give thanks that such moral courage exists in abundance, that so manypeople do rise up in protest. What is extremism? Let me stress that, when we speak of banning politicalparties, of banning the public expression of opinions and positions, it goes without saying that such measuresmust not be based on political judgements. They must be based on an objective criterion. We have definedthat objective criterion today in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which sets out the essence of our basicvalues. If parties or politicians attack those values, the courts must decide whether their actions are illegaland, if so, impose a ban.

What should be done if candidates of extremist parties are elected, if such parties win seats? Firstly, theremust be no cooperation with these parties, and I am grateful to the Socialist Members, who have expelledtheir Slovakian member party from their ranks for cooperating with extremists. Secondly, we must notoverlook the fact that such electoral successes stem from public dissatisfaction, and we must not respondto them by maligning voters but rather by addressing underlying issues. Thirdly, I wish to emphasise thatextremism often begins with small steps in the party landscape too, and we must be aware of this. My messageis therefore ‘Do not let it take root!’

Political extremism exists on the Left and Right, and both are equally bad. That needs to be emphasised.Europe has experienced extremism, and Europe has suffered from extremism. Progress has been made inthe fight against extremism. It is a fight that is worth waging. And it is a fight that we shall ultimately win.

Kristian Vigenin on behalf of the PSE group – (BG) Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Fratini, Thank you for theunderstanding and the presentation on the intentions of the Commission. I find it symbolic that preciselytoday, when the Charter of Fundamental Rights was signed, we are discussing a topic directly related to it.For the growing extremism, the growing influence of extreme right-wing parties and organisations is a directthreat to the existence of the European Union.

It might sound too strong but our Union is based on clear principles and its existence is possible thanks tothe fact that peace, solidarity, tolerance, mutual respect among ethnic and religious communities, and thepeaceful co-existence of nations prevailed in Europe 50 years ago. Today, the extreme right-wing attacksexactly these principles; it attacks the very heart of the European Union, without which it could not possiblyexist. But our Union is not an abstract construct; it is not just another administrative level of governance. Itis a union whose mission is to defend and protect the values underlying the whole world.

Willing or unwilling, prepared or unprepared, we have to understand that there are people deprived offundamental rights, suffering from political reprisals, oppressed by non-democratic regimes or discriminatedagainst on the basis of race, ethnic origin and religion in all parts of the world. And, in all parts of the world,there is the hope that the European Union will support them and that the spirit of tolerance, guaranteed civilrights and social security can reach their country, too. Can we be powerful and convincing in the outsideworld if we fail to cope with the problems in our own backyard? How can we explain to the people who pintheir last hopes on us that immigrants die just because of their origin, that ethnic minorities are subjectedto systematic discrimination, that partisan ideologies challenge the equality of women or define


homosexualism as a disease? How can we explain that we are on the way of forgetting the gloomiest pagesof our history and that young people praise Hitler and anti-Semitism is turning into the vogue of the day? Icannot accept this and neither can my collegues Socialists.

I believe that there is no political group in this Parliament to remain indifferent to the fact that right-wingextremism, racism, xenophobia are gaining new grounds. Didn’t we become witness today how a historiclandmark in the development of the European Union was disgraced in a vulgar manner by a noisy minoritythat could come back stronger, more aggressive and better organised in 2009? Under the hypocritical demandfor a referendum, it challenged not merely the Charter of Fundamental Rights but fundamental rightsthemselves. It is this behaviour that we see also in many national parliaments encourages extremists whowould resort to yet another punitive action tomorrow, inspired by this political circus. We must nameproblems very clearly and seek solutions together. Therefore we shall put this issue on the agenda of theParliament over and over again. Because extremism is an all-European challenge which necessitates thecocerted efforts at the European, national, regional and local level.

If the European Commission is the custodian of the EU Treaties, then the European Parliament is the custodianof the values and I believe that together we shall be able to withstand a rising wave familiar from the recentpast. And that we shall stop it, without violating fundamental rights like the right of free expression, the rightof assocation, the freedom of the media. For one can fight for democracy only according to the rules ofdemocracy. Breaking these rules will mean that extremism has prevailed. Thank you.

Ignasi Guardans Cambó, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (ES) Mr President, a few weeks ago a young manby the name of Carlos Palomino lay dying of stab wounds in the Madrid metro following a clash withright-wing extremists. Shortly before, in the Barcelona metro, a madman had been caught by TV surveillancecameras striking a young girl because she was an immigrant, just because of the colour of her skin – so shesaid – without knowing that he was being filmed and without knowing that his actions were going to bebroadcast around the world.

These and other similar cases have been repeated in various parts of Europe. Often, with a sometimesexaggerated feeling of responsibility, we and all politicians who are concerned by this phenomenon, try tominimise the significance of such attacks: we must not be alarmed, we say; at the end of the day these areisolated incidents, there are not all that many madmen about, we must not exaggerate, it is not a seriousproblem.

We therefore label these attacks as minor because it frightens us to acknowledge that at best, in fact, this isnot a minor matter. Among other things, because, as the resolution on which we are going to vote tomorrowcorrectly suggests, many of these neo-Nazi and right-wing extremist organisations are playing on feelingsof fear which already exist in our society, and which we cannot hide.

Therefore, it is not enough to condemn. We need to open our eyes and act responsibly and face up tosomething which is not just an isolated phenomenon; without causing alarm, we must acknowledge its realscale and extent. The day on which we signed the Charter of Fundamental Rights is a good day to rememberthat the European Union has a role to play and has its responsibility in this area.

There is no subsidiarity when it comes to defending the dignity of persons or denouncing racism, xenophobiaand intolerance. Action is needed at European level, firstly on the part of the Commission and the Agencyfor Fundamental Rights, in order to examine what kind of ramifications and networks there are behind allthis – if any – what links there are between the various extreme right-wing movements, in order that we canapply legislation, contribute through education policies and support educators who teach about diversity,and, where necessary, forcibly denounce those politicians, social leaders, sportspeople etc. who, eitherpassively or actively, lie behind these actions.

Bogusław Rogalski, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (PL) Mr President, growing extremism in Europe is a fact,and we need to talk about it. The Commissioner said a great deal, but he spoke in general terms and aboutmatters of secondary importance such as racism at football matches. We need to talk about the facts, thepolitical extremism we are witnessing at the present time in the European Union.

Yesterday, Mr President, the leader of the NPD, a neo-fascist party, appeared on Germany’s public televisionchannel, ARD, and demanded that Poland immediately return Pomerania and Silesia to Germany. He declaredthat Kaliningrad, Gdańsk and Wrocław are German cities and demanded German jurisdiction over them.He also demanded that those cities and territories, which are part of Poland, should be returned to Germanyimmediately.


We are talking about events in Germany, a leading country in the European Union. For some years now, theGerman fascists in the NPD have been calling for the revision of frontiers, repudiating the internationaltreaties that ended the Second World War, and demanding that borders be pushed back. Commissioner, wecannot permit this. There has to be a strong reaction. We cannot permit the public television service of anycountry, in this case Germany, to allow neo-fascists and Nazis to air their revisionist views and calls foranother war.

This is not a marginal problem, ladies and gentlemen. It is very real. The party in question has representativesin seven regional parliaments. This cannot be tolerated in Europe today, just as we cannot tolerate democraticprinciples, freedom to differ and freedom of speech to be undermined as they were today by Mr Cohn-Benditand Mr Watson, who, referring to differences of opinion over the Charter of Fundamental Rights – or rather,not so much the Charter as the EU Reform Treaty – called the Members who were opposing him idiots. Thatcannot be allowed. That is not the approach to democracy and the present European Union that we shouldbe teaching our young people. Let us be united in diversity.

Jean Lambert, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, I think the part of the issue that we are lookingat is: how do we combat what all of us see as extremism, this fear of the other, this desire to protect theirown culture, as if it is the only culture, as if it has never changed, as if there has never been anything that hasshifted in their lives? And yet we only have to look back over the last 50 to 60 years to see the enormouschanges that have gone on, even within our own continent.

I think that desire to protect often comes from a feeling of fear that, somehow or other, you and your ideaof yourself are going to disappear and, therefore, you want to project your strength against others and denythem their existence.

I think all of us here feel a pride in who we are, in the country that we come from or our region or our heritage.But we do not, most of us, expect that to be passed on only through a bloodline, somehow, and a deepconnection with territory, but through citizenship, through law and through our rights.

And as others have said, the signing of the Charter of Fundamental Rights here today was an extremelyimportant symbol particularly attached to this debate.

But when we are looking at the election of extremist parties who only have one view of what is right – whatis theirs – I think what we see is a legitimisation of violence, of hate speech, of actions against others thatthey see as different.

I remember the time when, a number of years back, we heard of the election of a single member of the BritishNational Party to a local council in London. The level of racist violence went up in that area.

(Cry of ‘Bravo!’)

That is not a cause for ‘Bravo!’ That is shameful! How can you say that and sit in a House where you claimto be democrats?

Racist violence is to be condemned. And, when we are looking at extremism, I think we ought to be awarethat we have not yet seen the death of sexism and misogyny.

But the election of such parties raises the level of fear and, therefore, we need to think about how we reactto that. We react to it by also making sure that our actions uphold human rights and the values which wehold dear. We have to beware that we ourselves do not pass laws that in seeking to deal with one exampleof extremism actually give succour to those people or strike fear into the hearts of other communities.

I commend the joint motion to the House today and thank all colleagues who have worked so hard on it.

Giusto Catania, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like tothank Vice-President Frattini and all the fellow Members who have worked with me, and the proposers, todraw up this resolution.

Manifestations of racism and xenophobia have increased in recent years, as is borne out by the reports ofthe European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia. This increase is closely linked to the growthand proliferation of political forces which, in Europe, have interpreted the problems raised by immigrationin an aberrant way, often to put forward slogans defending race and identity, and to stir up feelings ofself-preservation against those entering Europe, describing them as terrorist threats or criminals, or evenbranding them with unacceptable anthropological names and xenophobic and racist slogans.


Parties and movements which in recent years have had strong anti-European nationalist leanings, and arehighly racist, are on the increase. Their political propaganda draws on social insecurity and tries to add piecesto the mosaic of the war of civilisations. That propaganda is now a mainstream part of the political andinstitutional debate and in some cases, seems to be the message emerging from governments or as the resultof the activities of governments.

Tomorrow, we shall vote on a resolution on extremism, a title which is perhaps a little vague. Lenin said thatextremism is the infantile disease of communism; we could paraphrase Lenin and say that extremism isperhaps an infantile disease of all political, religious, economic and ideological programmes. Mr Weber isright: there is left-wing extremism and right-wing extremism, but there is not just left-wing and right-wingextremism, there is neo-liberal extremism, Catholic extremism, Muslim extremism, ecological extremismand anarchic-insurrectionist extremism.

The problem in Europe, however, is the growth of right-wing extremism and the problems which are causingright-wing extremism to proliferate. Neo-nazi and neo-fascist political forces and movements have been setup in recent years in Europe and have made it their policy to work against European integration – we haveseen them in Italy, in France, in Austria, in the Netherlands, in Belgium, in the United Kingdom, in Germany,in Denmark, and in Switzerland; they reflect the crisis that has led an intellectual such as Alfio Mastropaoloto describe the offensive of the new right as the mad cow of democracy.

The democratic legitimisation of certain political forces has helped dangerous ideas to spread into the bodyof European society, feeding reactionary leanings. A dangerous, and in some cases underestimated, diseasewhich feeds on ethnocentric proclivities, often concealed and hidden, in some cases masked by seeminglydemocratic and legitimate acts. We therefore need to question our choices and our political initiatives.

There is a growing emphasis on the need to establish and consolidate a shared European culture and identity.I believe that a European identity and culture must be built on the basis of dialogue and contact with culturesother than those that have in recent years promoted and paved the way for the dissemination and the growthof a European idea, a European culture.

A major cultural battle is needed, and that is my conclusion. Police or public security activities are not enough;there needs to be a major cultural effort and only in that way will we manage to ensure that 2008 is actuallythe European Year of Intercultural Dialogue, because Europe must be founded on intercultural principles.

Ignasi Guardans Cambó (ALDE). – (ES) Mr President, I would be grateful if you would use your authorityas President of this sitting to call to order a group of Members who seem to think they are at the circus andnot Parliament and are spoiling the quality of this debate by their joking and cheering.

President. − We are nearing the end of the year and it is normal to have meals at which you drink a littleover the odds or at least more than usual. The best idea in that situation is to have a siesta and not to disturba debate where respect for the speaker should prevail at all times.

Thank you for your appeal but, as I said, anyone having a few drinks with his meal is best advised to have asiesta afterwards and not to interrupt our debates by his rudeness and lack of Parliamentary manners.

Derek Roland Clark, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – Mr President, I detest extremism as much as anyone.British people do – we have been fighting it for centuries.

If you want to combat rising extremism in Europe, look at its causes before you rush into yet more legislationwhich only restricts; it breeds extremism. Let us look at the high-water mark of European extremism, theFascists of the 1930s. In Britain, the marches of Sir Oswald Mosley were protected by law and arid hatefulpolicies thus exposed to the light of day were rejected by the people. Across Europe, Fascist leaders werevilified and obstructed. Hitler himself was imprisoned – so he, like the others, gained power.

This morning, we saw the rise of extremism in this Chamber with the signing of the Charter of FundamentalRights, part of the Constitution for Europe to be signed tomorrow and on which a national referendum waspromised in seven countries. Two said yes, two said no – but were ignored – while the others are waiting. Inthe UK, our Government gave a written promise, now denied. So much for the talk in this Chamber aboutlistening to the people!

For the EU are today’s extremists, seeking to impose their will by way of this distorted document. It has beendeliberately written so that no one beyond experienced lawyers can read it, with its numbered paragraphstaken from both the original and the existing Treaties, but which do not correspond between the documents.


The numbering will be changed for the signing and changed again afterwards to make quite sure that thepeople of Europe cannot understand it.

And this pseudo-democratic distortion is to be foisted on the people of Britain! No thanks – we have got ourrights already, embodied in the great and wonderful Magna Carta of 1215, supplemented by the Bill of Rightsof 1689. Just who do you think you are to overthrow these democratic measures laid down for us but openfor all to follow?

History ignored becomes history repeated. Over the centuries you ignored our lead and paid the price! Ignoreour example now, and you are on your way to perdition.

(Applause from his group)

Bruno Gollnisch (NI). – (FR) Mr President, this must be the umpteenth report on the so-called rise ofextremism in Europe. The Council, the Commission and the political groups have all pitched in with theirtuppence-worth and, as usual, the rhetoric is intellectually pitiful, politically disgraceful and morally perverse.

It is intellectually pitiful because every new idea that ever was – in religion, including the Christianity thatsome of you are bold enough to say you espouse; in politics whether liberalism or socialism; in science,including concepts now taken for granted, like the earth being round and rotating about the sun – has beenconsidered extremist, heretical, subversive and unacceptable. You cannot discredit an opinion simply bydemonising it: you need to explain what makes it flawed.

The political disgrace is entirely of your making – you, the people in power who, instead of resolving problems,care only about fighting off the opposition. All you are doing is highlighting your inability to solve theproblem of immigration – of an invasion in which you, either deliberately or through cowardice, havecolluded. What you are admitting here is that you have failed – on the economic front, the social front, thecultural front and the moral and educational fronts – and that, instead of changing your disastrous policies,your only concern is to get rid of those who protest or who criticise you.

It is in moral terms, however, that your attitude is most repugnant. You falsely equate violence and terrorismwith the legitimate reaction of Europe’s people against the destruction of their identity. What hypocrites youare! You want to muzzle these people and deprive them of political representation: you are the Pharisees ofdemocracy! You are what the Bible calls ‘whited sepulchres’; in other words, your sincerity is less than skindeep! You talk about human rights and freedom of expression, about Europe’s values and about tolerance,but underneath the whitewash it is all rot. You would deny to anyone who fails to think like you the veryrights that you harp on about. All of this would be odious, were it not so grotesque. Tomorrow’s generationswill pass judgment on you as the Barbarians passed judgement on Rome. I hope, at least, that the Barbarianswill give you what you deserve!

Roberta Alma Anastase (PPE-DE). – (RO) Ladies and Gentlemen, the subject we are debating this afternoonis one of maximum importance for the future of the European Union and for the security of citizens and ourvalues.

Over the last years, extremism has been an ever more frequent phenomenon in the public life of Europeancountries, a phenomenon that has raised many alarm bells and many questions as regards fighting it. Althoughvarious causes with different origins have contributed to the spreading of this phenomenon, I would like toinsist on an essential aspect of the debate created on the subject of extremism, namely immigration.

Extremist groups identify immigration as the supreme evil in the European countries, because it is a subjectthat they can use in order to explain the unwanted changes in their societies. Nevertheless, as we all know,immigration is a vital element for the economies of European countries and favourable for economic growth.

Its unwanted effects, arising from the inadaptation of immigrants to the societies that receive them, shouldbe solved by methods that are specific to the European Union. Otherwise, we are in danger of changing thevery basic values of the European construction.

Therefore, we cannot accept the extremist parties changing the agenda of traditional parties.

If we use such a strategy in an attempt to reduce the risks and dangers entailed by such groups and to preventthem from obtaining votes from our citizens, we will only offer legitimacy to their ideas and methods. Wecannot allow messages of an extremist nature to be adapted and promoted as law in Member States. Suchan action means destroying the vision of a multicultural and multiethnic Europe.


The crisis generated by the issue of the Roma and the extremist manifestations in Italy must not create adangerous precedent for the fundamental principles of the European Union regarding the freedom of goods,services, capital and persons. We must explain to our citizens that such an attitude would be harmful bothto their societies and to the European Union, as a whole.

The results of the European Parliament elections in Romania could be an example in this regard. No extremistparty has reached the threshold of necessary votes in order to send their representatives to the EuropeanParliament.

Bárbara Dührkop Dührkop (PSE). – (ES) Mr President, I would like to take a few seconds over my allottedtime merely to direct at those in the back seats, on the right over there, a traditional Castilian saying: ‘Apalabras necias, oídos sordos – silly words will be met with a deaf ear’. I will now continue my speech in English.

Today, as we have very proudly signed the Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the European Union, it ismore than half a century since Europe assisted in the most outrageous crime of xenophobia and racism –the Holocaust.

Millions of people were killed because of their religion, their ethnic background and their political beliefs.Therefore, it is more necessary than ever to bear history in mind by living our present and preparing for thefuture.

We have to be alert and watchful; beware of the eggs of the snake, as Ingmar Bergman taught us. AsCommissioner Frattini has confirmed today, there is a resurgence of violent acts with racist and xenophobicorigin in our Member States.

But, to me, what is even more preoccupying is that more and more young people get involved. Therefore,it is absolutely essential that we teach them citizenship and to be aware of what racism is about.

More and more extremist right-wing parties which base their ideology and political practices on intoleranceand exclusion are voted into national parliaments. There, they have an excellent platform for their politicalmessage of hate. We should be aware of this and try to do things to counteract that as well.

Racism and xenophobia are the most direct violations of the principles of freedom and democracy and ourfundamental rights. So the European institutions and we, the Members of Parliament, are obliged to reaffirmour determination to uphold fundamental freedoms and to condemn and combat any manifestation ofracism and xenophobia by means of law.

More than ever, zero tolerance is requested to combat racism and xenophobia. More than ever we have tobe belligerent in defending our values, using and strengthening the instruments available to the EuropeanUnion and its Member States.

No single citizen should ever suffer from persecution because of his or her race, religion, gender, socialsituation, language, nationality or sexual orientation. The eradication of racism and xenophobia, the rightto live in peace, is a moral challenge to all democrats, and to defend civil rights is the duty of every democrat.

Viktória Mohácsi (ALDE). – (HU) Thank you very much, Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen.Yesterday we spoke for nearly two hours about the fight against the rise of extremism and the final text ofthe resolution that is based on liberal initiatives, but of course we have throughout taken into account theideas and requests of all the groups. I am optimistic, and I trust that there will be a common position on thispainfully important topic.

Personally, I am very sorry that in 2007, the year of equal opportunities, we are still obliged to fight theshadows of fallen dictatorships from the 20th century that creep out from time to time. We know that thereare no Member States that are exceptions to this. Just to mention a couple by name: Pospolitos in Slovakia,the Young Nationalists in the Czech Republic, the New Right in Romania, the German National DemocraticParty in Germany and the National Alliance in Italy, but we largely face the same extremism.

To speak of my own country, it is unacceptable for me that every day statements are issued by extremistparties and organisations like the Movement for a Better Hungary or the Hungarian Guard, in which theyexplain the conceptually absurd criminality of gipsies with genetic reasons, and instead of integrating theRoma into society they demand segregation and ghettos, whilst they march in black uniforms inTatárszentgyörgy, and on Friday in Kerepes. In connection with this, I would again like to draw the attention


of my fellow Members to the fact that so many of the gypsy settlements in Europe are still targets for extremistforces, even today.

And now some news for the end of my statement. The Hungarian Ombudsmen, the President of the Republicand the Hungarian Government have officially condemned the Hungarian Guard and the Movement for aBetter Hungary. We would like all responsible European governments to do the same in the face of theirown extremism. In any case, in order to do this it is necessary that as many of my fellow Members as possiblevote yes tomorrow on the Parliament’s position on the fight against rising extremism. Thank you.

Eoin Ryan (UEN). – Mr President, today we witnessed a proclamation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights,and we are now discussing the rise of extremism in Europe. To my mind, there is very clear link between thetwo. The EU Agency for Fundamental Rights was, until recently, known as the European Monitoring Centreon Racism and Xenophobia. We cannot combat extremism without addressing the issues of racism andxenophobia, which are all too present in Europe today. Extremism breeds extremism, and we in Europe arein danger of finding ourselves caught in a very vicious circle if we do not move swiftly to tackle and eliminatesome of these root causes.

I listened to Mr Gollnisch earlier on, calling people in this House and others barbarians. He did not put upone credible idea, not one positive idea, of how we can tackle this problem in Europe, except the usual diatribethat comes from him. He and his leader, Mr Le Pen, want to come to Ireland in connection with the Treaty.I can tell you something for certain: those sorts of extreme ideas would not and will not be tolerated in mycountry, thank you very much. So please do come, and we can be sure that the Treaty will be passed whenthey hear the sort of continental Europe that you want to develop, and your kind of ideas. It has been shownthat attitudes that made workers receptive...

(Interruption from Mr Gollnisch)

We know what you stand for, Mr Gollnisch, and we have heard you so many times, you and your leader.

It has been shown that attitudes that made workers receptive to right-wing populism include prejudiceagainst immigrants, nationalism, authoritarianism, social dominance and political weakness, with prejudiceagainst immigrants emerging as the most important factor among these. In countries where appropriatereporting facilities are in place, the most reported reason for discrimination is often region. If we address theelimination of such prejudice and discrimination, we will have taken a significant step forward in combatingextremism.

Therefore, I call on all Members to encourage debate and the exchange of views on issues of social inequality,origin, race, religion and the impact of social and economic changes locally, nationally and at all Europeanlevels, and not to use emotive language, calling people barbarians. To this end, I welcome the fact that, aspart of the work for the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue, the European Parliament has invited PopeBenedict, the President of the African Union, the Dalai Lama, the Secretary-General of the United Nations,the Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom and the Grand Mufti of Damascus to address the European Parliamentduring the year 2008. I welcome those sorts of initiatives.


Koenraad Dillen (NI). – (NL) With all due respect, Mr President, I should be glad to hear from you why itis that members of your own group and people who manifestly represent a line of thinking closer to yourown are given much more extra speaking time and are not so readily cut off, whereas people you clearly donot agree with are cut short after only ten seconds. You are applying a double standard here, and it is notacceptable.

President. − First of all, it seems to me, Mr Dillen, that the President directs the debate according to his owncriteria and not according to those of whoever is occupying seat 777.

I have no explanation to give you. All speakers, including those who have been speaking among themselves,have been given more than their share of time.

At any rate, I would like to ask all Members to address the Chair and the House and not to direct theircomments at other fellow Members, in order to prevent disorderly interjections and interruptions.

Eva-Britt Svensson (GUE/NGL). – (SV) Mr President, we have all noticed that extremism is growing in theEU. I think we should ask ourselves why. Why are xenophobia and other extremist attitudes on the increase?


I am convinced that exclusion and lack of participation in society are a breeding ground for extremism andxenophobia. The equal value of all human beings is a fundamental principle in a civilised society, so we mustall help to combat xenophobic forces which discriminate against persons with a different ethnic background,sexual disposition or gender or with functional disabilities.

These groups use violence and they use threats. In my home country we have even witnessed the murder ofpeople who have defended human rights. We see the murder of young people with a different ethnicbackground, merely because of their background. These things should never be allowed to happen again.

We who promote the equal value of all human beings must never allow ourselves to be silenced. But weknow that is not enough. Xenophobic and extremist groups use young people in economic and socialexclusion to create more fear, unrest and hatred against other groups. The fight against extremism musttherefore be combined with building a just society based on solidarity.

Bernard Wojciechowski (IND/DEM). – Mr President, the motion before us is another example of ignoranceand hypocrisy. In it we read that, amongst other things, some political parties and movements, includingthose in power in a number of countries or represented at local, national or European level, have deliberatelyplaced intolerance and violence based on race, ethnic origin or nationality at the heart of their agenda.

We also read that this Parliament strongly condemns all racist and hate attacks and calls on all authoritiesto do everything in their power to punish those responsible.

In the Chamber in which we adopt such resolutions, one of our colleagues used abusive and offensive languageof mendacious propaganda – the very kind that is often used by extremists, the very kind that is based onslurs and qualifies as a hate attack. He implied that I could repeat Dachau. Well, let me enlighten him: one,Dachau was a German death camp; two, Dachau is in Germany, and I am not German. He even claimed that,after a four-day visit to Poland, he knew my country better than I did, and that I am not a part of Poland –but that Dachau apparently is.

This kind of hate speech is too often cited, reoccurs too often and emanates from too many politicians. Thesame politicians want to teach us all about democracy, while they themselves have little respect for it andlittle respect for equal treatment under the law. It seems that in Europe today – just as George Orwell wroteyears ago – some pigs are more equal than others. Some can hide under the privilege of immunity, some caneven avoid justice and even European arrest warrants. Communist criminals are somehow better treatedthan ordinary citizens, and while we speak in here against extremist groups, some German politicians openlysupport historically revisionist political movements. My dear colleagues, the Europe of our resolutions isvery different from the Europe of our reality.

Jana Bobošíková (NI). – (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, we have been yet again essentially consoling ourselveswith the fact that the rise of extremism reflects a deteriorating economic situation and unemployment. I amafraid that such an assessment is no longer valid. The economies of many EU Member States have beengrowing, unemployment has been falling, but extremism has not been waning. On the contrary, the numberof crimes based on race has been growing; national guards with an nationalistic ethos are being set up; SSveterans are marching across some EU Member States; and politicians who refer to the Jewish and Romapeople as the ‘ulcers’ of society are being glorified. Politics and the army are being infiltrated by neo-Nazisand racists. The Prime Minister of the Czech Republic, my native country, has made neo-Nazi rhetoric partof his vocabulary. Last but not least, the EU has become a destination of migration for poorer people and noone seems to know how to deal with it, which also plays a certain role.

Ladies and gentlemen, no resolution, no words can undo the swastika recently incised on the hip of a17-year-old girl in Mittweida, Germany. In the daylight, ignored by indifferent bystanders, neo-Nazis inGerman Saxony incised it on her body because she stood up for a little Russian girl. I firmly believe thatextremism can be prevented solely by citizens’ everyday acts, publicly declared opposition by the politicalelite, open and comprehensive interpretation in particular of 20th century history, and most of all the policeand courts, which must not close their eyes to racists, xenophobes and neo-Nazis, but act without delay topunish such behaviour.

Péter Olajos (PPE-DE). – (HU) Thank you, Mr President. I speak now as one of the authors of writtenstatement No 93. The statement, which I tabled jointly with my fellow Members Mr Tabajdi, Mr Szent-Iványi,Mr Vigenin and Mr Amezaga, condemns the operations of paramilitary extremist groups within the Union,which are one of the most obvious forms of extremism.


In my experience, although many people feel a moral and political obligation to stop such extremist ideasfrom gaining ground, many stop short of specifically condemning it in a written statement or in anotherway. There are many reasons for this. One of them, for example, is that when we try to publicise these ideas,the list is never complete and never accurate. This deters many people from supporting it. However, onething we must know is that the list will never be complete, and the concepts and definitions will never beaccurate. For this very reason, we must instead grab extremism and extremist ideas by the roots.

Today in this House is a day of celebration, but the Charter of Fundamental Rights has not come to be signedin untroubled circumstances. This Charter summarises in 50 paragraphs all the values and rights that werespect and want to protect in the Union. This Charter is the charter of anti-discrimination, the charter ofthe freedoms of expression, religion and assembly, the charter of equality and the charter of protection forindividuals, data, young people and the elderly. We cannot pick and choose from it at will, put some peoplebefore others or use it for our short-term internal policy objectives. Everyone must be respected and protectedequally, because this guarantees human dignity, and we, as members of the Parliament, have sworn to dothat. Opponents to the sum total of the ideas and rights formulated here are what we call extremists,irrespective of the age, sex, religion, or nationality of the person concerned. In this spirit, I would like to askmy fellow Members to support written statement number 93. Thank you.

Martine Roure (PSE). – (FR) Mr President, racist activity and racist crimes are on the increase in Europe.Roma, migrants and all those who are ‘different’ still face discrimination in many guises in employment,education and housing.

We cannot repeat often enough that what we want is a European Union rooted in the humanist values oftolerance and the protection of fundamental rights. So the framework decision – adopted by a substantialmajority in this House on 29 November – on combating certain forms of racism and xenophobia by meansof criminal law is very necessary indeed. It will enable us to take the same measures against racist ideas andhate speech throughout the European Union.

Extremist parties exploit people’s fears of the other and of foreigners, so that they can propose an easy answerto globalisation. But those who hail the imposition of national preferences as a panacea are irresponsible.The real answer to the challenges of globalisation lies in grasping the full extent of today’s human challenges.And we should not fear to state, loud and clear, that to respond by turning inward on ourselves is to courtdisaster.

Vălean, Adina-Ioana (ALDE). – Mr President, we are seeing in Europe a constant increase in extremist,nationalist and populist movements that endanger our democratic system.

In an ideal world, democracy is government of the people by the people and for the people. In fact, democracyis still the ‘least bad’ political system if it has proper checks and balances. However, the paradox of democracyis that it contains the possibility of its own death, in allowing the expression of populist and extremistopinions which erode the democratic system itself.

In many European countries, there are parties that have succeeded in positioning themselves at the heart ofpolitical life with populist and demagogic discourses. European history has shown how extremist parties,dressed in democratic clothes and using populist and nationalist propaganda, have often led democracy todictatorships.

The best way to fight intolerance is to stand firm, to defend our democratic values and institutions, to defendindividual rights, justice, equal opportunity and diversity, but also to sanction any discourse instigatinghatred, segregation or discrimination.

As Robert Kennedy said, ‘what is dangerous about extremists is not that they are extreme, but that they areintolerant. The evil is not what they say about their cause, but what they say about their opponents.’

Healthy democracies need active citizens. Democracy can only function if citizens are conscious and exerttheir civic rights and duties. We need to reinvent citizenship. We need new ways to learn democracy. Weneed to ensure that our education systems promote the development of an active, critical and engagedcitizenship. In a global world, we imperatively need a citizenship that celebrates diversity and promotesunderstanding and tolerance.

Wojciech Roszkowski (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, I do no know whether political extremism is on theincrease or not. I know that it must be opposed and condemned, both for its ideology and for its methods.


However, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which we welcomed today with such great ceremony, is notthe answer to the problem but can itself create new problems.

Article 21 of the Charter prohibits discrimination on the ground of political or any other opinion – I repeat,any other opinion – which thus includes extreme opinions such as those expressed recently on Germanpublic television by the leader of the NPD calling for changes to the border with Poland.

Platitudes tend to rebound painfully on those who mouth them. I would therefore ask the supporters of theCharter of Fundamental Rights how they intend to fight political extremism when they are defending it atthe same time.

Kyriacos Triantaphyllides (GUE/NGL). – (EL) Mr President, it would be an omission on my part if I didnot begin by expressing my concern at the general use made of the term ‘extremism’ without any definition,and without specific condemnation of extremist acts, in other words any extreme form of unlawful use ofviolence. It would also be a mistake not to mention the attempts to ‘awaken’ citizens to the dangers ofradicalisation, and the simultaneous creation of flexible categories for possible criminals.

I would like to remind you that in modern history, during periods when freedoms and rights were curbedin the name of security, policing and strict control, and when persecution based on stereotypes was allowedto gain ground, ideological bigotry, racism and xenophobia intensified and unspeakable crimes werecommitted. Similar lapses today could lead to the banning of political parties and trade unions, which willbe a real blow to democracy, the rule of law and civil liberties. We must therefore ensure that democracydoes not become merely a smokescreen for the adoption of punitive measures; at the same time, we mustconcentrate our efforts on mitigating the real causes of violent extremist acts, which utterly debase humandignity, since by definition they overstep the limits of freedom of expression.

It is our duty to take up the battle against poverty, unemployment, deprivation, the exploitation of workersand social marginalisation, and to ensure that future generations, thanks to proper teaching and education,stay away from aggressively nationalist and fascist organisations which promote extremist acts as a meansof expression.

Irena Belohorská (NI). – (SK) Thank you, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. In my view, it is essential toadopt a joint resolution on combating extremism, which has become more and more evident recently. Thereis a certain symbolism in the fact that this debate is taking place on the day when the Presidents of theEuropean Parliament, the Commission and the European Council confirmed with their signatures the EU’slegal commitment to the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

We cannot allow individuals or extremist organisations to attack citizens, whose rights must be guaranteedin a civilised society. The history of Europe has shown the forms that extremism, militant nationalism andideological radicalism can take. It is our duty to consistently monitor European territory for any activitiesby these groups or individuals and take vigorous action against it.

I must add with regret that extremism seems to be on the rise primarily among young people in Europe. Thisreflects a certain failure on the part of the politicians. It is important to remember that many politicians, dueto a lack of positive and professional assets, seek to promote their own political background and capital byprovoking the least experienced and poorly informed sections of the public. That is why adopting stricterlegislation and more vigorous measures while there is still time is an issue and a responsibility we must allassume.

IN THE CHAIR: MR MAUROVice-President

Pilar del Castillo Vera (PPE-DE). – (ES) Mr President, Commissioner, at this stage of the debate most ofwhat can be said on this subject has already been said. However, I would like to refer to the Commissioner’sexhortation about the need to think about the underlying roots of extremism.

It seems to me that the problem of extremism is not that there is a series of groups who carry out violentattacks. It is a problem, but it has to be tackled through the law and individuals must be prosecuted, etc. Theproblem arises when the violence and the intentions behind it are repeated and have a chance to affect abroad sector of the population or certain sectors of the population. From a social and political point of view,it is when violence causes concern that the problem arises. As for how to prevent it, I think there are threeessential factors.


First, the Commissioner mentioned a knowledge of history – I myself believe that it is very important toknow about tragedies, about successes and ultimately about ourselves as humans. However, I think we haveto be careful not to use history as a weapon against others with a view to short-term political gain – somethingwhich is happening now in some countries, including my own country, Spain, I have to say.

Secondly, I think there are two other fundamental aspects which at the moment are much underrated.

Firstly, education. We have lost, and are still losing, or at least eroding, values such as work, discipline,self-reliance, that is to say all those values which go towards creating a good citizen when these people reachadulthood.

Finally, in the context of the European Union, the important thing is not to break up that environment inwhich we Europeans can challenge together the networks created by globalisation. What we have now, andwhat we have had at other times in the course of 20th century European history, is a great deal of uncertainty,a certain desperation, a certain aimlessness, and what we need to do is provide hope, a forward-looking spiritand strong leadership so that everyone feels a part of the European Union.

Józef Pinior (PSE). – (PL) Mr President, the continent of Europe, the countries of the European Union, arenow a territory in which we encounter cases of xenophobia, extreme nationalism, anti-Semitism, racismand islamophobia. What is missing in Europe today is the liberal-democratic consensus of the period followingthe Second World War. Europe’s politicians lack the real political will to tackle these problems.

Dealing with the outbreaks of racism, Islamophobia, anti-Semitism and xenophobia is a common duty thatfalls upon European education, media, churches, sports activists and, above all, politicians. We often findourselves defenceless against such extreme forms of political activity. Worse still, many politicians andpolitical parties take advantage of extremist or populist movements for their own purposes.

I do not want to use this debate to score political points in the European Parliament, but I could mentionmany such examples. What matters now is to achieve a common policy at the level of the European Union– in the field of education, above all, as well as in sport, culture and politics – to combat extremism.

Sarah Ludford (ALDE). – Mr President, eight years ago Jörg Haider’s immigrant-hating party entered intoa coalition government in Austria. EU governments did not have a clue what to do. As a result of that disarray,Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union was inserted. It has never been used and it is clear that MemberStates have a cultural problem in criticising each other. But we have to have a more proactive policy of peerreview when Member States call each other to account, because it is an EU concern if extremists and intolerantparties enter into government in one EU country.

The criminal law has a solid role in punishing incitement to hatred, alongside provisions outlawingdiscrimination. The law can help change attitudes, as well as behaviour. Society signals the limits ofacceptability in part by what it criminalises or bans. That is why I was so disappointed that the Commissionapparently found the Italian Government deportation action against Romanians, largely Roma, and theaccompanying rhetoric, compliant with EU free movement and anti-racism laws. Personally, I did not.

But the law can and should only go so far. For instance, the question of whether to criminalise Holocaustdenial is a controversial one in Europe. The recently agreed new EU law banning incitement to racial andreligious hatred was right, in my view, to leave that option to individual countries. My own country’s traditionand preference is to leave people like David Irving to condemn themselves by the absurdity of their unhistoricalviews and to be contradicted by vigorous debate.

Those of us in the mainstream parties do not have to be intimidated by the thugs and bully boys of theextremist right, left or fundamentalists of any kind. Liberal democrats – and I use that term with a small ‘l’ –of all democratic parties are just as confident and passionate about our commitment to a generous, inclusive,European vision as they are to their mean intolerance. Let us constantly express that.

Leopold Józef Rutowicz (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, extremism is a phenomenon supported by politicianswho exploit racism, nationalism and xenophobia for their own ends. Extremism often uses terrorism inpursuit of its aims.

Extremism does not unite people and social groups: it divides them. It is the enemy of a democratic society.It is opposed to the basic values of the European Union, a community of people who reject hatred and thewar caused by fascists and nationalists that cost tens of millions of lives in Europe in the 20th century.


The largest terrorist organisation, al-Qaeda, founded on extremism and the use of terrorism for politicalends, is now capable of destroying weak democracies and achieving political power.

I support the resolution, which seeks to mobilise the European institutions for further action against terrorismand extremism.

Diamanto Manolakou (GUE/NGL). – (EL) Mr President, the rise of far-right racist groups and organisationsin Europe is no accident. It is the result of the European Union’s anti-popular, reactionary, imperialist policy.This policy, whose only guiding principle is the maximisation of profitability for the European monopolies,through the accumulation of vast wealth on the basis of savage exploitation of the working class, is spreadingpoverty, inequality and marginalisation, and is drastically eroding the position of the working-class familyand aggravating working-class problems.

Under these conditions – in marginalised sections of society or in social strata with a low level of politicalawareness and experience – far-right and fascist ideas, which are promoted under a populist, demagogicguise, are able to take root. Today there is more fertile ground for the creation and growth of such groupsbecause of anti-communist hysteria, the attempt to rewrite history, the shameless attempt to wipe out thehuge contribution of the USSR to the victory over fascism, and to equate communism with Nazism andfascism. We see this, for example, in the recognition and legitimacy granted by the governments of the Balticcountries to the local fascist groups, who were collaborators with the SS and the Nazis who were based inthose countries during the Second World War.

Fascism, racism and xenophobia are faces of the same coin. Born and bred of the capitalist system, whichcreates, maintains and nurtures these fascist groups. For precisely this reason we regard as hypocritical thealleged concerns over the rise of far-right and paramilitary organisations in Europe, and we reject everyattempt to equate the class struggle, the struggles of the workers’ and popular movement and communistideology with extremist ideologies, as an unacceptable attempt to instil fear in people.

Nickolay Mladenov (PPE-DE). – (BG) Mr Chairman, Colleagues, This day is a testimony that the EuropeanParliament guarantees the rights not only of the majority but also of those who have different opinion.Because if the nationalists in this hall achieved their goals, none of us would have the right to a differentopinion as they had the oppoprtunity to express it today. We shall prevail over intolerance and extremismwith arguments rather than emotions, with facts rather than noise. Unfortunately, however when we talkabout facts, there is nobody to hear them. This is a regrettable fact.

Still, I hope that our supporters, our voters in the Member States will hear very carefully what was pointedout also by Commissioner Fratini. In the first place, intolerance and extremism come from the oblivion ofthe past. We must remember the past and the two severe dictatorships that Europe suffered. Therefore Iappeal to the Commission and to all of us: let us remember the history of Europe and let give moreopportunities for the progammes of the European Commision to finance projects that preserve our memory.Secondly, we must remember the involvement of citizens in the political process.

Colleagues, we are partly to blame for nationalism and xenophobia in Europe. Many of us started speakingas bureaucrats rather than politicians. They have forgotten the language that the voters can hear and speakthe language of institutions instead. Let this make us strong enough in this debate to overcome the problemwhich exists especially in the new Member States. Let us name problems and tackle them directly, when theyexist. For more often than not political parties win in elections by promising one thing and doing otherthings afterwards and then they are surprised by the existence of extremism and discontented people. It isour common responsibility of all of us in the European Parliament to also oppose the rising extremism andintolerance to the east of the European Union, which is dangerous to all of us. Thank you.

Csaba Sándor Tabajdi (PSE). – (HU) Mr President, it is not generally enough to fight extremism. Everyonemust act against the nationalist and extremist tendencies emerging in their own country. First of all, everyoneshould condemn extremist nationalists and distance themselves from them in their own country. This is anextremely important requirement, and this current debate also demonstrates that extremism must be foughtusing direct and indirect instruments at the same time.

Direct instruments must be used to punish speech that incites to hatred. There are some who refer to freedomof expression and say that this cannot be condemned using the instruments of criminal law, but I feel thatwe have not yet struck the right balance. Democratic forces must give an example, especially to the rightwing, and the democratic right wing has great responsibility for distancing itself from the extreme right-wingphenomena that are running riot in Europe.


At the same time, some of my fellow Members have spoken about the fact that we must also react usingindirect instruments, as the reason for very many extremist incidents is social uncertainty or uncertainty ofnational identity. This current debate is very important, and I feel that Commissioner Frattini, the Agencyfor Fundamental Rights and the European Parliament must monitor all extremist incidents closely. Thankyou for your attention.

Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE). – (NL) Mr President, there are extremists on all sides, but in recent years theyhave been dictating the tone and content of the political agenda. Democratic mainstream parties are far tooslow to distance themselves from extremists because they fear losing votes, and the result is a creepingpolitical acceptance of extremism and intolerance.

And there is something else. On top of racism and nationalism there is also extremism against women andhomosexuals, for example – we have not dealt with this yet today – and this is often based on religious beliefs.I am horrified when I see parties in government, with power to rule, or parties represented in parliament –in my own country too – encouraging discrimination against women, gays and people of other faiths.

Lastly, a word or two that may be controversial, Mr President. With all due respect to what Mr Ryan has said,I myself am not greatly in favour of inviting leaders of the major world faiths here to address our plenaryunless they are prepared to abjure their discriminatory views on women and gays.

Jan Tadeusz Masiel (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, one way to combat extremism and reduce the electorateof extremist parties is to listen more attentively to citizens on matters of importance to them and to analysethe underlying causes of extremism.

If the citizens of Europe vote for extremist parties, it means, among other things, that a large section of societydoes not feel that the people in power are listening. I am not defending extremism, but it does not comefrom nowhere. In France Nicholas Sarkozy has understood this. By approaching issues such as immigrationand the accession of Turkey honestly and courageously, he has succeeded in weakening the extremist parties.I would encourage the European Commission to follow the French example.

Adrian Severin (PSE). – Mr President, a mayor rails against immigrants claiming that immigration is asource of insecurity; another mayor declares his city free of foreigners; a head of state speaks about theParliament as a gang of outlaws, instigates the people to mutiny against the legislators and glorifies ademocracy without opposition and without parties.

A group of parliamentarians today, in a hooligan manner, called for direct so-called ‘popular democracy’which would replace elections with referendums. An outstanding public leader expresses support for theviolent groups which stormed the parliament building of a democratic state and asked for the revision ofthe peace treaties.

A number of journalists express daily – even if sometimes in politically correct vocabulary – xenophobic,anti-parliamentarian, anti-pluralistic, anti-Roma, anti-Islamic, exclusivist, intolerant, discriminatory andchauvinistic views.

A minister asked the European Commission to make money available in order to concentrate a certainundesirable ethnic community in the poorest countries of the Union.

All these are facts, taking place in the European Union and committed by persons reputed to be democraticmembers of the mainstream democratic parties. Here, today, we condemn the extremist parties and theirorganisation. This is just because they are perpetrators of intolerance and intolerance should not be tolerated.But what about the facilitators? The populists disguised as democrats who, by weakening the democraticinstitutions and relativising the democratic principle, create the most favourable environment for extremists?

If we keep speaking only about symptoms and perpetrators, remaining silent or passive when it is about thecauses and facilitators, we are going to jeopardise our values. This must not happen.

Inger Segelström (PSE). – (SV) Mr President, let me begin by thanking all parties for the resolution. Todayno EU country is free of right-wing extremism, not even my own country, Sweden. In the last local electionsin 2006 Sverigedemokraterna (the Sweden Democrats) won seats in two thirds of municipalities. It mightbe suspected that their next targets are the elections to the European Parliament in 2009 and the Swedishparliamentary elections in 2010. We Swedish parliamentarians need help in making that more difficult,precisely as others need help in their countries in stopping the spread of right-wing extremism, which is onthe increase throughout Europe.


Europe needs democratic parties whose programmes reach out to all, not just a few. In the 2006 electionsthe slogan of the Swedish Social Democrats was ‘Everyone is included’, and it becomes even more relevantin this debate, since the parties and groups we are discussing have programmes which do not respect theEU’s fundamental values and the equal value of all human beings. For me, as a member of the Committeeon Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, the approach to questions of asylum and refugee policy isabsolutely crucial. The right-wing extremist parties oppose both a more open Europe and the developmentof the EU.

Instead they advocate nations with closed borders. It is a threat which I observe in Sweden and, along withall of you, throughout the EU. I would like to make one more comment on the resolution. The propagandawhich extremist groups spread among children and young people takes the form of white power music. Themedia and communications are the tool used, and it circumvents school, the family, further education andour political values. It is important that we, as elected representatives, now take charge of the debate. Wemust do that as of now and continue up to the European Parliament elections in 2009. Let us applaud theresolution.

(Applause)

Kostas Botopoulos (PSE). – (EL) Mr President, a threat hangs over democracy in Europe, and I doubt whetherwe have all understood its significance. This threat is not the spread of far-right ideas, but the transition fromthe ideas to the methods of the far right. To the acceptance, in other words, of brute force, as seen in theactivity of the paramilitary far-right organisations.

A major distinction therefore needs to be made: on the one hand, we are combating ideas with which we donot agree. The ideas that promote nationalism in Europe, and racism, xenophobia, oppression of women,oppression of minorities. We are combating these ideas with our own ideas and with our effort to fight thecauses, the political causes, which are to be found mainly in the problem of diversity – in the fact, that is,that European citizens do not accept diversity, do not accept the policy that supports it, and do not acceptEurope itself.

On the other hand, however, we are fighting a different battle, even by criminal means, against the spreadof those ideas, through action which leads to violence. From this point of view, I think this very well-balancedjoint resolution from all the democratic parties in Parliament is another great political moment for ourParliament – especially after what happened today – and I am very proud that this resolution originated fromour own group, the Socialist Group.

Ana Maria Gomes (PSE). – (PT) On 6 September some twenty graves in the Jewish cemetery in Lisbon weredesecrated and swastikas painted on the headstones. The two perpetrators were arrested. They are membersof the Frente Nacional or National Front, an extreme right-wing Portuguese skinhead organisation whichopenly advocates racial war and violent action to secure white supremacy. This case and others, notably thewave of anti-Muslim hysteria in various European countries and the racist violence recently unleashed againstthe Roma community in Italy, show that xenophobia and violent racism are with us and we cannot affordthe luxury of minimising them.

In the Portuguese case, the authorities were initially tempted to play the case down and declare thatanti-Semitism was contrary to the supposedly tolerant nature of Portuguese society. But the presence of theMinisters for Justice and Internal Administration at the Jewish cemetery for the ceremonial purification ofthe graves and the publicity this demonstration of solidarity received in the Portuguese media are a lessonfor other cases in Portugal and elsewhere. Extremism in Europe can only be fought effectively if the politicalrepresentatives and the media assume their responsibilities by giving visibility to crimes of this type andidentifying them as direct and base attacks on the very essence of democracy, of Europe and of Humanity.

Pierre Schapira (PSE). – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the rise of extremism in Europe is certainlyvery worrying and all the European institutions need to mobilise to stem the growth of these extremeright-wing movements that are becoming ever more threatening as they not only promote suspect valuesbut increasingly attack human rights on the basis of their racist ideology. This dangerous trend in the EuropeanUnion is unacceptable!

As I see it, the Commission needs to respond on two fronts, reflecting the ideas expressed in the writtenstatement and in the PSE resolution on the subject: it needs to act positively along with the Member Statesto identify appropriate political and legal means, on the one hand, of condemning human rights violationsand, on the other, of preventing extremism, particularly among young people, by raising awareness of the


Union’s fundamental values. It is also essential to ensure that no European fund can be used by an institutionor organisation that promotes values, or makes statements, inciting people to xenophobic, racist violence.

I would remind you here of the case of Radio Maria in Poland, which, although notorious for promotinganti-human-rights views, applied for European grant aid. I would therefore take this opportunity, in thepresence of the Commission representative, to urge once again that no European funding should go to mediawhich serve as a platform for racist ideas, with a widespread and potentially very dangerous impact on thepublic.

Franco Frattini, Member of the Commission. − (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I consider that today’sdebate has been of extraordinary interest – of extraordinary interest and also of a high political level – and Ishould therefore like to thank all those who have spoken, including those who have said things with whichI do not and cannot agree. Some speakers have questioned whether it is necessary or important to raise suchan issue in this House; I believe, however, that it has been very important.

An issue which is certainly a highly political issue has been raised: striking a balance between the right freelyto express our thought, which is one of the rights that the Charter of Fundamental Rights recognises, andother fundamental rights such as the dignity of the human person, equality and non-discrimination. May Isay that those who have raised this issue, taking the view that freedom of thought makes it possible to causeoffence and to stir up values running counter to the fundamental rights of the person, have distorted whatfreedom of thought actually means.

I always speak as I find, even when my opinions run counter to those who spoke before me. Someone said:‘if, in a referendum, citizens come out against the Charter of Fundamental Rights, that will be an expressionof freedom’. I do not agree, because calling for a referendum against the Charter of Fundamental Rightswould be to call for a referendum against citizens, since those citizens are clearly the holders and protagonistsof the fundamental rights that we must now safeguard. It is not because that principle has to be refuted, butbecause those who defend fundamental rights are not extremists, while those who violate and refute them,those who wish to affirm the right to incite a mob or a group of violent people to destroy Jewish graves areextremists. That is not freedom of expression, that is violence that has to be eradicated through policies andhas to be punished by the instruments of the law. These are, in my view, the two measures for which Europemust steadfastly press.

We must not play it down. We must not think that a single event can be underestimated because it is a singleevent, if that single event is a symptom of racism and intolerance, of a profound scorn for human values, wemust also be worried by a single event, by a single act of violence!

Many of you have raised another, very important, issue: can the propagation of a racist message by politicalforces be tolerated in the name of the free expression of political thought? Because they are elected by citizens,I believe that those in politics have a special responsibility and must not incite the mob against other citizensor other people: a sense of personal accountability.

In my view, it is difficult, and I say this frankly, to use the instruments of the law, the police or the secretservices to undertake a far-reaching investigation of this or that party. However, when this or that partypublicly says that its intention is to restore racial supremacy, that is not free expression of thought, but anattack on a deep-seated foundation of Europe. It is for those reasons that repressive action is justified, andthere can be no talk of censure or of violation of the freedom of expression.

I will defend the right of those who do not agree with me to say what they wish to say, but I cannot defendthe right of those who do not agree with me to incite the mob or other people to attack and to wound andkill. In no way is that free expression of thought!

That is why today’s issue is a key issue and I shall put forward similar arguments when we debate the appallingform of extremism represented by terrorism, because we can surely not draw a line between the message ofracial hatred and the message of those who consider that killing people in terrorist attacks is a possible answerto society’s problems. Both are issues which – in my view, through education and prevention, by fosteringtolerance, and by using the instruments of law and the instruments of enforcement – must be tackled atEuropean level. We can only be satisfied when we are sure that there is no room for racists, bigots andterrorists in Europe.


President. − I have received five motions for resolutions(1) pursuant to Rule 103(2) of the Rules of Procedure.




Glyn Ford (PSE), in writing. – I will vote for this resolution with a degree of reluctance. It covers an importantsubject which I have worked on in this House since I was first elected in 1984, when I had the honour tochair Parliament’s Committee of Inquiry into the Growth of Racism and Fascism in Europe.

My concern is that this resolution is so weak that individuals who back in the 1980s were members ofneo-Fascist parties like the Movimento Sociale Italiano are able to sign and vote for the resolution today. Onthat basis, it must inevitably be flawed.

Lívia Járóka (PPE-DE), in writing. – (HU) The extremist movements that are growing stronger throughoutEurope give us cause for grave concern, since their political activities are based on inciting hatred against themost vulnerable groups in society, and they preach intolerance and social exclusion. Such ideas areincompatible with European values, human dignity, equality of rights and the fundamental freedoms in thefounding treaties of the Union, or the basic principles formulated in the Charter of Fundamental Rights,proclaimed this very day. Such movements and the views they express are capable of generating fear amongminorities and among the law-abiding, democratic majority of citizens. Because of the increased mediainterest by extremist groups, the false generalisations and distorted half-truths that are expressed more widelythan before are not only unacceptable but extremely dangerous, since they strengthen incidents of prejudiceand negative discrimination and further impede the resolution of social problems.

I would like to remind you separately of anti-gypsy incidents, which are also becoming increasingly frequent.There are more than ten million gypsies in Europe, and they are the largest and at the same time mostvulnerable and most defenceless ethnic minority in Europe, and it is not that their situation has not improvedin recent years, but in many areas it has definitely deteriorated. It is the joint responsibility of the EuropeanUnion and civil organisations to find a solution to the problems of unemployment and abject poverty, andto put an end to the residential and educational segregation of gypsies. Resolving these problems is now themost urgent minority question for the European Union.

Magda Kósáné Kovács (PSE), in writing. – (HU) The extremist parties gaining seats in many Member Statesof the Union and temporarily even in the EP cannot become acceptable in European politics. Their suppressionis a matter for all of society in the European Community, even if we know that everyday racism andxenophobia are concealed by citizens who otherwise demand democracy and human rights.

Young people, for whom not only the Holocaust but also the fall of the Berlin Wall are history, are particularlyat risk. Europe without borders overestimates the consciousness of belonging to a nation, and it is easy toinstil even wild ideas. So far, European legislation has followed national measures: it does not go beyond itand it does not point the way. However, the problem requires not only political or legal responses, so actionshould not just appear in our objectives, but also in responses from civil organisations and churches thatprofess European values and play a role in public life.

For example, Pope John Paul II spoke out against racism and xenophobia many times, and he saw the taskof religion as serving truth, peace among men, forgiveness, life and love: in other words, all the values thatthese radical groups do not represent, or only in an extreme sense.

I would like to ask the EP President and the Members of the Commission, during the dialogue to be held withthe churches, to ask the churches to act against extremists and to withdraw any gestures of support.

Katalin Lévai (PSE), in writing. – (HU) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, extremist ideas and organisationshave become alarming phenomena in our everyday lives, and we can see this everywhere, almost withoutexception. The basic concept for the fathers of European integration was freedom of thought and opinion.Today, these are our fundamental values. True democracy also guarantees freedom of expression, whichcannot, however, lead to any disturbance or cast doubt on peace, life and existence; indeed, we have got theretoday. Nor can we allow the ideas that previously incited the Holocaust and hatred among nations and

(1) See Minutes.


peoples to have a forum and organisations. In many places the extreme right wing looks for and finds oneof the sources for its solutions to the social problems before us in segregation and in inciting hatred, ratherthan in social reconciliation and integration. The European Union, as the true repository of human rightsand humanitarian protection, must do everything to make these ideas and organisations withdraw, and evento make them disappear from our everyday lives if their aggression, which disturbs the healthy life of society,so demands.

I also recommend that the Union have more room for information in its communication activities.Unfortunately, significant layers of the population, primarily though ignorance, are susceptible to extremist,populist manifestations. It is primarily the young generation that is at risk, since they have not had the meansto obtain the relevant historical experience of finding the right direction. Our task is to help them with that.If we give up, we will shake the foundations of our future.

Daciana Octavia Sârbu (PSE), in writing. – (RO) The European Union must fight against any type ofextremism, since this activity is contrary to the principles of freedom, democracy and respect of humanrights lying at the basis of the Union. For this reason, at European level, anti-extremist and anti-terroristactions should not affect the fundamental rights of citizens. Extremist movements of paramilitary groups,ultra-nationalism, xenophobia, calls to violence and local ethnic and religious conflicts threaten the stabilityof the European Union, characterized by a rich cultural and traditional diversity of its Member States. Thelatter must join efforts to fight extremist actions and identify the instigators and organizers of such actions.The European Agency for Fundamental Rights will also play an important role in preventing racism andxenophobia, ensuring a climate of security on the territory of the Union.

Dialogue, education and public information on themes related to promoting tolerance and combating racismare important elements that contribute to the dissemination of the principles of freedom and democracy.Member States should also cooperate and make efforts to integrate marginalized social and ethno-culturalcategories, so that fight against discrimination and incitation to violence would ensure an ethnic and politicalharmony inside the European Union.

13. Montenegro - EC/Montenegro: Stabilisation and Association Agreement (debate)

President. − The next item is the joint debate on

– the statement by the Commission on Montenegro,

– the recommendation, by Marcello Vernola, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, on the proposalfor a Council and Commission decision on the conclusion of the Stabilisation and Association Agreementbetween the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Montenegro,of the other part (COM(2007)0350 – C6 0463/2007 – 2007/0123(AVC)) (A6-0498/2007).

Olli Rehn, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, I wish to thank Mr Vernola for this very solid report,which is due to be adopted at a very crucial stage of our relations with Montenegro.

Let me first make a point on the European perspective of the Western Balkans. The Council meeting of EUForeign Ministers on Monday reaffirmed that the future of the Western Balkans lies in the European Union.As proof of that we have in the last two months signed a Stabilisation and Association Agreement withMontenegro and initialled SAAs both with Serbia and with Bosnia-Herzegovina.

I want to thank the Portuguese Presidency for its major contribution to these encouraging steps. I hope wecan soon sign the two latter agreements, once the conditions have been met by these two countries.

Montenegro has made good progress since independence, including in the development of smoother, wellfunctioning relations with Serbia. Of course a decisive step on Montenegro’s European journey was takenon 15 October this year when we signed the SAA with the country. I welcome the unanimous ratificationof the SAA by the Montenegrin Parliament soon thereafter. The SAA provides a stable framework foreconomic, political and institutional development in Montenegro and it is a significant step forward in thecountry’s European integration path, provided that the Agreement is properly implemented.

In another positive development, I also welcome the adoption of the Constitution of Montenegro only a fewdays after the SAA was signed. The new Constitution, which is broadly in line with European standards,helps strengthen democratic institutions in the country. Its full implementation will require further effortsand determination.


The Commission’s regular progress report, adopted on 6 November, highlights these positive developments.It commends Montenegro for establishing the necessary legal and institutional framework followingindependence. It also underlines progress made by Montenegro in preparing for the implementation of theSAA and strengthening its administrative capacity. Our progress report also points out certain key challengesthat Montenegro will face in the coming years. For instance, Montenegro’s administrative capacity remainsrather weak and therefore administrative reforms need to be continued at all levels. In the fight againstcorruption, urgent action is needed to achieve concrete, tangible results. Money laundering and organisedcrime remain areas of concern. These are also highlighted, rightly so, in your report.

The new Constitution enhances the independence of the judiciary by setting up a new constitutional body,the Judicial Council, in charge of the appointment and dismissal of judges. The Government also adopted ajudicial reform strategy for the period 2007-2012. Its implementation will certainly be a major challengebut it is clear that Montenegro needs to ensure the independence, accountability and professionalism of itsjudges and prosecutors.

Montenegro participates actively in regional cooperation. It has good relations with its neighbours. Mostissues with Serbia following independence have been settled. Montenegro has also taken a constructiveapproach to the Kosovo status issue, aligning itself with the EU’s position.

Focus should now be on full implementation of the interim agreement on preparations for the whole SAAas well as on the recommendations of the European partnership. Montenegro needs to build a solid trackrecord of implementation and of reforms. She has got off to a very good start in the stabilisation andassociation process and I hope that the country will build on this positive momentum.

We are very much looking forward to working even more closely with the Government of Montenegro, theParliament, other institutions and the civil society of the country on its European reform agenda. I am pleasedto inform you that the new Commission delegation has been operational since 1 November and is preparingto take over the work carried on by the European Agency for Reconstruction, in due course as planned.Montenegro is expected to receive close to EUR 100 million under the instrument for pre-accession in thecoming three-year period until 2009. These funds will assist Montenegro in such areas as the rule of law,the strengthening of administrative capacity and implementation of the SAA. Economic and socialdevelopment and civil society development certainly will be another priority. So I trust we can count on thestrong support of the European Parliament, which is crucial as always.

Bernd Posselt (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, this was announced as a debate or as statements from theCouncil and the Commission. I only wanted to ask where the Council is and whether it will at least berepresented again at Council Question Time or perhaps even in the course of this debate.

President. − The services inform me that the debate is taking place in this way by decision of the Conferenceof Presidents, as the Council is engaged in preparations for the meeting of the Council in Lisbon tomorrow.

Marcello Vernola, rapporteur. − (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is now accepted that the futureof the Balkan countries lies in Europe; that was confirmed by the Thessaloniki European Council in 2003and has been endorsed by ourselves in this House on a number of occasions, marking an end to any furtherdiscussion of the issue.

Montenegro is undoubtedly in pole position on the road towards accession to the European Union, as thefacts show: following independence from the Union with Serbia in 2006, declared democratically after aproper referendum and duly agreed with the Serbian Government, the negotiations for the country’s ownStabilisation and Association Agreement were re-opened and concluded in the space of slightly more thantwo months. The agreements were initialled on 15 March 2007 but, unfortunately, some technical problemsthen arose which slowed down further progress, although the end is now in sight. The Commissioner hasjust announced that an office has already been opened in Podgorica – which we commend – and thateverything is now in place for ratification of the agreement.

Montenegro’s progress in the last year, the commitments into which it has entered vis-à-vis the EuropeanCommunity and ongoing reform work, even in the last few days, all lead us unhesitatingly to endorse thefavourable opinion on the conclusion of the agreement. Clearly, however, that is not the final goal, but is nomore than a starting point.

Montenegro must now focus on implementing all the measures needed to complete the reform processwhich is already under way in order to fulfil the commitments into which it has entered in the Stabilisation


and Association Agreement. From that point of view, we should note the good climate of cooperationbetween the European Parliament and the Parliament of Montenegro, which we have met on a number ofoccasions and by which we shall be welcomed next week in Podgorica. Montenegro has everything that itneeds to bring this process swiftly to a conclusion, starting from its status as a candidate for accession.

Montenegro’s economy has continued to grow in recent years and that has helped to attract huge foreigninvestment, partly as a result of fiscal policies favourable to enterprises. As a result, unemployment hasdropped sharply from 33% to 12%.

Some months ago, the new Constitutional Charter was adopted, a clear sign of the extent to which the countryis strengthening the democratic prerogatives which mark it out in the Balkan area. The Montenegrin authoritiesare working speedily to bring themselves into line with European standards. The most recent news has ledus to table five amendments to take account of recent developments.

In the last few days, a cooperation agreement with the International Criminal Tribunal for the formerYugoslavia has been signed in order to regulate technical assistance in respect of that Tribunal. We shouldbear in mind that unconditional cooperation with the ad hoc tribunal in The Hague is of crucial importancefor all the states emerging from the break-up of Yugoslavia. We should also bear in mind that Montenegrohas never shirked its international obligations, and indeed has always been praised for its efficient cooperationwith the legal and foreign authorities.

Montenegro needs to make further efforts to combat and put an end to organised crime in the area of illegalcross-border trafficking. The European Parliament also considers that corruption in the public administrationand the judiciary needs to be combated: the country is responding positively to the European authoritiesand signs of this can be seen in the new Constitution which introduces mechanisms to protect the autonomyand independence of the judiciary.

The capacity of the ruling class will also be developed by participation in Community twinning programmesand exchanges with the Member States. Some of these programmes will foster the development of youngerpeople and researchers. Promoting the free movement of people, in particular students and researchers, isa goal which is being pursued among other things by simplifying the procedure for the issue of short-stayvisas in respect of which specific agreements were signed last September with the European Union; the finalgoal is fully to liberalise visas in order to make freedom of movement effective, another major point of theStabilisation and Association Agreement, and to open up channels fostering growth and education. Weconsider that cultural bodies should be allowed to flourish, for instance by promoting the voluntary sectorand protecting the representatives of civil society. Freedom of thought must be ensured as must the right toinformation.

The environment deserves a special mention: the previous Constitution defined Montenegro as an ecologicalrepublic, the first in the world to give itself such a label. Nature has been kind to the country, from the beautifulcoastline to the natural Bay of Kotor and the Durmitor mountain massif which is on UNESCO’s WorldHeritage List. That heritage must be safeguarded by specific legislation which is in many cases already in thestatute book but not strictly applied, often for lack of financial resources.

The country derives considerable income from tourism, but unfortunately tourism itself may have an adverseimpact on the environment, as the facilities available do not have appropriate systems for managing themajor influx of tourists from an ecological point of view. For that reason, we asked Commissioner Rehn inanother forum to focus the Commission’s attention on promoting environmental policies, especially asregards renewable energy sources, waste and water management and coastal protection. Montenegro isaware of the problem and is continuing to work towards proper management of natural resources. Thespatial plan regulating construction work so as not to spoil the coastal landscape has recently been approved.

Doris Pack, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (DE) Mr President, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group, I naturallywelcome the progress which Montenegro has made since declaring its independence and which has veryquickly led to the conclusion of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement.

The Montenegrins, of course, should not sit back and relax now but should fully implement the agreementthey have signed. They should follow the guidelines they have set themselves and enable their administrationto apply enacted legislation. They should ensure that the judicial system is brought up to scratch and thataction is taken to combat corruption, especially in the administration and the judiciary.

I am well aware that the particular situation which prevailed in the region in the 1990s allowed corruptionto take hold and that it is very difficult to eradicate it today, but it does nothing for Montenegro’s reputation


among the countries of the European Union when its name keeps cropping up in connection with smuggling,corruption and money laundering. Montenegrin politicians must do everything in their power to alter thatimage. After all, at some stage the people of the European Union are supposed to welcome Montenegro intothe fold. For this reason it is imperative that the development of democracy and a market economy inMontenegro should take place in a truly transparent framework.

I do not intend to discuss every point that has been raised today or is still to be raised, nor will I refer toeverything that is contained in our resolution. I would like to stress, however, that the Montenegrin landscapeis a jewel, and special measures are needed to conserve its unique characteristics. This means, as MarcelloVernola said, that the clause in the new Constitution declaring Montenegro to be an environmental statemust not amount to an empty promise. The coastline and hinterland must be protected, and megalithicinvestment projects must be prevented. Natural features and sites of cultural and historic interest must beconserved in order to ensure that Montenegro does not squander its unique tourist appeal. There are enoughcautionary examples of such desecration in western Europe.

A sell-out of the coastline and hinterland must be prevented, and judicious development of tourism andcautious land-use are the order of the day. There is an urgent need to prevent overdevelopment of the coastline,and land and property speculation must be curbed. I am pleased to note that there now seems to be a land-useplan for that area. I welcome the cooperation with ICTY, the International Criminal Tribunal for the FormerYugoslavia, and hope that it might result in the arrest of Mr Karadžić at some point.

It is also my earnest wish to see Montenegro finally create the national agency that will let the country enableits students and trainees to take part in the Erasmus and Leonardo education programmes.

We will be meeting a delegation of our counterparts from the Montenegrin Parliament next week, and wewill encourage them to support their government in its efforts to pursue the path of convergence with theEuropean Union and to combat all the abuses to which we have been referring.

Vural Öger, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (DE) Mr President, at the EU summit in Thessaloniki in June 2003,the Heads of State or Government reaffirmed their support for the development of a European perspectivein the Western Balkans, where Montenegro is the newest successor state of the former Yugoslavia, havingdeclared its independence from Serbia in 2006.

Since then, its relations with the European Union have become ever closer, and Montenegro has clearlychosen to steer a European course. I particularly welcome the conclusion of the Stabilisation and AssociationAgreement on 18 October, which marks a milestone in relations between Montenegro and the EU. It bringsnumerous benefits to that small Balkan country, particularly in business and trade, for it provides for afree-trade area as well as facilitating investment and business cooperation.

On 19 October 2007 little more than a year after the declaration of independence, another important aimwas achieved when the Montenegrin Parliament adopted the country’s first Constitution, which will play aparticularly important role in forging the identity of this young nation. It establishes Montenegro as ademocratic, liberal and environmental state based on the rule of law. That is a great success. Montenegrostill has a long way to go to attain membership of the EU, but remaining obstacles are being dismantled bitby bit.

There is still a particular need for progress in the struggle against the informal economy and corruption. Thefunctioning of a free and independent judicial system, cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunalfor the Former Yugoslavia and, above all, reform processes in the spheres of democratisation, human rightsand the protection of minorities are indispensable for Montenegro and its future in the EU. The initial prioritymust be the successful implementation of the reforms prescribed by the Stabilisation and AssociationAgreement.

On 1 January 2008 Slovenia, another of Yugoslavia’s successor states, will take over the Presidency of theEU Council. It is gratifying that one of the priorities of the Slovenian presidency will be the Western Balkans.The security and stability of the Western Balkans are a paramount interest of the region itself and of thewhole of Europe.

A democratic and stable Montenegro can and should play a major role in the pursuit of these goals. Let meclose by emphasising that the prospect of Montenegro acceding to the EU one day, albeit in the more distantfuture, is the main generator of further reform processes. We in the European Parliament should supportMontenegro on its way towards the EU.


Jelko Kacin, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (SL) Over a hundred years ago Montenegro was a kingdom onthe political map of Europe. It was recognised and valued both culturally and politically.

Part of the coast, the Bay of Kotor, was an integral part of Austro-Hungary and at that time also providedaccess to the sea along with present-day Herzegovina. Montenegro was at one time part of modern Europeand is now preparing itself for full cooperation in and membership of the European Union.

Since May 2006, when it became a new European country, Montenegro has made encouraging progress asregards implementation of the European agenda. It deserves heartfelt congratulations for its signing of theStability and Association Agreement and the new laws adopted in October. Podgorica also deserves recognitionfor its cooperation with the Hague Tribunal and its positive role and contribution to the long-term stabilityof the region.

However, from this day forward our European Union will be different, since a few hours ago in this hall wewitnessed an extremely historic event when the Charter of Fundamental Rights was signed. The nationalsof Montenegro also deserve greater democracy, greater respect, greater diversity and greater legal certainty.The main challenges to this young country are associated with the fight against organised crime andcorruption, where more must and can be done. I would ask the competent authorities to be more proactivein the fight against corruption, organised crime and the trafficking of people, arms and drugs.

In that context I welcome the firm legislative framework. However, I would stress that the implementationof legislation in practice is a process which also requires adequate administrative and political resources. Iam still very concerned about the lack of transparency and political culture both in political and economicstructures. This is preventing Montenegro from developing a democratic society and a free market.

Montenegro must do more in terms of freedom, plurality and professionalism of the media. It must carryout the adopted reforms in full and ensure the independence of Montenegro’s radio and television.

I regret the fact that there have still been no results in the investigation into the case of murdered journalistDuško Jovanović who at the time was publishing a series of articles on organised crime in Montenegro.

Journalists and civil society play an important role in the development of democracy, in particular wherethey draw attention to sensitive social problems. I would therefore ask the government to be more active inresolving these problems and to involve and consult civil society and provide them with better conditionsin which to operate.

Gisela Kallenbach, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Mr President, may I express my warm thanks toMr Vernola for his report and for the cooperative way in which it was dealt with in the Committee on ForeignAffairs. It is with even more gratitude, however, that I congratulate our Montenegrin counterparts and theCommission, who have once again demonstrated that a European perspective fuels the development ofdemocracy, the rule of law and stability.

In actual fact, however, I feel that the process is advancing too slowly. For this reason I appeal to both parties,starting with ourselves, the European institutions, to remember that Montenegro, and indeed the entireWestern Balkans, is part of Europe. It is in our own interests that lasting peace and democracy should prevailthere. We should deepen our commitment to the whole region. Our proposal for a specific agenda for aclose economic and environmental partnership with the Western Balkans should be adopted. Let us do awaywith visa requirements as soon as possible.

I ask Montenegro to ensure that progress reports no longer tell, as they have told for years, of inadequateefforts to fight corruption, of organised crime and of public institutions with insufficient capacities. It muststep up its efforts to put European values into practice. These include an atmosphere of openness in whichthe activity of civil society can truly flourish and in which unrestricted freedom of the media is a matter orcourse.

Lastly, it must take on a more prominent role as a constructive player throughout the region as well as inefforts to resolve the issue of Kosovo’s status. Perhaps it can also rethink some of the steps that have led todependence on countries outside Europe in certain areas. Such steps include both the signing of the bilateralimmunity agreement with the United States and legislation permitting unhealthy speculation in land andproperty, which undermines efforts to protect the environment and prevents truly sustainable developmentof Montenegro’s stunningly beautiful coastal region.


The recent adoption of land-use planning objectives is an important step. Once again, then, I offer mycongratulations and my encouragement for further progress on the way to membership of the EuropeanUnion.

Helmuth Markov, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, in 1918 independentMontenegro took a voluntary decision to unite with the neighbouring states of Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia andHerzegovina, and Slovenia. After the break-up of Yugoslavia, the Montenegrin electorate decideddemocratically in 2006 that they did not wish Montenegro to remain united with Serbia. Montenegro thusbecame Europe’s 49th independent state, a state in which most of the population are Slavs except in theregions bordering Albania and Kosovo, where ethnic Albanians predominate.

In terms of everyday politics, it is important that Montenegro should not become a haven for foreigners whowant to pay less tax and launder ill-gotten gains. Montenegro must find solutions to the problem ofenvironmental pollution and to the plight of long-term refugees from Serbia and Kosovo.

The railways must be made serviceable again, and smuggling must be combated. My group is pleased thatthe Committee on Foreign Affairs has adopted our amendments on refugees’ living and working conditions.People who are not currently nationals of any country must not remain stateless for ever, and Montenegromust follow the relevant guideline laid down by the Council of Europe.

Our proposal on the resumption of rail services to Nikšić on the Bosnian border and to Shkodër in Albaniahas also been adopted. Urgent measures must be taken to put an end to the neglect of the North-South raillink and to redress the imbalance caused by the decision to rely entirely on cars, buses and lorries.

We also welcome the fact that the rapporteur has not repeated the call he made in his previous report onMontenegro for the country’s rapid accession to NATO. Accession to NATO must not be imposed as acondition of future access to membership of the EU.

It is also a good thing that this report does not repeat the demand that Montenegro pursue the sort ofneo-liberal economic policy which would go even further than we already have within the European Union.Montenegro has the opportunity to become a Member State of the EU. That is important, not only forMontenegro but also for the other states of the former Yugoslavia which likewise aspire to accession.

Bastiaan Belder, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – (NL) Mr President, the rapporteur Mr Vernola rightlymakes the point that Montenegro’s future lies in the European Union. But the road to European integrationis not a rose-strewn path. There is cause for alarm at the way in which the fledgling Balkan state is developing.Montenegro may in theory be splendidly ‘green’ and developing ideally, but Podgorica has to sustain thisover the longer term. And current practices seem to be stubbornly entrenched.

One danger, for example, is the unstable boom in property prices on the Gold Coast around Kotor. In addition,fast-expanding and sometimes illegal construction is placing undue strain on the country’s water and seweragesystems. Mr Vernola mentions this, but not forcefully enough for so serious a problem.

The huge potential for growth of Montenegrin tourism has its dark side too. Whilst the tiny state’s Adriaticcoast is experiencing a development boom, unemployment in the north is more than 20% and poverty isabove the national average.

And the legacy of the war is still apparent. Infrastructure is minimal and in some localities the populationhas to contend with water and electricity shortages. Montenegrins are still not investing productively enoughin a sound economic future. With a view to development, with a view to joining Europe, Montenegro needsa properly thought-out strategy of growth for the whole of the country. There must be no careless actionregarding a new ‘European Gold Coast’.

IN THE CHAIR: Edward McMILLAN-SCOTTVice-President

Alojz Peterle (PPE-DE). – (SL) I am pleased to support the consent given to the conclusion of a Stabilityand Association Agreement between the European Union and Montenegro which is one of the important,positive acts to have taken place in south-eastern Europe in recent months. This Agreement is recognitionof the work that Montenegro has done and at the same time a contractual obligation to continue work onthe road to full membership in the spirit of Thessaloniki perspective.


The Agreement lays down clearly the key priorities in the political and economic fields and in other fields.In that sense I welcome the agreement’s clear relationship to development priorities in the field of tourism,environmental protection, transport and energy production. All these priorities are closely interlinked andit is therefore also important that Montenegro carry out or bring about administrative reform through whichit will be able to ensure rapid development and satisfaction of the conditions for acquiring candidate status.I genuinely wish Montenegro success in this regard since implementation, which the speakers before meemphasised, depends on this.

I am convinced that under the Slovenian Presidency the European Union will note any progress by Montenegroin complying with its contractual obligations. Progress by Montenegro is of course in the particular interestof south-eastern Europe and thus also of the European Union as a whole.

Hannes Swoboda (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there is much to admireabout Montenegro. The landscape is admirable, as is the way in which the separation from Serbia wasconducted, both Montenegro and Serbia having acted very responsibly. I must also express admiration forthe country’s policy on minorities, as a result of which minorities, by and large, tend to feel at home inMontenegro. These and many other things certainly merit our admiration.

There are also dark sides, however, which cause me great concern and which other speakers have alreadymentioned. One of these is the activity of foreign investors, particularly those from Russia. I have nothingagainst Russian investment in Montenegro or any other country. The Montenegrins must beware, however,of an imbalance that would make them dependent on a single country – and I would say the same thingabout dependence on any country, not just Russia. Some of these investments are already endangeringMontenegro’s natural beauty spots and its picturesque landscapes.

What continues to make me particularly sad is the prevalence of corruption, to which some Members havealready referred. We have many reports from media sources that can at least be trusted to try to report in afairly balanced way. The cases of massive corruption in connection with cigarette smuggling and other caseswe have been reading about are things we thought had been consigned to history. I ask the Commission tomake these occurrences a priority. If corruption were the sole criterion, we ought not to consent to theStabilisation and Association Agreement today or in the days to come. We shall consent to it, however –and I include the Socialist Group here – because we want to help the country with its reform process.

Needless to say, however, we expect the Commission and the country itself to make every effort to eliminatecorruption, which – and this is the sad thing – extends into political circles. At least there have been widespreadserious allegations of corruption on the part of politicians. Like Mr Kacin, I wish to highlight the fact thatthe case of the murder of Duško Jovanović has not yet been solved. I wonder whether it is a mere coincidencethat he and his colleagues had written a great deal about organised crime. I hope that it is a coincidence andthat there is no connection. I certainly wish that the Montenegrin authorities would solve this case soon andwould do far more to fight corruption in their own country.

Ewa Tomaszewska (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, the recommendation on the conclusion of the Stabilisationand Association Agreement between the European Communities and the Republic of Montenegro concernsa special situation. For the first time we have to deal with a country that achieved independence through areferendum.

I was an observer at the first parliamentary election held in Montenegro after the referendum, as arepresentative of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. Both the Council of Europe delegationand the OECD confirmed the democratic nature of the election. I was fascinated by the degree of civicinvolvement in the observation of the election process. Representatives of non-governmental organisations,returning officers, were present in all the electoral committees we visited. The great commitment of themembers of the electoral committees in ensuring that all procedures were complied with was clear to see. Itshould also be noted that Montenegro has adopted the euro as legal tender.

Having regard to the progress made towards integration in the European Union, I support the recommendationon the conclusion of the Agreement. It is my hope that the adaptation process will help Montenegro improvethe living conditions of its inhabitants.


Jaromír Kohlíček (GUE/NGL). – (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, the relationship between the EU and theBalkans is a delicate issue partly because the biggest EU Member Sates, through their policy which amounted


to a ‘divide and conquer’ approach, contributed significantly to the break-up of the former Yugoslavia, whichsince the First World War had been a key stabilising factor in the area as a whole. With the exception ofSlovenia, all of these states are characterised by instability, ethnic tensions, migration issues, high levels ofcorruption and unemployment, a weak state and limited influence of elected parliaments. Such an environmentis a breeding ground for illegal trade and trafficking of weapons, people, drugs, alcohol and tobacco products.In such an environment it is difficult to plan for transport, energy and economic development. It is alsodifficult to protect the environment. It should not come as a surprise to any of you that we view thesephenomena, which are also prevalent in Montenegro, as pressing global issues facing the earth. A resolutionis only a weak substitute for what we should do to redeem ourselves from the guilt borne by several membersfor the current state of affairs in this area. Is Parliament aware of this?

Georgios Georgiou (IND/DEM). – (EL) Mr President, our fellow Member Mr Vernola has given an excellent– vivid, I would say – picture of Montenegro, which is the most enchanting corner of the Balkans. In Balkanlegend, there have always been tales of this ancient kingdom, which has managed to live with five neighbouringcountries. So many neighbours! It shares borders with Bosnia and Croatia and Serbia and Albania, and alsowith Kosovo, which will now perhaps be Montenegro’s problem, because, from what we see in the newspapersand hear from fellow Members, Kosovo is about to declare its independence, unilaterally!

This could be a problem for Montenegro, which is now home to large numbers of Albanians. In my view,the signature of the accession agreement, for the start of negotiations, is very positive, and will help towardsthe reform of public administration and judicial authority, but above all it will help to combat corruption,and I hope this same agreement will restrain whatever tendencies may emerge among the Albanian population.

Jacek Protasiewicz (PPE-DE). – (PL) Mr President, the political situation in the Balkans has been a subjectof special interest to this Parliament for many years. We are happy that, after a period of bloody conflicts,peace and cooperation between nations are now the norm in the daily life of the region.

Even the most sensitive issues, such as declarations of independence by new states, now take place, or cantake place, in a manner and form complying with the highest international standards. That is the real trendin the political development of the Balkans, a trend that creates the possibility to achieve the strategic goalof the majority of nations living in the region, namely closer cooperation with the European Union, up toand including full membership.

Montenegro is an excellent example of this trend. After declaring independence, it maintained good relationswith its nearest neighbours, including the Republic of Serbia, with which it had previously been joined in afederation. It immediately began intensive negotiations on a Stabilisation and Association Agreement, whichculminated in the signing of the Agreement on 15 October of this year. In parallel, it concluded a free-tradeagreement with the EU that will enter into force in January.

In the course of this short period of time, barely one and a half years, Montenegro has made appreciableprogress. The changes made in fiscal and taxation policy, and in establishing a market economy based oncompetition and the free movement of capital, must be seen as positive achievements.

There is still much to be done, especially in the fields of social policy and employment, energy and protectionof the environment, and security and civil rights. An effective fight against corruption and organised crimeand full cooperation with the International Tribunal in the Hague are particularly important tasks facing thegovernment of Montenegro.

Montenegro, however, is not alone in facing these problems. Similar challenges face all Balkan countriesapplying for membership of the European Union. Montenegro is one of the leaders in this process, and Iwould like here to express the hope that it will remain so. The Union is prepared to welcome the Balkancountries into the community. Whether and when that happens depends, above all, on the Balkan elite andthe wisdom of Balkan politicians.

Libor Rouček (PSE). – (CS) Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Montenegro has made visible progressduring its short existence. The foundations have been laid for a new state and a new constitution has beenadopted. The country’s economy is showing strong growth of 8% and inward investment has this year beenin the order of EUR 700 million. The Stabilisation and Association Agreement has been signed and Montenegrohas taken its first steps on its way to full membership of the EU. If, however, its path to membership of theEU is to be as short and fast as possible, Podgorica should make some fundamental decisions. It is necessaryto reinforce the functioning of the rule of law and guarantee among other things an independent judiciary.It is also necessary – with more conviction than in the past – to combat corruption and increase transparency


in decision-making in political and economic structures with a view to guaranteeing the democratic andequitable functioning of the market economy. Tourism has a fundamental significance for the economy ofMontenegro. Its sustainability must be guaranteed by adopting a unified legislative framework for theprotection of the natural environment and the coastline.

Ladies and gentlemen, the accession process of Montenegro and its neighbours facilitates much greaterdevelopment of regional cooperation. I am convinced that regional cooperation in the context of CEFTAwill also help to solve many political, economic and social issues in the area as a whole. I would like toconclude my speech by inviting the Commission to help Montenegro and other Western Balkan states todevelop regional cooperation, primarily in the areas of energy, transport and the environment.

Ryszard Czarnecki (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, Mr Swoboda rightly referred a moment ago to the widespreadcorruption in Montenegro. In support, I would like to quote figures given by Transparency International, whichshow that, on a scale of 0 to 10 (where 10 denotes the absence of corruption), Montenegro scores 3.3. It isthus right at the forefront of countries where corruption is a major problem.

I would add that smuggling is also a dramatic problem for Montenegro. In this respect the country reallydoes have no borders. Recently there was a proposal to prohibit smoking in public places, when at the sametime, in the centre of the capital city, you can buy thousands of packets of contraband cigarettes. In thatregard Montenegro clearly has a long way to go on the road to the European Union.

On the other hand, the country must be encouraged to meet the Union’s criteria as soon as possible. I welcomethe fact that, in regard to the judiciary, for example, or the functioning of the administration, there has beenperceptible progress. We have to appreciate what Montenegro has done in this field since the moment itrather unexpectedly declared its independence following a referendum.

I believe the European Union should give a clear signal that, once the relevant criteria have been met, theroad to the Union will be shortened. We have to hold out a real prospect of membership – obviously not intwo, three or four years’ time – but a real incentive to Montenegrin society for the increasing achievementof European standards.

Bernd Posselt (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Montenegro is not just one of the world’s most beautifulcountries; it is also the Balkan country with the oldest tradition of independence in the modern era. WhenBelgium was founded, Montenegro had already been independent for centuries and possessed thecharacteristics of a state. I stress this because Montenegro is always wrongly dismissed as an example of asuperfluous tiny land that suddenly found itself independent by a quirk of fate.

Let me say to Mr Markov that Montenegro was annexed by its Serbian ally after the First World War. Therewas no question of voluntary union at that time. A pro forma parliamentary vote was taken, but that was all.There was a massive Montenegrin liberation movement, whose activities continued through the twentiesand into the thirties. Tito then restored Montenegro’s independence within Yugoslavia, and under Tito’sYugoslav Constitution it had a right of secession. When it tried to exercise that right, however, obstacleswere placed in its way. Today it is an independent country on the way to membership of the European Union.

We must support the democratic forces there. As has already been said, its treatment of minorities is anexample to many others in the region, which is why the minorities supported independence. What it stillneeds, however, is a stronger system of independent education, such as that provided by the Franciscanschool centre in Tuzi, near Podgorica. Private education initiatives are needed to release the country fromits rigidity.

I call on the government to keep moving vigorously along this path towards pluralism, not only in theeconomy but also in education and in the country’s constitutional and democratic structures.

(Applause)

Józef Pinior (PSE). – (PL) Mr President, there is no doubt that Montenegro is an example of positivedevelopment in the Balkans with regard to the structure of the state, the constitution, the rule of law, entryinto the global market and the creation of a market economy. Without a doubt, therefore, the EuropeanParliament should support the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Union andthe Republic of Montenegro.

At the same time, however, we must remember that Montenegro has a great deal to change and to do,especially with respect to the rule of law and the fight against corruption. I would point out that in April


2007 Montenegro signed a bilateral agreement with the United States on exclusion from the jurisdiction ofthe International Criminal Court. Unfortunately, that agreement is in contradiction with the common positionand basic principles of the European Union. The International Criminal Court is a very important institutionfrom the viewpoint of EU policy. The bilateral agreement therefore grated unpleasantly with the prospectof an agreement with the Union.

I do not say this in order to make the European Parliament ill disposed towards Montenegro. On the contrary,I believe the European Commission and all the EU institutions should do a great deal at the present time tohelp that country prepare properly for closer relations with the European Union, especially in combatingcorruption, strengthening the rule of law, building a market economy and countering the black market.

Paul Rübig (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the example of Montenegroshows how important a referendum can be. I therefore understand why numerous posters calling for areferendum were held aloft in the House today, as the Treaty of Lisbon itself, of course, gives us the optionof offering the European people such a referendum. I believe it is important that the general public areinvolved in the consultation process and that they have the opportunity to express their wishes.

In Montenegro I believe there is also a need to improve the country’s economic structures; as Mr Posselt hasalready indicated, the educational establishments and programmes of the European Union are particularlyimportant in that respect. In energy too, energy efficiency and renewables pose a huge challenge in Montenegroas well as offering unprecedented opportunities.

In the telecommunications sector too, it would be desirable for Montenegro to transpose the RoamingDirective into national law because that could, of course, contribute to better communication with ourEuropean countries at more reasonable prices.

It goes without saying that the environment is one of the key challenges, and the domain of waste management,sewage works and waste water poses a particular problem. If we speak of magnificent unspoiled naturalbeauty, we have grounds for applying the latest standards there. The European Union is offering environmentalsupport frameworks, which should be put in place as soon as possible.

Justas Vincas Paleckis (PSE). – (LT) Many thanks to the rapporteur, who had the honour, in this report, ofintroducing a new and at the same time old European country. After the ‘velvet divorce’ from Serbia,Montenegro has been given the opportunity to demonstrate the unlimited potential of a small, proud country.On the other hand, Montenegro should lead in the development of regional cooperation, continuing toincrease the rights of minorities and contributing to the conversion of the Balkan region from a barrel ofgunpowder to a garden of nations.

Like the other countries whose names have only recently appeared on the map, Montenegro is facing anumber of hazardous challenges: deep-rooted corruption, illegal business, the black economy, etc. It isunfortunate that some foreign investors, especially those from Russia, are attracted to this young countrymainly because it offers easy ways of striking illegal financial deals. The decision not to hand over the USworkers to the International Criminal Court in exchange for military assistance undermines Montenegro’scredibility as regards its willingness to cooperate peacefully with its neighbours, and even its dedication toEuropean objectives.

Today, from the shadows of the past, Montenegro, like some of its neighbouring countries, is attracted tothe prospect of becoming a member of the European Union. The very perspective of becoming a MemberState encourages the development of democracy, human rights and a better life for citizens. Theimplementation of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement should put the wind of Europe in the sailsof Montenegro’s reforms. The country can draw from the experience accumulated en route to achieving EUmembership by their neighbour Slovenia and other countries that joined the EU in the new Millennium.

Montenegro’s initiative of declaring itself an ecological republic is laudable; however, the path to achievingcredible implementation could be a long one.

It is good, that the curtain of isolation surrounding visas for Montenegro and other Balkan countries hasbeen ripped up. The European Commission and the Council should not linger at the halfway stage, butcontinue to demolish this obstruction, together with financial and bureaucratic barriers, while maintaininga strong level of protection against criminals and lawbreakers.

Olli Rehn, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, I wish to begin by thanking the Members for a verysubstantial and substantive debate and Mr Vernola for stimulating this debate.


Most Members rightly emphasised the absolute necessity of combating corruption and crime and ensuringthat the rule of law is reinforced in Montenegro. I could not agree more: the rule of law is fundamentallyimportant for all sectors of society, underpinning the functioning of the whole society and the economy.That is precisely why the Commission insists very much on judiciary reform early on in the pre-accessionprocess in Montenegro, as well as in the other countries of the Western Balkans. This is one of the mostimportant political criteria of accession, which should be considered first and foremost.

Mr Vernola and many other Members also highlighted the importance of ecology and the environment. TheCommission is assisting this ancient kingdom to become the ecological republic in the garden of nations,as Mr Paleckis said, by strengthening the administrative capacity of Montenegro, which in turn makes thecountry better able to approximate its laws to ours, for instance in the field of waste management and watertreatment.

However, this is also related to corruption and I want to quote from the progress report of the Commission.‘There have been no improvements in activities to curb political corruption. ... Management of public assetsraises serious concerns. There is considerable room for corruption, especially in the cases of constructionand land-use planning, privatisation, concessions and public procurement.’ This is a very serious issue andthat is why Montenegro needs to address corruption as one of its first priorities.

Let me also inform the honourable Members that the Commission intends to adopt a communication earlynext year – probably in March – in which we will take stock of developments since Thessaloniki, and Salzburglast year, and give pointers towards the future. One such issue will be visa liberalisation, mentioned by manyof you, and rightly so. The Commission will initiate dialogue on roadmaps towards visa-free travel, whichshould help the countries of the Western Balkans to make progress to meet the requirements so their citizenswill no longer need visas to travel to the European Union.

But, I want to underline that this is not, as such, within the competences of the Commission but in the handsof the national governments of the European Union, and the ministries and ministers of the interior are thekey players here. Therefore let us join our forces and carry out effective lobbying of the ministers of theinterior as well as of the countries concerned in the Western Balkans, because we have to be sure that all thesecurity requirements, such as the issuing of documents and border controls, are in full order before we canmove towards visa liberalisation.

Finally, I am very pleased to hear about the successful parliamentary cooperation which is taking placebetween the Parliament of Montenegro and the European Parliament. I know this is very important – it ispart of true political integration – and this is helping to develop institutions in Montenegro in a most welcomeway. I trust that we can work together towards reinforcing the democratic institutions and administrativecapacity of Montenegro. I am very glad that we see eye to eye on the future development of Montenegro onits road towards the European Union.

(Applause)

President. − I have received one motion for a resolution to wind up the debate on the Commissionstatement(2).

That joint debate is closed.

The votes on the motion for a resolution and the Vernola report will be on Thursday, 13 December 2007.


Bogdan Golik (PSE), in writing. – (PL) Mr President, as a Member of the European Parliament I have greatpleasure in expressing support for the conclusion of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement betweenthe European Communities and their Member States and the Republic of Montenegro.

I believe that cooperation between the European Union and the Republic of Montenegro will be mutuallybeneficial in the future, especially through the gradual creation of a bilateral free-trade area. I am also verypleased at the progress made by the Republic of Montenegro towards meeting the obligations imposed bythe European Union.

(2) See Minutes


I would, however, refer briefly to areas in which, as set out in the Commission’s recommendations, Montenegromust continue its efforts if it wishes to draw closer to the European Union. The most important task is toimprove the rule of law by reforming public administration so as to strengthen institutions at all levels andeffectively combat their politicisation. I am aware of and appreciate the legislative efforts made by Montenegroin this area, but it is most important that they should gradually be given greater practical force. TheMontenegrin authorities must also achieve greater transparency in matters of budgetary control, managementof public funds and tender procedures.

I believe that implementation by the Republic of Montenegro of all the European Commission’srecommendations will make it possible to set the country swiftly on a direct path to accession.

14. 1 December 2007: World AIDS Day (debate)

President. − The next item is the Commission statement on World AIDS Day, which was on 1 December2007.

Markos Kyprianou, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, once again we have the opportunity to discussthis serious health threat in the European Parliament. It was only a few months ago that we had the opportunityto discuss the Community Action Plan regarding this health threat. Our concern does not, of course, relateonly to the European Community, but also to the whole world.

We are concerned with the rise of infections, with the number of people who are affected and living withHIV worldwide, and the number of 33 million people, for us, is too high. Therefore, we want to take actionwithin the European Union but also coordinate with all the other international players outside the EU totackle this issue globally. This also matches the new European Community health strategy, which includesa global role for the European Union in the area of health.

Areas we can concentrate on: first of all, to prevent infection – this is very important. At the same time, tomake sure that testing is available, and treatment and care where needed. To achieve all this, we need to raiseawareness, and this is a very important factor; this is something where we are lagging behind – I will comeback to that in a minute. But also the social stigma. This is one of our major concerns, and in a way this worksas a vicious circle, because the social stigma prevents people from wanting to test themselves and learningwhether they have been infected, and therefore, they could infect others. They do not seek treatment and donot get tested, with all the negative effects. This is more worrying among young people, and this is our mainconcern and target.

Our studies and polls show that, among young people, there really is a lack of knowledge – one could saythere is ignorance when it comes to these health threats. So it is important to show to them in a balancedway, in a way that presents information and on the one hand does not create panic but on the other handdoes not lead to complacency, that it is a serious disease; there is no cure for it, but they can protect themselves– and they can be shown how to do that – and at the same time that they should not be afraid of fellowcitizens who have the infection, who have the disease.

We have seen two extremes from the Eurobarometer. Some young people think that there is nothing toworry about: you take some antibiotics and it goes away. On the other hand, just by touching infected peopleor even sharing a glass with them or through a kiss one can catch the disease. So we see two extreme viewsregarding this health threat, and neither deals effectively with our aim, which is to control the spread andfurther infections.

World AIDS Day is an important day and gives us an opportunity to discuss and raise awareness; but weshould not limit ourselves to this one day, and that is why I am happy that, within the European Union atleast, we will be discussing these issues continuously. But when it comes to young people, we have to remindourselves that we had very active, very effective, very aggressive campaigns in the 1980s which managed toreach the goal of raising awareness, but then we stopped and we forgot that a young generation, a newgeneration of young people became sexually active after the end of those campaigns. In fact, some of themwere born just before the end of those campaigns, and they did not benefit from those awareness-raisinginitiatives that were taking place then, and that is why we have the results I have just mentioned. We knowthat, through simple messages, simple methods, role models, celebrities, opinion leaders, giving a goodexample and explaining the situation, we can achieve the awareness that we would like to achieve.


This year, our initiative was to propose to the health ministers of the European Union that we would all gosimultaneously into schools and discuss these problems with young people on World AIDS day, to see whatthey know, tell them what we know, and have an exchange of views. We had a positive response: more thanhalf the Member State Ministers followed that approach.

We went into schools – I also went – and it was an eye-opener: the debates and discussions with youngpeople, understanding, first of all, what they know or do not know about this disease, and also some practicalproblems. They know, for example, that the use of condoms is the best protection, but at the same time,how can they get them? They are too embarrassed or they are worried or they are shy. So we see somepractical effects that we never thought were problems, never thought we would have to face in Europe. Butthey are still there.

Also, because we want to talk to young people in language that they understand, the Commission this yeartook the initiative of producing a new TV spot addressing the prevention of HIV transmission. This was donethrough a competition among young people, and the best one chosen, the winning entry, was by a Polishstudent. We produced that, and it was broadcast by several TV channels and was also used in the schoolvisits. This is an important strategy which we must follow: we have to talk to young people in the languagethey understand.

But, as I said earlier, the challenges arising from HIV and AIDS are present well beyond the European Unionboundaries. It is true that, worldwide, there has been some good progress in terms of access to HIV-relatedservices, especially low-middle-income countries. Now, about 95% of people infected with HIV live in thosecountries.

Thanks to an unprecedented increase in international funding in these countries, the number of peoplereceiving treatment has considerably increased, from 100 000 in 2001 to 2.5 million people in 2007. Theseare impressive figures; nevertheless, more than 70% of people in need of ARV treatment in these countriesdo not receive it or do not have access to it. This shows that we still have a long way to go.

The European action is financed through a wide array of financial instruments both at national and globallevel, such as the global fund, for example. There are also other financing mechanisms through public privatepartnerships. Progress has been achieved through these joint efforts with the international community, butwe still have a long way to go, and this requires strong cooperation among the European institutions.

As I said at the beginning, our principal goal is to bring the number of new HIV infections down and worktowards the best possible solutions in terms of support, treatment and care for those who are already livingwith HIV/AIDS. I therefore want to emphasis this once again: fighting the stigma – the social exclusion, thediscrimination of the disease and people suffering from it or being affected by it – is very important andunless we do that we will never be able to control the situation. To do that, we need to raise awarenesscampaigns and increase them.

This is why the motto of the European Commission in this action against AIDS is ‘Remember me’, becauseit is a forgotten disease at all levels, or at least it has become one. We will now bring it back to the forefront;but it is not just for the citizens, to remind them of the existence of this disease, but also for thedecision-makers, to make sure that they put it back at the top of the political agenda and take all the necessaryactions. In this respect I am counting – and I know I have it – on the support of the European Parliament.

John Bowis, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – Mr President, there is so much to be done. Let me start withwhat the Commissioner really highlighted in his speech, which is the effect on children, because one of thecampaigns that is running this year, of course, is Stop Aids in Children. We know that every minute of everyday a child is born with HIV; we know that 2.3 million children are living in our world with HIV; that onlyone in 10 who needs anti-retroviral treatment receives it; in the absence of treatment we know that anestimated one third of infants die in their first year and half die by their second birthday; we know that 15.2million children under the age of 18 have lost one or both parents to AIDS; and we know that by 2010, thatmagical year, more than 20 million children will have been orphaned by AIDS.

That is the children's story, that is the challenge regarding children, but of course it is an adult story as well.We know the numbers that we have in our various countries for people being diagnosed, for people livingwith HIV: all on the up, and the frightening statistic that one in three people do not know they are infected.

That is the challenge, but there are specific challenges I think we should highlight this year, and theCommissioner has hinted at some of them. The level of basic knowledge has actually been going down inthe last five years: the public is less aware than it was. Myths and misunderstandings have been growing.


One in five people do not know that HIV can be transmitted through sex without a condom. Fewer than halfof all sexually active people always use a condom with a new sexual partner.

We know that the number of people diagnosed has trebled since 1997; we know that risk-taking sexualbehaviour is on the increase; we know that a quarter of all HIV-related deaths are due to late diagnosis, anda third are preventable. And, specifically, we know that failed asylum seekers living with HIV are too oftennot eligible for free HIV treatment and so cannot afford lifesaving care, and can go on and infect others. Wealso know that the rate of HIV among male prisoners is 15 times higher than among the general population.

All those things we know, along with the knowledge we have of the hopeful signs, of research. Recently inRwanda I saw for myself the research, the ongoing clinical trials and the need for trials in Africa for vaccinesfor Africans.

But all these things need that urgency, and 2010 is the target year; 2010 is nearly with us. 2010, Commissioner:you and I come to the end of our term of office. I want us not to hide behind that fact and leave it to oursuccessors. I want us to say, in 2009, when you and I may be leaving office, at least we have fulfilled thispromise.

Jan Marinus Wiersma, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (NL) Mr President, my compliments to the Commissionfor its efforts, which the Commissioner has just described. I would stress today the importance of WorldAIDS Day and of our joint responsibility in combating this disease. Because a disaster is unfolding worldwide,a disaster which does not get the attention it deserves.

My group thus welcomes the fact that we are having this debate today in Strasbourg. The figures speak forthemselves. Worldwide there are 33 million people who have full-blown AIDS or are HIV-positive, and atotal of 25 million people worldwide have died of the disease.

But a lot of people act as if AIDS does not exist. Because AIDS is associated with sex, many people prefer notto talk about it. And that makes it hard – as the Commissioner says – to educate people about AIDS. Theyounger generation of today is paying a high price for that. Half of all new HIV infections are in people underthe age of 25. In the time it takes me to say this, six more young people will have been infected with the virusand three children will have died of AIDS. We are talking here of a generation which has not known a worldwithout AIDS.

The disaster is not confined to Africa. In recent years the number of HIV infections in Europe and CentralAsia has doubled from 1.25 to 2.4 million. It is high time for the European Union to do something. Thisterrible disease, which destroys the lives of millions of families worldwide, is preventable. AIDS can be foughtby effective information, readier availability of condoms, and affordable drugs.

The Commissioner rightly points out that we have allowed AIDS to become a forgotten disease on our owncontinent. Europe's youngsters of today were not around for the big public awareness campaigns of the1990s. We must act vigorously if we do not want things to get out of hand here.

So, partly as a symbolic act and partly because we think it is a really important initiative, my group launcheda campaign last month to get the tax on condoms reduced to 5% throughout the European Union. The factthat the rate of VAT on condoms varies so widely – in some countries it is as much as 25% – shows that wedo not in Europe have a shared approach to this shared problem, or at least that we are not doing enoughabout it.

The Portuguese Presidency has given solid backing to our campaign and we hope for a positive endorsementfrom Commissioner Kovács too when he launches the debate on the European VAT system at the end ofnext year.

Holger Krahmer, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen,‘Yours for ever, AIDS’ were the words I read on a poster for World AIDS Day, which took place almost twoweeks ago. The message was that AIDS is treatable but not curable. Many people, especially younger people,lose sight of that or choose to ignore it. The infection rates, to which previous speakers have referred, speakfor themselves. Education is the only way to prevent HIV and AIDS, and I am pleased that the Commissionsubscribes to that view.

Education, however, must not be confined to poster campaigns or visits to schools by government ministers.These things attract brief attention and may catch the eye of the media too, but they do not modify behaviourpatterns, especially among young people.


AIDS and HIV were once the stuff of real-life horror stories in the press. Many people felt insecure and afraidbecause nobody knew how dangerous the virus really was. I have no wish to return to those days, but withthe existence of HIV/AIDS having become a fact of life and treatments having become safer, the problem nolonger automatically captures the same level of public attention today.

Many people have become accustomed to these messages, and some are even tired of hearing and seeingthem. That is irrational, but it is a fact. Education must be adapted to take account of these changedcircumstances. Education must be designed to reach out and capture people’s attention, to address tailoredmessages to specific target groups in their own vernacular. There are young people out there who misinterpretHIV as a negligible risk, and it is particularly important that we engage with them on their own cognitiveground and prompt them to think about the consequences of infection.

Many people still do think about the consequences, but unfortunately they start too late, namely when adoctor or social worker tells them they have tested positive. Then the disease, which has hitherto been a dimand distant concept, suddenly becomes very real. Only if we manage to make people think about HIV beforeit is too late shall we have made any progress.

Patient long-term efforts will be needed to achieve that goal. There must be facilities, services and projectsdesigned for target groups – the more differentiated and the closer to personal experience they are, the betterthey will be. The organised AIDS charities, such as the AIDS-Hilfe associations in Germany, can continue toplay an important role here if they rise to this new challenge. That, unfortunately, is not happening everywhere.

Those who are HIV-positive today have a good chance of a long life, in western Europe at least. In other partsof the world, such as Africa, it is a different matter. This comfortable situation of ours, however, should notbreed complacency.

Vittorio Agnoletto, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am a doctorwho has been working with AIDS for twenty years and I have to say that, frankly, I would have expectedmuch more detailed and pragmatic proposals from the Commission. In the European Union, sexual relationsare the main channel of transmission. To be more specific:

1) Is the Commission urging all the Member States to organise sex education classes in schools?

2) Is it urging Member States to introduce price controls on condoms which are at present the only way ofblocking sexual transmission?

In Europe the second main channel of transmission is intravenous, especially among those using drugs.What, then, is the Commission doing to urge Member States to implement damage limitation strategieswhich are the only way in which intravenous transmission can be reduced among those who are unable,cannot or do not want to give up drugs?

As regards the rest of the world, I would have expected the Commission to come here and tell us: after eightmonths of deadlock with Parliament, we note that Parliament has voted to amend Article 6 of the TRIPSAgreement and, while that that has not led to any amendment, the Commission is committed to fighting toamend the WTO rules. At present, the TRIPS rules allow multinationals to hold patents for twenty year withthe result that drugs do not get to Africa. We have heard absolutely nothing about that! If those rules are notchanged, speaking of Africa is no more than hot air!

Lastly, how is it possible, when everyone is talking about the fight against AIDS, that you have CommissionerMandelson writing letters to the Thai Government asking it not to pass laws making it possible to distributegenerics and, in his letters, sponsoring and naming companies such as Sanofi-Avensis? In my view, theCommission should have something to say about that!

Françoise Grossetête (PPE-DE). – (FR) Mr President, yes, AIDS has claimed too many victims – far toomany. It continues to claim them and will claim many more. Tragically, many children will be infected beforebirth. We have heard the figures, they are frightening, and I do not intend to go through them again.

Sadly, the spread of AIDS is continuing not only in the EU Member States but in non-member countries too,and to fight this new wave of the epidemic it is essential that we step up preventive action, provide moretreatment, care and support and forge the partnerships that are absolutely vital to the effort. Alongsideprevention we need to improve access to information, and make it easier for people to obtain advice, treatmentand social services. We need to mitigate the negative impact of this disease – one of saddest aspects beingthat it is a taboo condition, something people dare not discuss freely. To achieve all this, we need to mobilise


available resources and focus research, coordinate our efforts and fund specific projects. Only if everyoneconcerned works together in constructive partnership can we make a significant and lasting contributionto stemming this epidemic.

One striking thing is the fact that today’s young Europeans have never experienced the type of effectiveprevention campaigns that were run in the 1980s. European societies need to shoulder their responsibilityhere and get the essential information about HIV and AIDS across to young people. The most recent surveysshow an astonishing level of ignorance about the disease among the young. 54% of young people in the ‘old’EU Member States believe HIV can be contracted by drinking from the same glass as an infected person. Thatshows how vital it is to improve awareness and to invest in prevention and in information about the use ofcondoms. The cost of condoms is another issue that needs to be addressed. The survey findings also showthat we cannot relax our efforts; we cannot overlook what is no longer a ‘new’ disease. In raising awareness,we need to deliver the right messages – messages better tailored to their audience. Efforts are currently underway on this front. The messages we put across need to be more up-to-date and they need to make a realimpression on young people. Until recently and largely for ethical reasons, it was left, in the main, to patientsto seek advice and to request HIV testing. In retrospect we can now identify two problems with that approach:firstly, the availability of services was poor and, secondly, people were afraid of being stigmatised anddiscriminated against. In low-income countries the fact that testing is voluntary is a serious obstacle tocombating the AIDS pandemic. How can disadvantaged, poorly educated patients be expected to giveinformed consent? How can a person who has never heard of HIV consent to being tested for it?

And what benefit does an individual derive from taking an HIV test in a country that has no social protectionsystem? Recent surveys in sub-Saharan Africa show that only 12% of men and 10% of women have had thetest and received results. This disease is an ongoing threat and we must not lower our guard against it!

Pierre Schapira (PSE). – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, AIDS remains one of the great plagues ofthe 21st century despite the international community’s exceptional efforts to combat it over the last 20 years,albeit with occasional periods of slackening.

Number 6 on the list of UN Millennium Development Goals, adopted in September 2000, is to halt andbegin to reverse the spread of AIDS by 2015. However, the current situation in developing countries – andparticularly in Africa where the death rate from AIDS is still rising – demands that we redouble our effortsif we are to achieve that target.

There are several potential avenues for European action here. Firstly, we can strengthen cooperationarrangements, particularly with local authorities in the southern hemisphere because it is only at local levelthat lasting solutions can be found with regard to caring for sufferers, preventing the disease, supplyingmedicines, running information and prevention campaigns, and generally managing health services so thatthey meet local people’s needs.

Secondly, we must find ways of tackling the shortage of health professionals in low-income countries. Europeneeds to step in here with practical, properly funded programmes to enable health professionals to do thework they were trained for in their own countries, under proper conditions and within proper structures,with the necessary equipment and medicines.

Lastly, combating AIDS in the long term will require a firm commitment to give patients in developingcountries access to the medicines they need at prices they can afford. Given that many AIDS patients in thesouthern hemisphere have already developed resistance to the first-generation drugs they have been treatedwith, it is essential to find ways of making the latest treatments available in generic form in low-incomecountries. For that reason I would ask the Commission specifically to ensure that bilateral and regionalagreements currently being negotiated – especially EPAs – do not include any provisions that might makeit harder for southern hemisphere countries to use all the flexibility available under the TRIPs agreement andthe 2001 Doha Declaration for the purpose of protecting AIDS patients.

I have no more to say. The unacceptable situation of millions of people dying of AIDS every year demandsthat the European Union face up to its responsibilities. It is time to stop talking and to get to work.

Markos Kyprianou, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, I shall be brief, because I understand we areunder pressure of time.

I just wish to make three or four points. Firstly, this is a problem that affects the whole population and thisis the message we try to convey. It is no longer a question of risk groups and that the rest of us need not


worry: it is an issue for the general population – young people, women. We must raise awareness about this,and the political message has to go through as well.

In particular – because it was mentioned – on the issue of immigrants we take a particular approach. ThePortuguese Presidency had the issues of health and immigration as a theme of its Presidency, and access totreatment, testing and treatment and healthcare of the immigrants – even undocumented ones – is animportant aspect. This is something we are discussing not only for their protection and the human rightsaspect of it, which, of course, is a priority, but also for the protection of society as a whole.

The issues that were raised, such as the possibility of the exchange of needles for drug-users, promotingcondoms, sexual education in schools, the problems in prisons, are all part of our discussions with theMember States and the civil society. We have a think-tank where everybody is involved: they have discussionsand exchange best practice and experiences. But, of course, within the European Union we realise that wedo not have the competence: it is the responsibility of the Member States to implement these policies.Therefore, we raise the profile at a political level, we hold discussions at technical level but, at the end of theday, it the responsibility of the Member States to take specific initiatives.

On the other issues raised by Mr Agnoletto, I have taken note with great interest of the issue of TRIPS. I havenoted that and also the effect it would have on access to medicine in developing countries and all the otherissues he raised concerning dealing with countries outside Europe. I will raise them with my colleagues whoare responsible for these particular areas and I will inform them of the points raised by the honourableMember.

Finally, when it comes to access to ARV within the European Union, initially – and then hopefully we canextend it to other areas – we are supporting very actively the initiative of the German Presidency after theBremen Conference to achieve access to cheap and affordable ARV treatment for all patients and those whoneed it. We already have, if one can call it that, a first success story with Bulgaria. But, of course, we willpursue it in the Presidency, with the support of the Commission, and hopefully once the model is establishedwe can extend this approach outside the European Union. We always have this as a target.

Once again, I should like to thank the Members for a very interesting debate and I have taken note of all theissues raised.

President. − The debate is closed.

15. Shipping disaster in the Sea of Asov/Black Sea and the subsequent oil pollution(debate)

President. − The next item is the Commission statement on the shipping disaster in the Sea of Asov/BlackSea and the subsequent oil pollution.

Markos Kyprianou, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, first of all I would like to say that my colleagueMr Dimas regrets not being able to be here today for this debate but, as you know, he is at the global warmingconference and he has to represent the Community there.

This is a very important issue. We know that heavy storms in the Black Sea region in November caused atragic loss of life and property and of course damage to the environment, with an estimated leakage of 1 300tons of fuel oil and the sinking of ships carrying sulphur. Under a bilateral agreement, the Commission senta team of five EU experts, who were joined by representatives of the Commission and the UN EnvironmentProgramme. The EU experts found Ukrainian clear-up operations well underway. Locally available technologiesand resources were considered sufficient, and Ukraine expressed no need for additional emergency equipment.The key results of the mission will be presented to the Ukrainian authorities in Kiev on 14 December. Duringthat meeting discussions will also focus on further strengthening cooperation with regard to improvementsin the monitoring of the environmental quality of the Black Sea.

According to international oil spill statistics, the current oil spill can be considered of medium size and isnot expected to be a major environmental disaster. Of course, that does not mean that we are not just asconcerned, in particular because there is always the possibility of secondary pollution. The density of theenvironmental pressures, the presence of sensitive species in the strait, the political sensitivity of the areaand the risk of further, similar accidents in the future all underline the need to assess the situation in a more


comprehensive manner. The European Commission is therefore considering follow-up through otherinstruments such as post-damage assessment missions, so I am looking forward to the debate on this issue.

Stanisław Jałowiecki, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (PL) Mr President, today’s opportunity to discuss lastmonth’s Black Sea disaster is very welcome, for at least two reasons.

The first is that, with respect to many countries, including Russia, the European Parliament has a role to playas a substitute for public opinion. Imagine what would happen in the European mass media if a similardisaster occurred, let us say, in the Baltic. The television would regale us with pictures of damaged flora andfauna for days on end. We would be subject to an onslaught of experts explaining the ominous effects of thedisaster. In Russia, however, the media are silent. Only with great difficulty was I able to gather a few scrapsof information, mainly from Ukrainian sources. Our voice, therefore, is exceptionally important in thismatter.

The second reason is what I would call broadening our European awareness: the awareness that regions towhich we have hitherto paid little or no attention, like the Black Sea, are an integral part of our continent,not only in the geographical sense but in terms of nature, ecology, economics and culture – the awarenessthat we are parts of a common whole and that those parts affect each other.

Such awareness should increase our sense of responsibility, which should also extend to the Black Sea region.Our responsibility entitles us to demand that the Black Sea basin be made much safer than hitherto. It shouldbe mentioned in passing that disasters on a smaller scale have occurred several times in the recent past.

In this respect the following demands are particularly important. First and foremost, monitoring of thesituation in the Black Sea – both now, barely a month after the disaster, and much later on.

The next demand is to get the European Union’s neighbouring countries, at long last, to begin modernisingtheir fleets, especially their tankers. The Black Sea is turning blacker and blacker, not from the natural causesto which it owes its name but from the colour of crude oil. It could become one huge oil container. Pressuremust be brought to bear on the EU’s neighbouring countries to impose a swift ban on the use of obsoletesingle hull tankers.

I therefore ask the House to adopt the motion for a resolution that has been tabled, in which we call on theCouncil and Commission to step up cooperation with non-EU riparian states. A land border can be closedrelatively easily, but a sea border cannot. As we shall not be building dams, the action proposed is also inour own interests.

Silvia-Adriana Ţicău, on behalf of the PSE group. – (RO) Mr. President, following the recent violent stormsin the Black Sea, four ships sank and seven were damaged, among which there were two oil tankers.

The accidents happened in the Kerch strait, which connects the Black Sea with the Sea of Azov and representsthe main route for the export of Russian oil to Europe.

2,000 tons of fuel oil spilled into the sea and the ships that sank were carrying over 7 tons of sulphur. TheCommunity Civil Protection Mechanism sent a team of 7 experts to the field to evaluate the effects andidentify the necessary actions.

As rapporteur for the endorsement of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy of the EuropeanParliament regarding the Commission’s Communication on the Black Sea Synergy, I asked the Union tobecome a leader in promoting the principles of the common maritime policy and developing maritimetransport routes in this region.

The legislative package on maritime transport is important for the Black Sea region. The Directive regardingport control and Directive 65/2005 on port security will increase the maritime transport safety in the region.

In 2006, under the Black Sea Memorandum of Understanding, over 4,650 inspections of ships belongingto 83 flags were performed. Following the inspections carried out by the authorities of Bulgaria, Georgia,Romania, the Russian Federation, Turkey and Ukraine, it was found that 69.39% of the ships had deficiencies,and approximately 6% of them were retained. Out of the total retained ships, 8.7% were cargo ships, 2.9%passenger ships, 2.7% ships carrying chemical substance and 0.5% oil tankers. These retentions were due todeficiencies in the systems for navigation safety, absence of rescue equipment and flaws of equipment andstructures providing ship stability.


Also, the countries bordering the Black Sea, such as Georgia, are on the black list of the Paris Memorandumof Understanding, and the other 5 countries bordering the Black Sea are on the grey list.

I think that the Union should do more to increase the maritime transport safety in the region.

The European Maritime Safety Agency, together with the Secretariat of the Paris Memorandum ofUnderstanding and the Member States, will finance studies and programmes to increase the maritime transportsafety. As of 2007, the agency will support Member States, by providing assistance, to prepare capabilitiesfor preventing and combating sea pollution with toxic substances.

Through the TEN-T budget, the Commission has already created projects for the development of maritimeroutes in the region of the Baltic Sea, the Mediterranean Sea and the seas situated in Western Europe. I requestthat the Commission carry out a similar study for the Black Sea region as well and I also request the use ofthe CleanSeaNet service, developed by the agency, which allows the detection of oil spill and surveillance inEuropean waters, in the Black Sea region as well.

Roberts Zīle, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (LV) Thank you, Mr President, Commissioner. First of all I wouldlike to thank Mr Costa, who tabled the motion for a resolution on the issue under debate on behalf of theCommittee on Transport and Tourism. Politically, though, I would like a much quicker reaction than merelyemphasising the need for the Council not to delay in adopting a position on the seven legislative proposalsin the third maritime safety package. In my view, this solves nothing in the ecologically dangerous internalseas, such as the Black Sea and the Baltic Sea, which are surrounded by both EU Member States and theRussian state, as a coastal state. In view of the level of oil prices and the profit levels involved, Russia’s oilexports by sea will grow very quickly in the future. This corresponds to Russia’s transport policy: to exportoil via its own country’s ports, while at the same time keeping the pipelines in the EU oil terminals at Ventspilsand Būtingė shut. Can we expect an increase in demand for these tankers, and will Russia’s fleet of tankersreceive the necessary investment to avoid further use of single-hull, 40-year-old tankers and vessels designedfor river use? I think not. The basic motivation for potential oil transport by sea will be wrecks that are ascheap as possible. I believe that if stringent maritime safety measures are maintained only in the EuropeanUnion, this will not save the environment in the seas adjoining it unless it can bring in international standards.Thank you.

Péter Olajos (PPE-DE). – (HU) We have seen explosive growth in many areas in recent decades, but nothingcompares with the growth that has taken place in global trade and, in connection with this, the transportationof goods. Sea transportation has played a prominent role in this explosion, since 90% of the European Union’sexternal trade is in this area. Since this is the biggest method of transportation, I feel that people are right toexpect that this means of transporting people and goods should also be safe and clean, so that the risk ofaccidents occurring at sea and pollution caused by ships falls.

Over the last month three grave disasters have occurred, the total scale of which is the same as the ExxonValdez pollution of 1989, so this must have a sobering effect. Attention must be drawn to the importanceof prevention and effective measures. The environmental damage caused by accidents like this does not stopat the borders of a country or two, or of a continent, but endangers and will ultimately destroy irrevocablyour common values and our common natural treasures. There is therefore an urgent need for more effectiveinternational coordination than there is now, and to play a serious role in active prevention and in remedialwork after accidents. It is also necessary to review the international legislation in this area without delay, tofill in the gaps, to prohibit ships designed for river traffic from going to sea, and to enforce effectively the‘polluter pays’ principle. It is the overriding duty of the European Union to press for measures aimed at safesea shipping at international level, as has already happened in the European Union. Thank you.

Daciana Octavia Sârbu (PSE). – (RO) Mr. President, the incident in November caused ecological damageboth to the Black Sea, and to the Sea of Azov, proving that sea waters have no borders and oil spills causedby accidents that happen outside the European space may also affect the coastal ecosystems of the MemberStates.

The sunk ships that caused the pollution of the Black Sea were designed for inland water navigation and notfor sea navigation, thus causing the spillage of tons of oil into the sea and affecting the natural habitats ofthe sea. Over 15,000 birds and dolphins were covered in fuel oil and several rare species of flora and fauna,from the Black Sea coast and bottom, were destroyed, requiring significant efforts in order to recover theintegrity of the Black Sea ecosystem.


The degradation of aquatic life is full of negative consequences, since it influences the ecological security andthe quality of life and health of the population. The acute reduction of the Black Sea biodiversity is worryingdue to the continuous degradation of the ecosystem, illegal fishing and overexploitation of natural resources,and oil spills contribute to the worsening of the environmental condition in this region, which is deemedthe most polluted in the world.

The European Union Heads of State and Government have undertaken the commitment to stop the reductionof biodiversity by 2010, and these objectives must be achieved in the sea sector as well.

In the European Union, we have to make sure that maritime transport is carried out under conditions ofsafety, and sea borders are protected as efficiently as possible from cross-border threats. Moreover, the newGreen Paper on market-based instruments for environment and related policy purposes aims at a betterimplementation of the “polluter pays” principle and I hope it will have a positive influence on the methodsto prevent this type of ecological disaster.

Nickolay Mladenov (PPE-DE). – (BG) Mr. Chairman, Colleagues, The Black Sea is not only an externalborder of the European Union after the accession of Bulgaria and Romania but also a sea of huge economicpotential for the development of our Union. If we take the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea as a single region,its market has a foreign trade potential worth over 200 million Euro and a population exceeding 350 million.

Let me briefly recall the debate in September in the wake of the big floods and fires in Europe. Then wediscussed the need for the establishment of joint forces to help Member States cope with natural disasterslike those which struck us this year. A similar need could be identified now in the Black Sea region. First andforemost, I appeal to the European Commission and, of course, the Member States, especially Bulgaria andRomania, to launch priority study of the need for a regional rescue centre for the Black Sea region to helpcountries cope with serious situations like the one we witnessed a few months ago. Secondly, a thoroughanalysis should be made of the root causes of these disasters and all other disasters in the Black Sea regionso that to learn the lessons and give recommendations for our policy in the region. Thirdly, it is time to setup a regional navigation information centre for the Black Sea, which will contribute to the security of transportroutes and, generally, navigation in the region.

The tragedy in the Strait of Kerch is something we have to live and cope with within the shortest possibletime limits, especially those of us who border on the Black Sea region. But let us use the occasion of thistragedy to seek both reasons and opportunities for cooperation among the Member States, the Commissionand the other countries bordering the Black Sea so that to enhance the security of this important Europeanroute. Thank you.

Roberta Alma Anastase (PPE-DE). – (RO) Ladies and Gentlemen, as rapporteur on the Black Sea regionalcooperation, I welcome the initiation of this debate, but I also deeply regret the fact that the theme of ourdiscussion is, in reality, a sad acknowledgment of the fact that the Black Sea is still not subject to necessaryattention from the European Union and a satisfactory level of implementation of the planned actions.

Nevertheless, I would like to remind you that, since Bulgaria and Romania joined the European Union, theBlack Sea has become a partially internal sea and we cannot ignore its strategic importance for the entireworld.

The Black Sea region is of major importance from the point of view of the European Union energy policyand transport policy. Therefore, this forces us to develop a global and coherent strategy for the entire region,a strategy that would aim at ensuring security, sustainable development and thorough integration ofenvironmental protection aspects. More than that, in order to promote a veritable policy at regional level,joint efforts are required from all countries bordering the sea, which would exceed the national and bilateralframework.

Thus, I welcome the 2007 launching of the Black Sea Synergy, but I reiterate an essential aspect from myreport, namely the need to take concrete and firm steps in order to develop and achieve this cooperationinitiative, both within the region and between the region and the European Union.

The 11 November 2007 black tide tragedy has proved to us that, in this field, we need to combine our efforts.The European Union has to play a central role entirely, both through increased involvement in the Black SeaSynergy development and by encouraging its neighbours and partners in this direction. This is the only wayin which we will be able to respond efficiently to the expectations and calls of our citizens who face the directconsequences of the 11 November disaster today.


Rumyana Jeleva (PPE-DE). – (BG) First and foremost, I would like to express my satisfaction with the factthat the Commission has come up with this opinion. This debate comes to show that the Black Sea is nowthe focal point of European politics and European politicians. I commend this approach and believe that itwould benefit all citizens of the European Union. As mentioned earlier, a lot more should be done to protectthe Black Sea region. The point is how to prevent disasters like the one which happened in the Strait of Kerch.Because disasters can never be fully prevented but their root cause can certainly be minimized.

There are two ways to ensure better protection of our seas. Fist, we have to contunue the promotion ofregional cooperation. Second, side by side with regional cooperation, better policies are needed in navigation.The measures suggested in the third package of the maritime policy are in the right direction and they shouldbe implemented in the best possible manner. Their implementation is indispensable for the prevention ofevents like the one in the Strait of Kerch in the Black Sea region. Since the European Parliament and theCommission expressed their support for the package of measures quite some time ago, it is time for theCouncil to become more active and undertake the necessary steps for the introduction of this package. Thesuccessful implementation of the measures envisaged in the package, coupled with the enhanced level ofregional cooperation, for instance the Black Sea Economic Cooperation and the DABLAS initiative forprotection of the environment. Could be an important contribution to the security of our seas and, at thesame time, could ensure higher competitiveness of our navigation industry.

I believe that this disaster proves once again the importance of the issue related to our water basisns and theneed for appropriate policies to prevent such accidents and to protect the environment. Therefore I believethat the time has really come for the third package of measures within the framework of the maritime policyto become a reality and enter into force. Thank you.

Gabriele Albertini (PPE-DE). – (IT) Mr President, President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladiesand gentlemen, on behalf of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, I should like to explain why we aretabling this motion for a resolution on the shipwrecks in the Kerch Strait in the Black Sea. Our solidaritygoes to the victims of that disaster!

We invite the Council and the Commission carefully to monitor the situation in the Black Sea and to takeconcrete measures to help to reduce the ecological impact of the disaster. Europe does not yet have thepanoply of regulations needed to prevent any repetition of very serious accidents along the lines of the BlackSea accident; among other things, those regulations must make states responsible for the safety of the vesselsflying their flags and for prosecuting, including through civil proceedings, those responsible for suchenvironmental disasters.

Although the European Parliament adopted the third maritime safety package at first reading in April 2007,it has not yet been fully approved by and is inexplicably blocked in the Council, despite the commitmentthat the Portuguese Presidency gave in this respect to the Transport Committee and Parliament. The package,consisting of seven reports, is a comprehensive package: it steps up maritime safety standards, safeguardspassengers, limits environmental damage in the event of accidents, and sets out obligations and responsibilitieson the part of states, carriers and ship-owners. Breaking up the debate and giving priority to some aspectsand not others is proof that the Council does not want to tackle the issue of safety in a serious way and wantsto put a brake on the package as a whole.

Maritime safety is too important an issue to be the subject of tactics, too serious because of the events thathave already taken place: Erika, Prestige, more recently Segesta Jet in the Strait of Messina and Sea Diamond inSantorini! Because of the accidents that have already happened and because increasing maritime traffic inEurope and the world could well increase the risks in future.

It is for that reason that the European Parliament considers that all seven of the proposals must be takenforward as soon as possible, before there is another environmental disaster with human losses: to harmonisetypes of classification, to compel states to monitor vessels flying their flags, to ensure that vessels are inspectedin ports and to monitor their movements, to decide what action should be taken in the event of accidentsand to monitor and manage responsibilities as regards both third parties and passengers. We therefore urgethe Council not to turn a blind eye to this tragic warning from the Black Sea.

Markos Kyprianou, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, a few points. First of all regarding Russia, apoint raised by various Members. I would like to begin by saying that the Community civil protectionmechanism can be activated only upon a request by an affected country. Official letters offering assistancewere sent both to Ukraine and the Russian Federation and, while Ukraine answered positively, requestingassistance, Russia declined the offer.


But on the general issue of maritime safety, my colleague Vice-President Barrot wrote on 10 December tohis colleague Mr Levitin, who is the Russian Minister of Transport, to raise these concerns and to stress theimportance of strengthened EU-Russia cooperation in the Black Sea as well as the Baltic Sea – in order toimprove maritime safety.

Addressing maritime environment problems at regional level is one of the cornerstones of the EuropeanUnion’s marine strategy and the proposed Marine Strategy Directive, for which a second reading agreementbetween the Council and Parliament has been reached. I think this is a very positive development.

The Commission has set out its views on a strategy in the region in its communication ‘Black Sea synergy –a new regional cooperation initiative’. The proposal puts forward an initiative that would focus politicalattention at the regional level. The recent accidents in the Black Sea have notably involved a special categoryof vessels, the so-called sea/river oil tankers, which can only sail in open seas under certain restrictions.

More generally the Commission is concerned by the possibility that this category of vessels will trade in othersea areas of the European Union or neighbouring the European Union, and in particular the Baltic Sea. Withinthe EU we have strict rules on maritime safety and the condition of the vessels, but we are also concernedabout what happens in international waters both because it could easily affect the European Union andbecause we are concerned about the global environment. That is why these accidents also demonstrate theimportance of maintaining pressure on maritime safety issues both at EU and at international level.

In this respect, as pointed out by Parliament and by Members already, it is important that examination ofthe seven proposals of the Third Maritime Safety Package is accelerated.

Finally, on the issue of response, the Commission is also committed to continually strengthening theCommunity response instruments, such as the civil protection mechanism, to ensure a rapid and effectiveresponse should such disasters occur again in the future. This also involves cooperation with the EU’sneighbours such as the Black Sea countries and of course other third countries.

I would like to thank Members for the debate and of course I will talk to my colleague about the interestingpoints you have made.

President. − I have received one motion for resolution(3) tabled in accordance with Rule 103(2)/108(5) ofthe Rules of Procedure



(The sitting was suspended at 19.30 and resumed at 21.00)

IN THE CHAIR: MRS KRATSA-TSAGAROPOULOUVice-President

16. Membership of committees and delegations: see Minutes

17. Deposit-guarantee schemes (debate)

President. – The next item is the report by Christian Ehler, on behalf of the Committee on Economic andMonetary Affairs, on deposit-guarantee schemes (2007/2199(INI)) (A6-0448/2007).

Christian Ehler, rapporteur. − (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it gives mepleasure to be able to present a report to you today that was adopted unanimously by the Committee onEconomic and Monetary Affairs. Before the vote in committee, the future of deposit-guarantee schemes wasthe subject of intense debate, particularly in the light of specific regional problems at the present time andof the recent crisis in the US property market.

At the end of 2006 the Commission presented a communication reviewing the 1994 Directive ondeposit-guarantee schemes. Before drafting the communication, the Commission conducted a consultation

(3) See Minutes


process. On the basis of the empirical findings that emerged, we can conclude that the aims of the directivehave essentially been achieved and that there is no need for any legislative intervention at the present time.

The increasingly cross-border nature of financial market structures in Europe, however, requires us to focusmore sharply on the question of cooperation between the diverse deposit-guarantee schemes in Europe. Inits communication, the Commission identified the areas in which self-regulation measures or differenttreatment of the legal bases could bring about further improvements in the interests of consumers.

This approach should, in our view, be pursued further. We believe that the dynamic discussion processinvolving the Commission, the Member States and the EFDI, the European Forum of Deposit Insurers, hasa very useful role to play in enabling us to adapt as quickly as possible to changing circumstances.

The Nordea problem does not warrant calling for an expensive new amendment of the directive at the presentmoment. I am therefore grateful to the Commission for making it crystal-clear that the Nordea problem,which is essentially about the reimbursement of contributions, must be resolved by the Member States.

Those who operate the deposit-guarantee schemes in the Scandinavian countries and the supervisoryauthorities there must decide for themselves whether contributions are to be reimbursed or whether depositguarantees in those countries should be treated like insurance policies and not give rise to refund entitlements.That is a fundamental problem, but it is a fundamental problem for the Member States.

The report can basically be divided into three parts. The first part is a discussion of the study undertaken bythe Commission and the adoption of a position on its findings, such as the amount of the minimum guarantee.The second part addresses the question whether or not the diverse deposit-guarantee schemes in Europecause unacceptable distortions of competition. The third part deals with future crisis and risk management.

On the first part of my report I intend to be very brief, since it proved largely non-contentious and reflectsthe findings of the consultation process on deposit-guarantee schemes. I believe our statement on theminimum coverage level, which should be adjusted for inflation when the directive is next revised, strikes abalance between the interests of the new Member States and those of the older ones. I should like to emphasisethat every Member State and every deposit guarantor already has the option of exceeding the Europeanminimum when guaranteeing deposits.

Another important point that is reflected in the report is the examination of the question whether the diversedeposit-guarantee systems and the various methods used to fund them are distorting competition. TheCommission has set out its views and presented a study which, if its recommendations were implemented,would result in a harmonisation of funding for individual Member States.

If Member States with ex post systems were now to be asked to carry out a complete restructuring of theirdeposit-guarantee schemes at great expense, it would be necessary to analyse whether the diversity of theschemes and the accompanying unacceptable and expensive market distortions are at all justifiable in theinternal market. This has not yet been analysed, and such an analysis will be an important task for the future.

The third part of the report examines risk and crisis management. The internal market and the increasingdegree of cross-border interdependence require us to examine whether cross-border risk and crisismanagement works smoothly. There is an urgent need for in-depth discussions with all stakeholders.Long-standing issues such as the problem of free riders and the risk of moral hazard must be addressed inthat context.

I believe that empirical studies analysing crisis and risk management are imperative if we are to work outviable arrangements for burden-sharing in the event of cross-border crises and common methods for earlyrisk detection or develop a system for the introduction of risk-based contributions. These studies shouldthen determine the content of subsequent discussions.

Against this background I also flatly reject the PSE amendment, which postulates existing market distortionsalthough there is currently no evidence of these. We believe that the present process is the right approach.

Charlie McCreevy, Member of the Commission. − Madam President, I would first like to warmly thank theEconomic and Monetary Affairs Committee and, in particular, the rapporteur, Mr Christian Ehler, forsupporting the policy set out in our communication.

I fully endorse your view that legislative proposals are not appropriate at this stage. Some issues can beimproved through set regulation without major cost impacts and by working together with the EuropeanForum of Deposit Insurers (EFDI). The recent financial turmoil provides evidence that maintaining deposits


or confidence is crucial during a financial crisis. As to deposit guarantee schemes, two elements seem to bekey – an appropriate coverage level and a short payout delay. If depositors know that their deposit will becovered and if they feel confident that the insured deposits will be reimbursed rapidly, there is no need forthem to join any queue outside a bank.

The existing directive has proven to be flexible and allows Member States to increase coverage according totheir own economic situation. Member States may take immediate action if their coverage level proves tobe inappropriate. The timely payout of insurer deposits can indeed be improved. According to the directive,reimbursements should normally not exceed three months, but this reflects the technology available backin 1994. This is why we have asked the EFDI to identify obstacles to a rapid payout.

Depositors must also be made aware of the protection available to them. The existing information obligationsin the directive are applied differently across Europe. Therefore, we have asked the EFDI to identify bestpractices to improve the dissemination of such information to depositors. With regard to cross-border crisis,I share Parliament’s view on the need to have clarity about burden-sharing and the interactions between allinvolved parties before such a crisis occurs. The ECOFIN conclusions of 9 October are clear on this point. Ihave noted the suggestion that the EFDI participate in general burden-sharing discussions. Let me underlinethat only very few schemes have powers which go beyond the mere reimbursement of depositors. Theirfunds will also only cover a fraction of the amounts involved in a larger cross-border crisis. Therefore, I amunable to support the suggestion to include the EFDI in general burden-sharing discussions.

The report also stresses the importance of eliminating possible market distortions. As requested, we willexamine this matter. However, currently we do not think that the high cost of fully harmonising the presentregulatory framework, estimated at between EUR 2.5 billion and EUR 4.5 billion, would be justified. Somelevel-playing-field issues are already being dealt with. For instance, we need to facilitate topping up, wherea branch should be able to offer a level of protection in a host country that is higher than in its home country.However, sometimes, arrangements between schemes in different Member States have not worked in practice,and we support the EFDI’s efforts to achieve a voluntary model agreement. Some Member States alreadyadjust the contributions through their schemes according to the individual risk of banks. We would like toassist interested Member States, as this would contribute towards a level playing field for banks with similarrisk profiles.

In conclusion, Europe needs deposit guarantee schemes that ensure depositor confidence in a financial crisis.With the envisaged improvements, I am confident that we will come closer to this objective.

Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE). – Madam President, first I would like to thank everyone because this is a verytimely issue.

We all know that ongoing financial turmoil has underlined the importance of cross-border crisis management,and the October ECOFIN decision to have more ex-ante coordination between Member States and, especially,supervisory regimes cannot be more welcome.

Banks are at the heart of the payment system and deal with the savings of ordinary consumers who are notfinancial professionals. Therefore, the proper functioning of the payment systems and clearing and settlementsystem is particularly sensitive. Many of the banks are functioning cross-border now. A scattered nationalregulatory framework is not adequate. Currently, not even the types of account falling under the deficitguarantee scheme’s requirements are the same in every Member State.

We should not let this become a depositors’ problem. The rapporteur, Mr Ehler, has done good work in thereport and showed a lot of willingness to compromise. In particular, the report rightly emphasises theimportance of eliminating distortions of competition. As the Commissioner said, it is very important toguarantee a level playing field.

However, I regret that the report finally does not address the issue of ex-ante deposit guarantee (DG) schemes.While it has been argued by the Member States having ex-post DG systems that this is a problem specific toScandinavia and Nordic markets, this is not. It is actually anti-competitive for the whole single market on awider scale. In fact, most schemes in Europe are ex ante. If the rules of refundability and transferability offunds paid into such schemes are not harmonised, this distorts the choice between branch and subsidiarymodels in the host country, and this leads to distortion of competition. So it is very welcome that theCommission is studying this matter, analysing whether there are competition distortions and making possiblefuture recommendations in this area, especially on refundability and transferability of ex ante depositguarantees already paid in money.


So I welcome the Commission initiative and Mr Ehler’s report but further work needs to be done.

Pervenche Berès, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, I am grateful to therapporteur for his text. For once, I would echo many of the comments made by Mrs Kauppi. We beganworking on this text back in the spring and I think that those of us who considered it very timely have beenproved right by the events of the summer.

What happened this summer raises questions about deposit-guarantee schemes. We simply cannot live witha system where many of the market players operate across a number of countries without deposit-guaranteearrangements that are at least harmonised or based on common principles, in the interests not only ofcompetition by also of public confidence in market mechanisms.

I was very struck as I travelled around during the summer – and not just in the Scandinavian countries – athow this question of deposit-guarantee systems was raised systematically and was considered cruciallyimportant. I know, of course, what the Commissioner will say: ‘If you were to put together all theEuropean-level guarantee schemes, the total would still be no more than a drop in the ocean by comparisonwith the sums needed to tackle the crises.’ That is a poor argument when we need to reduce our handicap interms of both competitiveness and confidence in market mechanisms, particularly because it has the effectof distorting business strategies, as companies suddenly find themselves forced to arbitrate, for the wrongreasons, between their various subsidiaries and branches.

On the basis of all these arguments, I asked my group to support me. The group tabled an amendment callingon the Commission to work faster and to recognise what people expect of it: while they may not expresstheir demand loud and specifically, in terms of a priority, they do need reassurance about how Europe’sfinancial markets work and how accurately they respond to events. A sound, European-level deposit-guaranteesystem is bound to make a contribution in this respect.

Commissioner, I believe it is part of your task to assess the level of confidence or otherwise in the functioningof the financial markets at European level. It is hardly enough, I think, to sit back and await fresh researchresults. You need to take action to accelerate the response and enable us to progress on a more harmonisedbasis, with a better and more transparent understanding of deposit-guarantee schemes and how they operatein the European Union.

Wolf Klinz, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, ashas already been said, deposit-guarantee schemes have again been in the public spotlight in recent weeks.The case of Northern Rock, whose branches were inundated with hundreds of customers rushing to withdrawtheir savings, and the question of investor compensation in the event of the Bank’s collapse are still fresh inour minds.

This illustrates all too well that the global integration of financial markets poses challenges for Europe too.The increase in cross-border consolidation in the banking sector raises questions about supervisoryjurisdiction, the appropriate coverage level of deposit-guarantee schemes and cross-border cooperationbetween these schemes. As we know, the European minimum coverage level is set at EUR 20 000, but ofcourse it is actually far higher in many Member States. The funding of the guarantee schemes, however, is amatter for the Member States, and the structures of the schemes are quite diverse.

For this reason the following points need to be clarified, and clarified quickly: the extent to whichdeposit-guarantee schemes need to be harmonised, their funding and the proactive ex ante use of resourcesfor damage prevention.

In the case of cross-border institutions, attention focuses in the event of a crisis on the supervisory structure,particularly in the case of group supervision, and on burden-sharing. If a subsidiary is operating in a hostMember State and belongs to that country’s deposit-guarantee scheme but is subject to the supervisoryauthority of the home Member State by virtue of the principle of group supervision, a gulf is created betweenthe supervision system and the deposit-guarantee scheme, and that is surely unacceptable and contrary tothe interests of investors.

I do, however, support the line taken by the rapporteur. Before we resort to legislative measures, the MemberStates should first eliminate remaining weaknesses in their deposit-guarantee schemes. At the same time,the Commission, acting as quickly as possible, should conduct targeted studies of cross-border riskmanagement and a detailed analysis of the ways in which the various schemes are funded. On the basis of


its findings, serious consideration can be given to legislative measures at a later date if they are shown to beexpedient and necessary.

Gunnar Hökmark (PPE-DE). – Madam President, I would like to thank the rapporteur for underlining theneed for studies and analyses, but also concluding that, if there are distortions on the market, something hasto be done in order to achieve a level playing field. I think it is important to conclude this from this debate.

If there are distortions, we can have different opinions – if they are there. But if they are there, somethingneeds to be done. We need to do that because I think we all agree that we want more cross-border competition,and we also wish to secure the interests of the consumers.

It is relevant to discuss the difference between different systems, because if you have in some Member Statesex-ante systems and in some Member States different ex-post systems, which in reality assumes that the statemight bale out banks which cannot pay their customers, then you have a distortion.

It is my opinion that, due to the differences in opinion we have, there is a distortion already. The distortionis even more serious if it is also based on the assumption that the state should help banks which are not ableto pay their customers.

I think a good achievement with this report by Mr Ehler is that we have achieved that conclusion. I think itis important that the Commission respond to that in future actions.

We might have differences in opinion about how the state of play is today. But we do agree on the need foraction to be taken if the studies to be done show that there are distortions.

I would like to thank the rapporteur for that and also ask the Commissioner to respond to that with action.

Antolín Sánchez Presedo (PSE). – (ES) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank Mr Ehlerfor his work which comes ten years after the transposition of the 1994 Directive on deposit-guaranteeschemes, in a period of financial upheaval when improvements to the European financial services marketare under discussion.

There is currently considerable disparity between the positions adopted by the Member States and there areimportant issues to resolve. Although the majority of the Member States apply the system based on an ex-antefund, there are still significant disparities in the level of guarantees, the size of funds and their method offinancing.

To give two examples: the sum guaranteed is eight times higher in the most protective state than in the leastprotective state, and the guarantee fund in one state alone amounts to 40% of the European total. Thissituation creates a distortion of competition. The ex-post system threatens national and European financialstability in times of crisis.

Cross-border banking groups are also experiencing problems. The consolidation of funds from differentschemes poses practical difficulties. A concentration of guarantees in a single system can only be achievedthrough a proliferation of regulations and agreements between states, something which fragments the systemand makes it more vulnerable to an unacceptable accumulation of risk. There are substantial questions marksover the aims of the deposit-guarantee scheme: harmonisation of levels of cover, risk-based contributions,utilisation of funds to provide liquidity, burden-sharing, handling of cross-border crises, liquidation ofinstitutions and cooperation between authorities.

Deposit-guarantee schemes should provide a risk-based safety net capable of protecting depositors, ensuringfair and effective competition, providing stability for the money markets and contributing to an equitablesharing of the burden in crisis situations.

Therefore, extraction of all the possibilities from the existing framework should not stand in the way of athorough and ambitious reform once the necessary studies have been carried out.

Mariela Velichkova Baeva (ALDE). – (BG) Colleagues, I note the fact that financial crises are not newprehomena; they are indicators of an asymmetry between the financial sector and the real economy. Themortgage crisis in the USA has recently made financial experts say that the economies and the financialmarkets are interrelated and a large-scale discussion is needed to improve risk management.

The idea in the Ehler draft resolution to assess and improve the precuationary and early warning measuresof the European Union with a view to ensuring the stability of the financial martkets, and the issue of


guaranteeing deposits as a traditional form of savings in my country Bulgaria is very timely indeed. In thiscontext, I wish to emphasize that the responsibility of banks to carefully organize their porfolio and effectivelymanage the resources of their depositors is of paramount importance. Of course, the greater awareness ofcitizens of the ways to use flexible schemes, the diversification of deposit forms and the mechanisms suchas deposit guarantee funds further build confidence and promote financial stability.

Charlie McCreevy, Member of the Commission. − Madam President, I wish to thank Members for theircontributions. In closing, I would like to make two key points.

We do not believe that regulatory change is appropriate at the current time. The directive has stood the testof time well. It is able to adapt to changing circumstances. In the longer term it will be crucial from a financialstability perspective for the positive guarantee schemes to contribute to smooth crisis management in anincreasingly pan-European banking environment.

Any further steps towards more harmonised schemes in the European Union now depend therefore on theoutcome of the wider work that is currently being conducted in the context of crisis management.

Concerning the problems raised by both Ms Kauppi and Mr Hökmark, the reimbursement of contributionsto a bank that leaves the scheme, for whatever reason, is not covered by the existing directive and is thereforea matter for Member State legislation. Harmonisation at European level would require full harmonisationof the funding method.

I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Ehler, and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, fortheir very constructive approach.

President. – The debate is closed.


18. Asset management II (debate)

President. – The next item is the report by Wolf Klinz, on behalf of the Committee on Economic andMonetary Affairs, on Asset Management ΙΙ (2007/2200(INI)) (A6-0460/2007).

Wolf Klinz, rapporteur. − (DE) Madam President, since the adoption of the UCITS Directive in 1985, Europeanfund markets have experienced meteoric growth. The directive has since been updated twice to take accountof new market developments, and further modernisation is right at the top of next year’s agenda.

Not least among the sources of the Commission’s present reform project is the first resolution on assetmanagement (Asset Management I) adopted by the European Parliament in April 2006, which set out themain elements of the reform package. I am grateful to the Commission for having adopted theserecommendations and for its intention to have them implemented in a legislative instrument in the newyear.

The present draft resolution, entitled Asset Management II, is similarly designed to pave the way for futureinitiatives on the part of the Commission. To this end the draft provides for numerous measures which gobeyond the content of next year’s planned revision package but which we deem necessary if the Europeanfunds industry is to become more competitive. The following are the main points:

Firstly, the Commission should consider an extension of eligible assets to cover property funds and hedgefunds. Both products help to diversify the risk exposure of portfolios and offer attractive returns on investment.Besides scope for adding these products to portfolios, consideration should also be given to a Europeandepository passport, which would give private investors direct access to these products. We welcome theestablishment by the Commission of an expert group on open real-estate funds (OREFs) and its decision toconduct a study on non-harmonised retail funds.

Secondly, not only retail investors but also professional providers and institutional investors should be ableto benefit fully from a single European market. There has never been any scope for these groups, who caneffectively do without the traditional consumer protection mechanisms, to operate across borders withoutvery public notification procedures. A European private placement regime can remedy that situation. It mustbe designed in such a way that it does not restrict the existing schemes, some of which are very liberal, inindividual Member States. In order to guarantee this flexibility, Parliament is proposing that the CESR, the


Committee of European Securities Regulators, should formulate recommendations for the organisation ofsuch a regime. The next step would then involve examining whether that was sufficient or whether therewas a need for a universally binding directive.

Thirdly, the range of investment products for retail investors is constantly increasing, but the availableproduct information does not permit comparison of the relative merits of products. This is due in part tothe highly fragmented legal framework in Europe. If individual investors are to make informed decisions,however, information requirements and disclosure obligations must establish some degree of comparabilitybetween competing products. The various industries should be able to compete on a level playing field underthe same rules. For this reason we call on the Commission to review the existing legal frameworks for thevarious product categories and to present proposals as to how the situation can be improved.

The aim is not to make products fully comparable. Life assurance policies, certificates and funds differintrinsically in their legal status and structure. The aim is rather to establish equivalent informationrequirements. Even maximum transparency, however, will count for nothing if investors do not possess atleast a minimum level of knowledge about diverse financial products and the way they work. It is thereforethe responsibility of the Member States to encourage education initiatives in this domain.

Fourthly, investors should be able to benefit not only from a wide range of products but also from low costs.At the present time, however, the European fund landscape is extremely fragmented, which breeds relativeinefficiency and excessive costs, especially by comparison with competitor countries. The Commission isplanning to create a legal framework next year for fund mergers. That is to be welcomed. The Commission,however, is disregarding one of the main obstacles to cross-border mergers, namely taxation. We thereforecall for cross-border mergers to be treated in exactly the same way as national mergers for tax purposes; inother words, they should not create any additional tax liability for investors. We are not asking for anymeasures to be taken on tax rates or the like. We are merely asking for cross-border mergers not to be treateddifferently from domestic mergers.

Fifthly, Parliament will produce a separate report assessing the potential utility of a European legal frameworkfor hedge funds and private equity. The Commission, however, should prepare itself to engage actively inthe international discussions on these matters.

Lastly, I should like to thank my fellow committee members, especially the shadow rapporteurs from theother groups, for their close cooperation. I hope that the Commission, as it did the first time, will againembrace our proposals so that we can make the opportunities of the single European market fully availableto both investors and the fund industry.

Charlie McCreevy, Member of the Commission. − Madam President, I would like to commend the Economicand Monetary Affairs Committee and, in particular, the rapporteur, Mr Klinz, for taking the initiative toelaborate an own-initiative report, and for the hard work put into that report. I would like to take thisopportunity also to thank the European Parliament for its valuable contribution to the asset managementdebate. Parliament’s previous report on asset management was also an excellent contribution to our workon the UCITS Directive.

A long process of analysis and consultation has, we believe, succeeded in building a strong consensus onwhat needs to be done and how. We should not overload our agenda, but we are not blind to other issuesand problems. Today’s report testifies to the wide range of other issues confronting the European fundsindustry. We have already started work in many of the areas highlighted in the present report. The aim is tobuild a robust body of evidence on which to base future decisions. We are glad to see that a carefulimpact-assessment-driven process is endorsed by Parliament. We strongly believe in that approach in theCommission. It would ensure that future initiatives respond to real needs and provide effective solutions.We are also applying this approach in our work on private placement. By May 2008, we plan to present aCommission communication assessing the need for, and the feasibility of, the European private placementregime.

The report before us today calls for speedy solutions to facilitate the cross-border passporting of retailnon-harmonised funds. We are also looking carefully at this important issue, and will report to the Counciland Parliament in autumn 2008. We hope that this report will bring some empirical basis to this complexdiscussion.

Sometimes, listening to this debate, we might have the impression that solutions are identified before aproblem has been properly specified. We would caution against rushing to further enlarge the EU retail fund


framework. UCITS 3 already permits a wide range of innovative strategies, including some types of alternativeinvestment. We need to be clear about what is currently possible, and on whether risk management controlsacross the industry are up to scratch, before contemplating further enlargement of the retail fund framework.We understand the European funds industry’s desire to explore its lead in innovation and financial creativity,but not at the price of investor confidence in the UCITS brand.

We acknowledge the concerns raised in the report with regard to the divergent regulatory requirementsapplicable to the distribution of substitute products, and stress that the Commission has an open mind onwhether there is a substantive issue that needs to be tackled. Responses to the call for evidence launched inOctober will allow us to assess whether the existing regulatory patchwork results in a real and significantrisk of investor detriment. In the light of responses and further follow-up work, the Commission will issuea communication in autumn 2008 on the need for EU-level action.

We welcome the report’s acknowledgement of the positive contribution that hedge funds provide to thefunctioning of markets and corporate efficiency. Some recent industry-led initiatives to develop voluntarystandards on best practices are a welcome and proportionate response to the demands for greater disclosure.We appreciate that Parliament also considers that international responses are needed in these highly globalisedbusinesses.

In summary, a lot has been achieved in the area of asset management. There is a long road ahead. Newchallenges constantly appear in this fast-moving business. However, we will do ourselves no favours byrushing into hasty and ill-prepared responses. We are glad to see that the Commission has, in Parliament, avaluable partner working towards the same goal, which is an integrated and efficient European fund marketdelivering for both industry and investors alike.

Astrid Lulling, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (FR) Madam President, in relation to this importantown-initiative report on the Commission White Paper on investment funds, our position is that we havedecided by general agreement to focus on the non-legislative aspects, given that the legislative proposal forrevision of the UCITS III Directive will be tabled in early 2008. That said, the issues we have decided to addressare vitally important to undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities.

There is a risk that extending the range of eligible assets to include open property funds and alternative fundscould mar the excellent worldwide reputation of UCITS products and negatively affect their distributionboth within the European Union and to third countries. To avoid any detriment to the investment fundindustry in Europe, Parliament has asked the Commission to conduct an in-depth study of the possibleconsequences of including these non-harmonised retail funds among the assets eligible for branding asUCITS.

Investments in UCITS total thousands of billions of euros and account for around 80% of the investmentfund market in Europe. The sector is impatiently awaiting revision of the UCITS Directive. To prevent anyunnecessary and counter-productive delay with that revision, however, Parliament has clearly proposed thatno extension of eligible assets should take place until legislative reform of the UCITS Directive is complete.On behalf of my group, I have consistently urged that line and I welcome the rapporteur’s readiness tocompromise.

The report also calls for the creation of a harmonised framework for private placements within the Union,and I fully support its recommendations on that point.

The private placement regime needs to be based on an accurate definition of qualified investors, as providedfor in the MiFID Directive. Properly informed and qualified investors eligible to practise private placementshould not, under any circumstances, face a bureaucratic surcharge as a result of rules that are not onlyunnecessary but actually counterproductive.

I have to oppose the Socialists’ amendment calling for equivalence between Member States’ systems ofregulation and supervision in the context of applying the private placement regime, which would entailpermitting reciprocal access to markets. This kind of equivalence across Europe is simply unrealistic.

I must also highlight one point on which my group and I disagree with the rapporteur. It concernsparagraph 19 on the question of so-called ‘guarantee funds’. The very concept of these funds is controversialand we tried to protest at the mistaken definition of them. I hope we shall manage to lose that paragraph. Imust nonetheless congratulate the rapporteur on the quality of his work, which enables us to prepare properlyfor the legislative proposal. It means we can now look forward with equanimity to the work that lies aheadnext year.


Harald Ettl, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (DE) Madam President, may I say to Astrid that she should notalways assume that Socialist motions will be untenable. Let me begin by warmly thanking the rapporteur,Mr Klinz, for his balanced report. I must tell the Commissioner that he need not always be so wary ofoverloading the agenda.

It is against the backdrop of the US financial and mortgage crisis that we are now dealing with the report onasset management. Not even the European Central Bank is able to assess the full extent of the damage thiscrisis has caused to the European financial system and to European banks. And there may – indeed there will– be more to come. The global financial market is already so closely intertwined that there was no way ofprotecting the Union from such speculative escapades, for which all of us must ultimately carry the can.Greedy bank executives, focused solely on shareholder value, still enjoy celebrity status, and the US ratingagencies continue to do a roaring trade and to lead us up the garden path. Knee-jerk legislation, however, isnever warranted. Nevertheless, there is a lot to be done in this field, and the Commission cannot leave theissue to resolve itself and let the market be.

One message I wish to highlight from the report is that more information and transparency lead to moreconsumer protection and greater consumer security. That is a very sound starting point. Another good thingis that the report refers to hedge funds and private equity, because more and more asset managers are investingin alternative investment products. Hedge funds, open real-estate funds and other retail products shouldtherefore be included in the UCITS III Directive – a task that still lies ahead.

To my mind the very concept of asset management implies steady development, whether through investmentcertificates, pension funds, life assurance companies, banks or private asset management. Since 2003 wehave had a directive on insider dealing and market manipulation. Its implementation has been totallyinadequate. The fund industry in particular is always citing costly overregulation and refuses to extend itstransparency and liability rules.

What we need here, Commissioner, is a clearly structured system that provides legal certainty. I am pleasedthat my proposal for an improved corporate governance clause has been accepted but regret the rejectionof my motion on EU supervision of financial markets. We could and probably must think a bit further inthis direction too, Commissioner.

It is nevertheless gratifying that a cross-party compromise was reached on the issue of guaranteed funds.When all is said and done, we should and must make every effort to ensure that speculation by asset managersis restricted and that Parliament, the Commission and the Council do not distinguish themselves by collectiveinertia. Commissioner, that was addressed to you. Go to it, and do it well!

Margarita Starkevičiūtė, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (LT) I would like to point out that this report, thoughwell-balanced and generally acceptable, does not in fact reflect true reality. The problem is that most of thefinancial institutions, as appears to be the case, judging from the data supplied, are not adhering to the rulesand regulations we have recommended.

The main problem appears to be the abuse of the discrepancies occurring in these regulations. For this reasonwe must examine the report in the context of the other reports and documents, like MiFID, with the aim offinding some kind of compatibility. Another point that I would that like to highlight is that I supportMrs Lulling’s opinion: UCITS is a good name, and we therefore need to be very careful about including newproducts in the portfolio.

Why is that? Because we do not know what these products are like. I am very sorry, but in this document,as well as in the Commission’s proposal, the portfolios and interests of a retail investor and an institutional,professional investor appear to be slightly jumbled. Retail investors should have clear definitions andregulations. However, when we have both UCITS and alternative investment funds, the reality is that in mycountry, for example, they are mixed together and presented to the retail investor, who then does notunderstand what he is investing in.

That is why we must have clearer definitions and a document that is structured unequivocally. I do hopethat next year the Commission will produce a document that is structured more clearly. We really mustprotect retail investors. Of course, private investors should have more rights, but these should be definedseparately. We should not advise people to invest in alternative funds that have not even been defined. Inmy country any fund is branded alternative at present.


Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE). – Madam President, first I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Klinz, forhis own-initiative report and also for taking on board all the proposals and opinions of the other groups.

Harmonising the environment for asset management and products on the fund market can bring hugebenefits to the European economy, as proven also by the 1985 UCITS Directive.

The UCITS Directive has become a huge brand globally. It sells well abroad. UCITS represent the basis for arobust fund market in Europe and they make the economy more buoyant through increased stability andthe productive reinvestment of savings.

However, the topic of this report is not the UCITS revision, which is forthcoming and which we welcome.The report addresses, instead, non-harmonised retail funds that are outside the scope of UCITS, calling fora number of important measures.

I would particularly like to welcome the private placement regime, which was also mentioned by theCommissioner. Initiative is very instrumental in achieving the European market in non-harmonised funds.

Second, fee transparency is a long-due and underrated feature for increasing investor information. Othermeasures in the report go in the right direction as well, removing market distortions.

However – and coming back to UCITS’ success – we must not get greedy here or mix things up hastily. I am,of course, referring to the debate on extending UCITS’ scope to new asset classes such as open-ended realestate funds or funds of hedge funds. I do not think the time is right now to discuss these sensitive matters.We might end up with a more rigid regime, and we would probably find ourselves in a different financialmarket environment.

I also think it is very important to discuss the role of guaranteed funds. There is no such thing as a guaranteedfund. Our group wanted to have some flexibility. We do not think that having a capital adequacy regime forfunds solves the problem. Guaranteed funds do not exist, and this kind of definition should be removed fromthe regime. That is why we have both put forward a proposal from the PPE-DE Group.

Pervenche Berès (PSE). – (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, I should like to thank the rapporteur forhis text. The issues it tackles are recurring ones. For example, what exactly divides institutional and professionalinvestors from private investors? Some people would have us think there is a sort of ‘Great Wall of China’between the two. I am unconvinced, and recent events have shown the extent to which financial innovationspreads from one category of investor to another, right down to the individual saver. The fiction that we candesign legislation entirely around the existence of two types of investor – enlightened, professional investorson the one hand and small savers on the other – is, in my view, a dangerous one. We are well aware of thegradual slippage of investment products. The notion of two kinds of investor is all very well but we need torecognise very clearly how we apply it.

The second question I would like to raise – which is also reflected in other texts concerning the financialmarkets – is about information for investors. This is obviously of key importance, yet we are starting fromscratch because the complexity of financial innovation is something new that has not yet been properlyacknowledged or confronted. To leave it at that, however, is not good enough: there is no substitute forresponsibility on the part of those engaged in product placement and we need to remember that.

Thirdly, Commissioner, I have to say that I think you slipped up with regard to the connection betweenimplementation of the MiFID Directive and the UCITS Directive. Does it make sense for the MiFID Directiveto be implemented in the Member States before we even know how it will relate to the UCITS Directive? Ithink the current situation would be more balanced had we had proceeded otherwise.

With regard to taxation, the rapporteur has mentioned the implications for fund mergers. I think we alsoneed to bear in mind the implications for product placement, which could be complicated by obstacles of apurely fiscal nature.

I should also like to say something about the Socialists’ amendment because the reality of the market in theseproducts differs between countries that produce them, countries that buy them and countries that bothproduce and buy them. We have introduced the concept of reciprocity, which would apply not only toopening markets and to market access but also to the nature of regulatory provision and supervision. I thinkthese elements are essential because the idea of a non-EU country which only produced these products havingaccess to our markets on any sort of terms simply because we had access to its market (which might well beof no interest to European consumers) seems either unrealistic or purely theoretical and I cannot accept it.


The rapporteur has suggested more than once that reciprocity would be in breach of WTO rules. ButCommissioner, I ask you: what did we do when we recognised equivalence rules with the United States? Thatis precisely the approach we are asking you to take here. It is also suggested that the concept is unrealisticbecause we do not have harmonisation inside the European Union. If, however, negotiating equivalencewith third countries encouraged us to establish a common standard of regulation and supervision inside theUnion, would that not constitute substantial progress?

Zsolt László Becsey (PPE-DE). – (HU) Thank you, Madam President. I hope I will be brief. As an Easterner,from an area that is poor in capital, I am not enraptured by the fact that everyone is now biting their nails tosee what will happen with hedge funds or private equity when the UCITS is extended because this does notaffect our own region at all, or at least will not for a good few years. Perhaps we will even experience somethingof this from the human side with property funds. But I would perhaps emphasise what I might expect fromthe audit, as an Easterner. One thing is that the banks, which very often operate as distributors within thismechanism and receive very large sums, should nevertheless be examined for some reason, since the salecost currently accounts for 60% of total costs, and I note that in my region the banks are unbelievablyprofitable in this way. If we achieve something in this, we have taken a step forward.

The second thing is that the case of the MiFID inducement has also not said very much for transparency ofcosts since, for example, if a bank has the fund manager and the seller, we do not know what is going on inthe in-house deal, and interestingly not even such in-house deals have been able to break down the differentsale prices.

Thirdly, however, some Member States are doing a great deal or implementing provisions that virtuallyensure that the custodian, the fund manager and their management keep their feet on the ground. In mycountry, or our countries, there are very many capable young people, and they are able to performmanagement activities, for example, at a good price and to very high quality, if they can, and I feel thatrelocation is in everyone’s interests with a view to them coming onto the free market.

Finally, consumer protection. I acknowledge that training really is very important, but alongside it we musthighlight tax matters. It cannot be that if I want to take out UCITS in another country, I will end up in a worsesituation than if I did it in my own country. Thank you very much.

Gay Mitchell (PPE-DE). – Madam President, I would like to thank Mr Klinz for this report. The Europeanfund industry has made some big strides in recent years, and the UCITS Directive has been instrumental inthis. But, while the fund industry has experienced rapid growth, it has much more potential. This potentialcan be unleashed through increased competition and mobility in the industry across the EU.

I would like to make some observations about the report. I can see merit in the recommendation to extendthe scope of UCITS to invest in open-ended real estate funds and funds of hedge funds, but this should bedealt with, in my opinion, in a separate directive or legislative instrument. I also see merit in proposals toenhance the EU private placement regime and agree that the definition of eligible investors is crucial. It isimportant to note that, while the definitions contained in the MiFID and the Prospectus Directive offer agood starting point, there may be some additional issues which might also need to be addressed.

With regard to investment policy and risk management, I want to remind the Parliament that, while CESRis conducting a review of how the risk management process requirements of the UCITS Directive areimplemented across Member States, it is not CESR’s intention to harmonise these requirements. Certain keyareas where divergent practices exist could be explored with the objective of a more harmonised approach.Guaranteed funds should be backed by capital advocacy requirements and this should be addressed by onlyallowing funds to be called guaranteed if they are backed by an adequate guarantee arrangement. I haveconcerns regarding any call for a depository passport that would result in the depository being establishedin a different state from that of the UCITS. This would create a regulatory gap because a UCITS and itsdepository would be subject to separate regulatory regimes, and complex legal issues might arise in the eventof difficulties within the UCITS.

I thank my colleague for this report, which is a very useful one, and I hope that the Commissioner will beable to respond to the points I have raised.

Charlie McCreevy, Member of the Commission. − Madam President, Parliament’s report shows that both ourinstitutions’ approaches to moving forward in the area of asset management are very much aligned. We alsoneed future decisions to be based on a thorough analysis of impacts.


We both want efficient markets that respond to the needs and expectations of the European fund industryand European investors. Important efforts have been made in that direction. More important efforts areahead of us. We are committed to delivering, but we should be cautious. We need to preserve the reformsand the repute of the UCITS brand. We need to take the time to involve and consult with all stakeholders,and we need to avoid unnecessary intervention that risks distorting the market but does not bring aboutnoticeable benefits.

Only when all those conditions are met can we be confident that our decisions are up to the challenge. Welook forward to further cooperation between our institutions in this very important area.



19. Cooperation between the Fundamental Rights Agency and the Council of Europe(debate)

President. – The next item is the report by Adamos Adamou, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties,Justice and Home Affairs, on the proposal for a Council decision relating to the conclusion of an Agreementbetween the European Community and the Council of Europe on cooperation between the European UnionAgency for Fundamental Rights and the Council of Europe (COM(2007)0478 - C6-0311/2007 -2007/0173(CNS)) (A6-0443/2007).

Franco Frattini, Member of the Commission. − Madam President, I would like to thank Parliament and,particularly, the rapporteur, Mr Adamou, for the continuous and constructive cooperation as well as thesupport in reaching this very important cooperation agreement.

The establishment of the Agency for Fundamental Rights was a big success for the promotion and respectof fundamental rights in the European Union. It is also a success in terms of interinstitutional cooperation.I have always been committed to ensuring that this important initiative is fully supported by the threeinstitutions. Smooth cooperation between the European Union and the Council of Europe is crucial forensuring the success of the Agency.

The draft Council decision reflects this objective. It represents the genuine will of the two organisations towork together, and I am delighted to see that the negotiations for the agreement have been swift and madein a very constructive way by both parties.

This important agreement will enable the Agency to work to the best of its capabilities. Indeed, in order tobe fully operational, a number of measures have already been taken, and some are still in the pipeline. Thisagreement will help foster a comprehensive cooperation framework. It will help to provide a structureplatform for both bodies, making mutual dialogue and common action both more possible and more efficient.

It will also help avoid the duplication of work between the two bodies. The agreement provides for regularcontacts and meetings between officials of the Agency and the Council of Europe, as well as for the regularexchange of information. The appointment of an independent person to sit on the management and executiveboards of the Agency fosters an exchange of views and cooperation.

Finally, this agreement reinforces our shared objective to promote and to protect fundamental rights in theEuropean Union.

Adamos Adamou, rapporteur. − (EL) Madam President, Commissioner, fellow Members, I would like tobegin by expressing my satisfaction at the excellent cooperation so far, between the European Union’s Agencyfor Fundamental Rights and the Council of Europe, especially in achieving an agreement with which bothsides are satisfied. I hope their future cooperation will continue smoothly on the same basis.

Despite the prolonged discussions and consultations with the shadow rapporteurs on the substantial contentof the report, we were informed by the Tabling Office that under Rules 83 (7) and 51 (2) of the Rules ofProcedure, it was not possible to amend the text of the Agreement and, in respect of the report itself, onlyprocedural amendments would be admissible, a circumstance which led a number of members of the LIBECommittee to give their vote for the report under protest. My report therefore simply approves the conclusionof the Agreement between the Council of Europe and the Agency for Fundamental Rights.


The EU’s system of principles for the protection of fundamental rights has been developed mainly throughthe case law of the European Court of Justice and confirmed by the express recognition contained in the EUtreaties. However, it is particularly important to ensure that this system of human rights protection is furtherstrengthened whilst safeguarding basic principles such as non-discrimination, non-exclusion, respect forfreedom of expression and religion, freedom of conscience, and social and economic rights.

The European Agency for Fundamental Rights could provide the relevant institutions, bodies, offices andagencies of the Community and its Member States with these safeguards during the implementation ofCommunity law. It is important to recognise that it is the Council of Europe that has developed, through itsadvanced work in this field, a comprehensive system of norms and legal and judicial instruments for theprotection and promotion of human rights and the rule of law and has gathered extensive experience.Therefore, the common aim of protection of fundamental rights, shared by the Agency for FundamentalRights and the Council of Europe, has to be achieved in a significant and positive manner, avoiding duplicationand any risk of fragility in the well-established judicial and non-judicial system put in place by the Councilof Europe for the protection of human rights and individual rights. We must take care to ensure that thereis no challenge to the legal precedent and the substantial content of human rights protection as establishedby the Council of Europe, an organisation with 47 member states.

I would also like to emphasise that any dangers of duplication of powers and procedures must be counteredto avoid confusion as regards the aims and responsibilities of the two bodies, so that we can achieveharmonious cooperation between them. This must be reflected, above all, in the Agency’s annual workprogramme, and in the strengthening of cohesion and complementarity between the two institutions.

As regards the exchange of information between the Council of Europe and the Agency for FundamentalRights, it is of the utmost importance, as far as possible, that such exchange should take place under conditionsof absolute confidentiality observed on both sides. The Agency for Fundamental Rights and the Council ofEurope should agree on more precise rules regarding the implementation of Article 15 of the Agreement,which provides for grants to be received by the Council of Europe from the Agency, with the aim of achievingfull transparency and avoiding any insinuation of excessive interdependence between the two institutions.

It is also essential to implement Article 7 of the Agreement in a way which will allow the two institutions toexchange, by mutual consent, as much information as possible, with due regard to their rules of procedure,as far as this is possible under the confidentiality rules in force. This information should not be used byinstitutions other than those directly involved in the examination of the issues at stake, nor should it be madeavailable to institutions or agencies of third countries, in the absence of guarantees and controls regardingits use.

As I have said, the cooperation between the Commission and the Council of Europe during the negotiationsfor the Agreement has proved fruitful, and it is expected that the two institutions will continue in future towork efficiently together, in the same spirit of cooperation, transparency and complementarily. However,it is enormously important that the European Parliament should participate in this process, through periodicreports, and that the Council of Europe should be called on to state its opinion on all the surveys andassessments carried out, with a view to complementarity, non-duplication of work, and the transparency ofthe operations of the two institutions.

Kinga Gál, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group . – Madam President, I am glad to speak today as shadow rapporteurfor the PPE-DE Group concerning this report on the conclusion of an Agreement between the EuropeanCommunity and the Council of Europe on cooperation between the European Union Agency for FundamentalRights and the Council of Europe.

We have had long debates and a lot of questions whether there is a need for an Agency; whether the Councilof Europe can accept this; whether there will be real, useful cooperation between the two.

All the time both Parliament and the Commission said clearly: yes, we need the Agency, we see the sense ofthis institution and we foresee good cooperation between the Council of Europe and the Agency.

Therefore I welcome the fact that, now this Agreement is here, we can talk about institutionalised cooperation.On the other hand, I am sorry that we could not really improve this text by amending certain aspects, becauseI would have underlined the need to take into account, whenever the Agency is dealing with concrete issues,all the experience, the expertise, gathered by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, with itsreporting system in its various committees, for example in the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rightswhere there is excellent expertise and experience in dealing with these issues.


But nevertheless I am glad, because the conclusion of this Agreement is signalling the need for this body, forthe Agency, to start its work as soon as possible. The Agency was officially inaugurated on 1 March but itstill does not have its operating and management structure in place. It is imperative to proceed and improvethe situation so as to go further.

I have been following this dossier since the very beginning of my mandate, noting the extreme difficultiesof designing its scope, area of competence and decision-making structures to the satisfaction of all actorsinvolved.

We are all concerned since the Agency will gather and compile data and prepare recommendations to theinstitutions in the field, a remit that is hard to define in its boundaries, which is horizontal and which cross-cutsall Community policies.

We can only be satisfied if we create a credible and responsible Agency that is entrusted with enough powerand an adequate budget to cope with its task. This Agreement can help this.

We will ensure that any overlap of these tasks and duplication of work is avoided. Let us hope that the solemnproclamation of the Charter on Fundamental Rights today will stand as one side and the Agency will standas the other side of the same coin: a first practical step towards a future Union policy on human rights andfundamental freedoms.

Genowefa Grabowska, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (PL) Madam President, what we are discussing today isan atypical procedure, as the European Parliament is pronouncing on the advisability of a cooperationagreement between the European Union and the Council of Europe. We have no opportunity to intervenein this agreement: we are simply assessing it and giving our opinion.

The Council of Europe is the oldest European organisation concerned with human rights and the promotionof democracy. No one here needs reminding that cooperation between the Council of Europe and theEuropean Union − and previously the European Communities – has existed since the beginning. Accessionto membership by a state wishing to join the European Union is conditional upon respect for values that areinscribed in the Statute of the Council of Europe: the rule of law, democracy and, above all, respect for humanrights.

It is thus good that these two institutions, the European Communities − now the European Union − and theCouncil of Europe, should cooperate, not only by sitting side by side in Strasbourg but by engaging incommon fields of action. The agreement we are discussing today is neither highly original nor new, just asthe Agency for Fundamental Rights is not an entirely new institution.

As we know, the Agency for Fundamental Rights replaced the European Monitoring Centre on Racism andXenophobia, based in Vienna, and the Centre had a similar cooperation agreement with the Council ofEurope. That agreement, concluded in 1999, respected both sides and was in force to the present time, i.e.to the moment when the Centre was replaced by the Agency for Fundamental Rights.

However, since a new EU body is involved, we must examine the new agreement on cooperation with theCouncil of Europe to ensure that what appear to be two similar institutions do not compete with each otherbut cooperate.

I have to say that the agreement was negotiated quickly but well. We have no great reservations concerningits content, nor could we have. It establishes a framework for cooperation, provides for regular contacts and,most importantly, creates personal links, since it provides for the Council of Europe to call upon an outsideperson – and a deputy for that person – sitting on the Agency’s management and executive boards. All ofwhich inclines me to full support for the motion and acceptance of the agreement, which will serve bothinstitutions well.

Irena Belohorská (NI). – (SK) Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for the opportunity to speak. The reportdeals with possible conflicts of interest between the European Fundamental Rights Agency and the Councilof Europe. In my view, this issue is secondary. The real difficulty arises between the European Court of HumanRights in Strasbourg and the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg.

Both these Courts have the authority to act in the area of breaches of human rights and there are some rulingswhere the two bodies contradict each other. The majority of these cases relate to Articles 6 and 8 of theEuropean Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and concern


proceedings on infringements of competition rules, such as the cases involving National Panasonic, HoechstAG, Niemetz, etc.

Finally, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the European Convention for theProtection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, endorsed by the European Union, are two similaryet distinct documents. The European Fundamental Rights Agency’s competences focus on monitoring andsupport. The Agreement concluded in accordance with Article 300 of the Treaty establishing the EuropeanCommunity, which will clarify individual competences, is therefore to be welcomed. The fact that the Councilof Europe will have a representative on the Management Board is also to be welcomed.

As the Agency’s competences are limited, I believe that its activities will complement rather than competewith those of the Council of Europe. In any case, we will have to continue debating this topic in the light ofthe changes to the legal status of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Panayiotis Demetriou (PPE-DE). – (EL) Madam President, Commissioner, in recent months, four decisivesteps have been taken by the European Union to promote and protect human rights. Firstly, the specialAgency for Fundamental Rights has been set up. Secondly, a clause on the legally binding force of the Charterof Fundamental Rights and a clause on the accession of the European Union to the European Conventionon Human Rights of 1950 have been included in the Reform Treaty. Thirdly, the Charter of FundamentalRights has been solemnly signed in Parliament today; with its formal proclamation, it becomes part of theEuropean acquis. A modern code of human rights! Fourthly, the conclusion – which we are discussing today– of the agreement between the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights and the Council of Europe, signals exactlywhat the European Union stands for – the promotion of human rights – and shows that this element isfundamental to every modern society, to every modern state.

We see no subordination, no duplication, no replacement of the role of the Council of Europe, which issecure in its place as an international guardian of human rights. On the contrary, a new phase of cooperation,not antagonism, has been initiated. I therefore agree with my compatriot, the rapporteur, on everything hehas said on this issue, and fully endorse his report, and I congratulate him on this.

I am an honorary member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, which I feel to be anhonour; but today I also feel great pride and joy because the two institutions, the European Union and theCouncil of Europe, are inaugurating their cooperation in this area, and I hope this century will earn its placein world history as the century of human rights.

Sylwester Chruszcz (NI). – (PL) Madam President, the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rightsin Vienna is yet another costly institution that, in addition, arrogates to itself the right to monitor and lecturethe Member States on compliance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights and other matters.

It is hard to resist the impression that European taxpayers’ money is being given over to yet another agendafor strengthening the authorities in Brussels and the emerging Eurostate. The Council of Europe and theOSCE are existing institutions that deal with the same matters at international, not supranational, level. Whatwe are seeing is a duplication of already existing institutions that increases the powers of the European Unionand the EU bureaucracy.

The countries of Europe – including my own country, Poland – are obliged to protect and promote humanrights by complying, inter alia, with the European Convention on Human Rights. The Agency for FundamentalRights, however, alongside other agencies that are being set up at an impressive rate, is not only a waste ofmoney but a further dubious, not to say harmful, initiative on the part of Brussels.

Roberta Alma Anastase (PPE-DE). – (RO) Ladies and Gentlemen, this plenary session was marked byvarious European actions in the field of human rights, as well as by the possibility to achieve their assessmentfor the year 2007.

At the same time, with the creation of the Agency for Fundamental Rights and the proclamation of theCharter of Fundamental Rights, the decision to conclude a cooperation agreement between theabove-mentioned agency and the Council of Europe is part of the European Union's efforts to consolidateits performance and role of human rights promoter, both internally and externally. I would like to point outtwo aspects I believe important in this field.

First of all, I welcome the intention to achieve a double objective by this agreement, namely, on the one hand,the efficiency and consolidation of the European policy in the field of human rights and coherence andavoidance of duplication, on the other hand. This is the only way in which we will be able to continue to


promote the respect of the fundamental principles established by the European Convention for HumanRights and supplemented by the Charter of Fundamental Rights, including by consolidating our ownmechanisms for this purpose.

Secondly, I welcome the intention to consolidate cooperation in the specific human rights protection projectslaunched by the Council of Europe. This type of interaction will allow us to further contribute to improvingthe human rights situation, acting in specific cases, both internally and externally. I would like to drawattention to the fact that such cooperation should be promoted especially in the European countries borderingthe European Union, in order to create a true area of democracy at the external border of the Union.

As rapporteur on the Black Sea regional cooperation, I ask the European institutions to support the regionalcooperation projects. I consider the initiative to create a Black Sea Euroregion for promoting democracy atregional level, which was launched by the Council of Europe, a good starting point in this direction and Iinvite the Commission to manifest its entire support for their success.



20. Maintenance obligations (debate)

President. – The next item is the report by Genowefa Grabowska, on behalf of the Committee on CivilLiberties, Justice and Home Affairs, on the proposal for a Council regulation on international jurisdiction,applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenanceobligations (COM(2005)0649 - C6-0079/2006 - 2005/0259(CNS)) (A6-0468/2007).

Franco Frattini, Member of the Commission. − Madam President, the proposed instrument on maintenanceobligations seeks to improve the precarious situation of people who depend on maintenance to meet theireveryday needs.

In the European Union, where people are increasingly mobile, maintenance creditors – especially children– should not face obstacles to recover money due to them, particularly when the debtor, such as a parent,leaves or has moved abroad.

I would like to thank Ms Grabowska, as rapporteur, for the efforts she has made to give a voice to stakeholderssuch as non-governmental organisations assisting maintenance creditors during the very important publichearing on 11 September.

We generally welcome Ms Grabowska’s report, which supports the proposal in its essential elements.

I have just a few remarks on some proposed amendments. First of all, on the legal basis. We are of the opinionthat the current instrument relates to family law. However, I understand Parliament’s concerns, given theexisting legal context. That is why we have invited the Council, in a communication adopted at the sametime as the proposed regulation, to decide – in accordance with Article 67(2) of the Treaty – that the presentinstrument be adopted according to the codecision procedure. That is my opinion, and I will continue toask Council to act on this invitation.

Concerning the other amendments on the rules on applicable law. Last month, negotiations on a worldwideconvention on maintenance obligations were finalised successfully at the Hague Conference on PrivateInternational Law.

Given the satisfactory results of the Convention and the accompanying protocol on applicable law, theCommunity and its Member States would like to adhere to those international rules. Consequently, the rulesof the regulation and related amendments proposed should be revised in order to ensure consistency withthe international rules.

The report proposes allowing the courts to apply their own law when cases come before them and whenthis would accelerate the resolution of the dispute. While we recognise the concern to speed up litigation,we believe that the proposed solution does not allow for sufficient legal certainty, and there is the dangerthat it would not serve the interest of maintenance creditors, who should be protected by application of thesame substantive law, regardless of which court is considering the case.


Finally, Parliament is now voting on its report. An international legal context has become clear. I stronglyhope this project will be resumed at full speed in 2008. I very much trust that the Council will give it thehighest priority in the coming months.

Genowefa Grabowska, rapporteur. − (PL) Madam President, let me begin by expressing my thanks. I wantto thank the European Commission very much for its excellent cooperation at working level. I also thankthe Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and the shadow rapporteurs, especially theCommittee on Legal Affairs and Diana Wallis, who drafted its opinion, for their truly excellent cooperation.Mrs Wallis took on the heavy burden of convincing the Commission of the need for amendments to thelegal basis.

I should perhaps start with the legal basis, given that the proposed resolution was referred to us under aprocedure that is not acceptable to Parliament. We wanted the regulation to be adopted according to thecodecision procedure, rather than the consultation procedure. I was therefore pleased to hear what theCommissioner told us, and I am aware of the Communication to the Council inviting it to give us thatopportunity. I would add only one thing to what the Commissioner said.

I do not question the fact that the maintenance relationship arises out of family law. I would argue, however,that, taken as a whole, the maintenance relationship has a mixed character. The fact that it originates infamily law does not mean that it remains within those bounds. It has consequences for the common marketand the economic situation of both parties, i.e. that of the maintenance creditor and that of the debtor. Weare accordingly entitled to extract the maintenance relationship from its origin in family law and associatethe execution of maintenance obligations, not with family law, but with areas in which this Parliament holdsitself competent, namely the common market, family care and human rights. In which case, it seems to me,there should be no difficulty in changing the procedure.

I therefore consider that this proposal warrants not only Council’s attention but acceptance by Council. Inpreparing this regulation we held hearings that were, in truth, one uninterrupted lament. Women, mainly,told us of the difficult situation in which they find themselves when they try to enforce maintenance paymentsfor children whose other parent lives in a different country and appears not very interested in raising hischild or paying for its upbringing.

Many different tricks are employed. I shall not mention them all but confine myself to one example. It isenough to change a single letter of ones surname in order to disappear in Europe almost without trace, andthe maintenance obligation vanishes along with the debtor. By means of this regulation we seek to ensurethat no maintenance debtor in Europe feels safe in thinking that by leaving the country in which a childremains for whom maintenance is not paid, by moving away into the open European Union in which internalborders have been lifted – especially now when the new Member States will be joining the Schengen area ina few days’ time – he can take advantage of a situation that works in favour of a person who does not takeresponsibility for his family.

Let me mention the two measures in the resolution that seem to me the most important and constitute aninnovation. A maintenance order issued in the state in which the creditor normally resides will not have tobe confirmed in the state in which the maintenance debtor is living. The regulation thus proposes abolishmentof the ‘exequatur’ procedure. I realise this is something new, but if we want to ensure effective enforcementof maintenance obligations we must take that step. If we keep ‘exequatur’, the whole attempt to achieveeffective enforcement falls by the wayside.

I realise we shall be respecting all the provisions adopted in the framework of the Hague Convention andConference, but the international system grinds exceedingly slow, and the ratification of agreements in thesphere of private international law can take years. The European Union must go forward and ensure thatchildren are provided for when their fathers or mothers forget about them. This regulation must thereforebe implemented quickly for the good of the children. It not only takes care of the children but also protectsthe creditor. Therefore, thanking the Portuguese presidency for the work it put into preparation of the text,I place the matter in the hands of the Slovenian presidency in full confidence that it will see the text throughto conclusion and that we shall obtain a good regulation.

Diana Wallis, Draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs. − Madam President, I would like tothank the Commissioner for his very positive statement. I should also like to thank Ms Grabowska for herwonderful cooperation on this matter.


This is one of those proposals that could make Europe a reality for those we serve. It could add practicalvalue at difficult times in their lives. I do not know how many times, as an elected MEP, I have been contactedby constituents who are having difficulties getting maintenance from somebody in another Member State.All too often, I have been unable to give a practical and positive answer.

With this regulation, I hope that in most circumstances we would be able to do much better. The proposalpotentially allows the EU to go much further than states can through the Hague Conference process, whichhas already been mentioned. We should indeed be able to go further. After all, we have encouraged ourcitizens to move freely across old national borders within the EU, and should be able to provide an answer,in the form of a good, simple, functioning justice system, when they hit rough times in their marriages orpartnerships breaking down. Above all, we should be able to offer help to children suffering the financialconsequences of marriage breakdown. This proposal would give us a simplified one-step process, insteadof the current nightmare of applying in one court and then having to go through more or less the sameprocess of enforcement in a foreign court. That is too much for people at vulnerable and desperate momentsin their lives.

The Legal Affairs Committee has been happy to endorse most of this proposal, whilst trying to make sometechnical improvements. In this respect I am very grateful to my colleague, Mr Casini. However, like therapporteur, we cannot accept the choice of legal base. It should have been codecision, not consultation. Ibelieve the Member States have been entirely unreasonable, both in terms of the content of the legislation,and as regards the implications for our citizens. I hope they will respond to the Commissioner’s appeal.

Speaking on behalf of my Group, we do not want to see the effectiveness of this one-step system undermined.We must, of course, respect the rights of the defence – the judgement debtor – but this should apply to theoriginating court. We should not allow the re-opening of the case in the enforcing court, or we will destroythe very benefits we are seeking to deliver. We therefore want to see deletion of Article 33(a), and have gravedoubts about amendment 61, which still leaves the door open too wide.

Finally, I want to make some comments as a UK Member of this Parliament. The UK opt-out or failure toopt in to this instrument is bad news for many EU nationals from other Member States now living in the UK,and is also bad news for many Brits whose partners move to another Member State. Indeed, there are all sortsof permutations where the opt-out will create chaos and confusion. People will be second-class citizens inrespect of the justice system available to them.

However, what I most regret is the failure of the British Government to appreciate the untenable position ofBritish MEPs in these issues. Should we actually be working on, speaking on – and, more importantly, votingon –proposals on things that, as they currently stand, will have no application to those who elected us?Others are beginning to question the legitimacy of our position. These opt-outs are democratically untenableand destructive to the coherence of the EU civil justice system. Pick-and-mix, opt-in and opt-out merely hitsthose who are vulnerable and in most need of the law’s protection.

IN THE CHAIR: MR BIELANVice-President

Panayiotis Demetriou, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (EL) Mr President, first of all I would like tocongratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Grabowska, on her initiative in raising this issue and on the very positiveview she has expressed this evening.

Fellow Members, the round of consultations of the Hague Conference, which began seven years ago, isdrawing to a close. The question arises: what progress has been made on the issue of mutual recognition andenforcement of judgments in international private law? Where is the declaration that the principle of mutualrecognition and enforcement of judgments is the cornerstone of judicial and police cooperation in thecreation of an area of freedom, security and justice? The answer is that no great progress has been made inthis direction. The 2004 Hague Programme has not been promoted to the degree that was needed, despitethe efforts and initiatives of the Commissioner responsible, Mr Frattini.

Unfortunately, the misuse of appeals to national sovereignty by some Member States is a hindrance to theharmonisation of the law, not only on substantive matters, but also on questions of procedure. These generalobservations do not, of course, negate the value and significance of the proposal we are discussing. On thecontrary, they underline the need to adopt further proposals for Council regulations, covering the wholefield of family law: divorce, separation, maintenance and property matters. Council Regulation (EC)


No 2201/2003 on recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and matters of parentalresponsibility is in need of radical reform and modernisation. This need is indeed being addressed to a largeextent with the proposal for the amending regulation, but unfortunately only on the question of maintenance.The differences in the substantive law of the Member States, under the vital heading of justice, remain. Thereis still a long way to go. Even so, where there is scope for convergence, this harmonisation of the law shouldbe pushed forward.

The amendments proposed by the European Parliament fill many of the gaps in the proposal and improveits content. Above all, they overcome many obstacles which hinder the enforcement of maintenance judgmentsanywhere in the European Union, and they limit the debtor parent’s or spouse’s scope for evading justicewhen he or she has moved from one EU Member State to another. Precisely this point is addressed by theamendment which I have tabled to Article 33a, in which I attempt, firstly, not to leave unlimited scope fornon-enforcement of an order on grounds of a change of circumstances and, secondly, to allow latitude fordealing with the situation in this way when there are serious, really serious, pertinent circumstances whichgive the court precisely this right to revise its opinion.

Andrzej Jan Szejna, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (PL) Mr President, I would first like to thank the rapporteur,Genowefa Grabowska, most warmly for the work she has put into the regulation before us and her report.The splendid result does not surprise me, as Professor Grabowska is one of Poland’s leading experts onEuropean law.

Bearing in mind that the number of divorces and separations in the European Union is rising, the problemof legal impediments to the recognition and enforcement of decisions on maintenance obligations isincreasingly important. Furthermore, given the degree of integration of the Member States and the still largenumber of binding legal sources within the European Union, an advanced legal system is essential.

There is no harmonised system in force in this field at European Union level at the present time. I am thereforein favour of the regulation, which contains highly pertinent proposals concerning the problems we arediscussing. It should be noted that it is the outcome of a long-term programme of work, the Hague Programmefor strengthening freedom, security and justice in the European Union. I agree that effective enforcement ofmaintenance obligations will improve the living conditions and education of many children who are first-linemaintenance creditors. That is a very important matter for European socialists.

The proposed regulation not only tackles certain problems of modern society: it can also help improve theoperation of the internal market, specifically by removing barriers to the free movement of persons whocould suffer as a result of differences in Member States’ legislation on the execution of maintenance obligations.

For the good of all citizens of the European Union, we must strive to achieve rapid and, if possible, cost-freeexecution of maintenance payments. At present, institutions must sometimes resort to drastic measures toenforce the payment of maintenance, while creditors often live in reduced circumstances.

I also support the idea that court decisions should have the same force as they have in the Member State inwhich they were issued, without any additional formalities.

Finally, I would stress the need for greater involvement of the European Parliament in the adoption ofdecisions on matters of such importance for the future functioning of the European Union and the internalmarket.

Carlo Casini (PPE-DE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the purpose of the report we are examiningis to eliminate most of the obstacles to the recovery of maintenance in Europe, making it possible to establisha legal context in keeping with the legitimate expectations of maintenance creditors.

The most significant starting point is that in the vast majority of cases the maintenance creditor is the weakerparty and therefore needs very vigorous protection, and it is evident that the main problem lies in the actualcircumstances of maintenance debtors. However, it is advisable to do at least what is possible, i.e. to eliminateany unnecessary red tape and to make the applicable law certain, to establish a preference for the law of theplace of residence of the creditor and to give immediate effect to the legal decision under which maintenancehas to be paid, even in countries other than the country in which the decision has been given.

The Committee on Legal Affairs, called upon to give an opinion under the enhanced cooperation procedureon jurisdiction, applicable law and enforcement of decisions in matters relating to maintenance obligations,has played an important role in the drafting of the text, achieving a major compromise agreement betweenthe main political groups, for which I should like publicly to thank Mrs Wallis. The main aims of the


amendments tabled by the Committee on Legal Affairs are to draw up a clear definition of maintenanceobligations, extend the scope of application, protect the most vulnerable parties involved and simplify theproposed text.

It has been necessary to draw up an unambiguous definition of maintenance obligations and to include inthe scope of the regulation all orders relating to the payment of lump sums. Particular attention has beenpaid – as I have said – to the most vulnerable parties and, here, the text of the regulation needs to be furthersimplified. In conclusion, as my speaking time has come to a end, I am sure that the PPE-DE Group will givethis decision its full support.

Tadeusz Zwiefka (PPE-DE). – (PL) Mr President, the regrettable increase in marital breakdown, coupledwith the growing mobility of people living in the European Union, is inevitably leading to an increase in thenumber of cross-border conflicts concerning maintenance claims. At the present time, in order to enforcea claim against a maintenance debtor living in another Member State it is necessary to apply to the judiciaryof the state in which the decision is to be executed. Unfortunately, that does not always work, so there isclearly a real need to lay down detailed rules on jurisdiction in regard to maintenance claims.

The purpose of the draft resolution is to reduce the formal requirements for a court decision to be deliveredin any Member State and to ensure its effective execution. Upon entry into force, the new regulation willenable an entitled person to obtain a binding enforcement order anywhere in the European Union. It willalso simplify and unify the enforcement system. While welcoming the measures adopted by the HagueConference, I fully agree with the rapporteur that the regulations applying in this matter in the EuropeanUnion must be more progressive and more rapidly implemented.

The increasing mobility of EU citizens is leading to any increase in the number of marriages in which spousesare of different nationalities and live in different states, or live in a Member State of which neither is a national.Where an international couple decide to divorce, they may therefore invoke different laws. The broadsubjective and objective scope of the regulation is justified by the frighteningly low rate of obtention ofmaintenance payments in certain EU Member States. In my own country, Poland, for example, the figure isjust 10%.

The regulation will also enable the mother of an illegitimate child to claim from the child’s father paymentof the costs associated with pregnancy and childbirth, as well as the costs of her upkeep during childbirth.At present such a claim is not recognised in many Member States as a claim for maintenance, which makesit considerably more difficult to pursue.

Before my country joined the European Union, more than one thousand claims for maintenance from abroadwere lodged in the courts every year. As a result of the opening of borders, all forecasts predict a drastic risein the number of such claims, both in Poland and in other countries. The opening of borders and labourmarkets may lead some fathers to run away from their maintenance obligations, and it is mainly the childrenwho will suffer. This we cannot accept.

Franco Frattini, Member of the Commission. − (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I shall be very brief. Iwould like to thank all those who have spoken, the rapporteur and Members who have taken part in thiswork. In forthcoming months, we shall, in my view, have three objectives before us and I hope that theSlovenian Presidency will be able to take them forward successfully.

First: to convince the Council that if we feel it is useful to amend a legal base under Article 67 of the Treaty,we do so to give a better democratic basis to an initiative which objectively protects vulnerable groups ofpeople, especially children following the breakdown of the family unit.

The second objective is to ensure that creditors receive the same protection irrespective of the place at whichthe matter has been brought before the courts: it would be very odd if the so-called lex fori criterion led to asubstantial variation in the protection afforded to creditors. Another essential objective is therefore to tryto harmonise the rules.

The third objective, where, in my view, work is needed, is that of actual enforcement: in too many cases weaffirm the principle of protection of creditors in family matters, but then we do not ensure that it is enforced,or we allow the substance of the case to be reopened when a payment order should be made. That does notwork in the case of maintenance; were it the case, the measure would be deprived of any meaning.

We have drawn up fairly innovative proposals: temporarily freezing a proportion of the debtor’s bank accountif the debtor does not want to pay, or a mandatory periodic payment order against the debtor’s assets for


the sum that the debtor should pay. As you know, there has been dissent and opposition from the majorityof the Member States in the Council because that is what really makes a difference for a regulation: eitherthe measure can be genuinely enforced or it is pointless to continue to affirm the importance of protectingchildren or separated spouses who are maintenance creditors!

We shall have to work on these three issues in the coming months and, clearly, in this case, more than inothers, the Commission and Parliament are in agreement and we shall have to persuade the Council that thisis the right road to take.




Marian-Jean Marinescu (PPE-DE), in writing. – (RO) For the moment, there is no single European systemto acknowledge and enforce the legal obligation to grant maintenance abroad. The Community provisionsin this field are insufficient instruments for pursuing debtors who try to avoid their obligations to paymaintenance.

According to the present regulation, any judgment regarding maintenance given in a Member State must berapidly and correctly enforced in any other Member State.

Thus has ensured the simplification of citizens’ lives, namely the recovery of child maintenance from theparent or other debtors when such persons reside in a different country to the child, implementation of oneof the European fundamental rights, the right to private and family life and child protection, homogenizationand simplification of the European legal norms on the entire EU territory and construction of the Europeanspace of freedom, security, justice and facilitation of internal market operation.

I think that the courts notified should check the independent status and competence of legal consultanciesand take into consideration the situation of the parties during the proceedings. The creditor of the maintenanceobligation should benefit from the legal provisions in the country of residence, litigations in this field shouldbe solved less expensively and searching for the most favourable jurisdiction should be avoided.

21. Ovine and caprine animals: electronic identification (debate)

President. − The next item is the report (A6-0501/2007) by Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf, on behalf of theCommittee on Agriculture and Rural Development, on the proposal for a Council regulation amendingRegulation (EC) No 21/2004 as regards the date of introduction of electronic identification for ovine andcaprine animals (COM(2007)0710 – C6-0448/2007 – 2007/0244(CNS)).

Markos Kyprianou, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, as we all know, traceability is a key elementof ensuring high standards in animal health and food safety.

We have had recent experience with certain diseases in the European Union, such as foot-and-mouth diseaseand bluetongue, which has once again shown the importance of efficient identification systems. Individualidentification cannot function properly without electronic identification.

The Commission was requested to confirm or amend, in its report, the date of implementation of electronicidentification, not to question the principles of the regulation. That is why it is a technical report on thevarious methods and technology involved.

The Commission report only focuses on the best way to implement electronic identification. However, inorder to produce a report, we needed data and input from the Member States, and in particular those MemberStates already working on the system. The studies and trials necessary for the preparation of the report lastedmuch longer than was originally foreseen, which explains the delay in the report.

We strongly appreciate and thank Parliament for agreeing to handle this matter as urgent. That will preventa situation of legal uncertainty in January 2008.

The report concludes that technical conditions for electronic identification of sheep and goats have beenfulfilled, but that Member States need a reasonable time frame to prepare the implementation of electronicidentification.


We agree with, and accept, Parliament’s position to have a fixed date for introduction of the system. On theother hand, we cannot accept the other amendments proposed, which would call into question the veryprinciples of the regulation, since the question now is what the actual date of implementation should be.

Once again, I would like to thank the rapporteur for the speedy work he has done, and Parliament for agreeingto treat this matter as urgent.

Friedrich-Wilhelm Graefe zu Baringdorf, rapporteur. − (DE) Mr President, Commissioner Kyprianou, wehave complied with the request to handle this matter swiftly. We are dealing here with something urgent,which is precisely why we are still here at this late hour.

The question is, of course, how this urgent situation arose. You have said something about that. I had a lookthrough the documentation and came across the very regulation that we want to amend today. It dates from17 December 2003. That regulation prescribes that, with effect from 1 January 2008, ‘electronic identificationaccording to the guidelines referred to in paragraph 1 […] shall be obligatory for all animals’. There are oneor two exemption clauses, which I shall omit, and then it says, ‘The Commission shall submit to the Council,by 30 June 2006, a report on the implementation of the electronic identification scheme, accompanied byappropriate proposals, on which the Council shall vote by qualified majority’.

In short, the matter lies very far back in the past. The Commission’s report to the Council was evidently neversubmitted, and there was no comeback from the Council. Are you signalling something? If you did submitthe report, all the better, but then there was no response from the Member States. And then we got into thispickle, realising that the deadline could not be met. So far, so bad, but then you proposed that, instead ofperhaps setting a new deadline, we should leave it to the comitology procedure to set the date. In other words,the setting of the deadline would be your decision. We should then have taken all this trouble for nothing,and so the committee decided that the provision on compulsory electronic tagging should enter into forceon 31 December 2009 and be applicable from 1 January 2010, two years later than prescribed in the originalregulation. Be that as it may, the important thing is that we have a date. The committee also said that a reportshould be submitted on this matter too.

The problem with your proposal, of course, is that you are drawing more and more decision-making intothe realm of comitology, just as you did with the old regulation of 17 December 2003, in which the provisionsand application arrangements relating to the regime of electronic identification were delegated to theCommission through the comitology procedure. At that time there was also to be a report to the Councilbut no report to Parliament. As a result of this practice of subjecting everything to comitology, Parliamentis divested of its decision-making rights and its powers of scrutiny, and so we only discover at some laterdate that obligations have not been honoured.

If you had not come with these amendments now and requested urgent treatment because you were underpressure to meet the deadline, we should have thought that everything was alright. But things were notalright! That must be a warning to us in Parliament not to delegate too much to the Commission but tocontinue exercising our powers of scrutiny.

Now there have been a couple of amendments. You said you could not accept them. The committee stipulatedthat the rules should be binding. That, in fact, is also laid down in the basic regulation, which, as we all know,is not being repealed but only amended. Now there are amendments tabled by you, Mr Stevenson, one ofthem jointly with Mrs McGuinness, which propose that the system be made voluntary. Well, if we make itvoluntary, we might as well forget the whole thing. What would then be left to prescribe? We could resignourselves to the fact that all cats are grey in the dark. I therefore believe that we must stick with compulsoryrules and that these compulsory rules must include a date and a report to the European Parliament.

It will be a lesson to us that this report has made us stumble more or less by chance across this truly unusualway of proceeding on the part of the Commission and the Council.

I hope, Mr Kyprianou, that I am not being unduly harsh in my criticism, but you can imagine that, as I draftedthe report and prepared myself for this evening and consulted the relevant documentation, I had to rub myeyes when I saw all the things that can happen in our European institutions. Both Parliament and theCommission – and we as individuals too, as far as I am concerned – surely have an interest in ensuring thatthis sort of thing does not recur and become a habit.


Struan Stevenson, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – Mr President, let me start by answering a question thatwas put to me by Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf. He was asking why my amendments seek to make this systemvoluntary. I can tell Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf very quickly why I seek to make it voluntary.

Last week in my constituency in Scotland, cast ewes – for the non-agricultural people in the Chamber (thereare not many people in the Chamber), they are old female sheep – were selling for GBP 2 a head. A year agothey were selling for GBP 60 a head; this year, GBP 2 a head. I ask the rapporteur: how is a farmer who isonly getting two quid a head for his sheep supposed to fit microchips and buy expensive scanners and readersthat can comply with a mandatory electronic ID system? This is the economic problem.

The original Commission proposal was perfectly correct in seeking stakeholder consultation and in seekingeconomic-impact cost-benefit analysis. I have not seen all the figures. I do not know what the intentionwould be for the sheep farmers in my constituency. I have to remind the Members in this House that the UKhas the biggest sheep flock in the whole of Europe – by far the biggest. The impact of this would be catastrophicwith the economic situation the way it is. It would actually mean – if this becomes mandatory and we go bythe dates set by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development in their vote on Monday night, andwe set 31 December 2009 as the mandatory introduction – that a whole group of sheep farmers in Britainwill close down and go out of business. The upland areas and the hills that have been looked after by sheepfarmers and grazed by sheep for centuries will go wild and then the public will realise the damage that hasbeen done.

While we are wreaking this damage in a flock that already has the best traceability in Europe – we haveabsolute guaranteed traceability in the UK at the present time and the sheep farmers cannot understand whywe want to impose a new system of electronic identification when they already have high-quality traceability– we are importing sheep meat into the EU from outside, from countries that do not respect our levels ofhygiene and welfare and the rigorous regulations that we apply to our sheep farmers.

So, let us have a little bit of sensitivity here. I hope that when we come to vote on this tomorrow the Memberswill see the reason why we are asking for a voluntary system and not yet fixing a mandatory date for theintroduction of electronic ID.

Rosa Miguélez Ramos, on behalf of the PSE Group. –(ES) Mr President, I am one who always listens carefullyto Mr Stevenson whenever he speaks, and I have been listening to him for several years now, but this speechsurprises me, because it is one which would have been better made in 2003 and not 2007, nearly 2008 infact.

Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf put it very well: this is a 2004 regulation, we debated it in Parliament in 2003, andthe regulation provides that the date of entry into force for the system of electronic identification for ovineand caprine animals is to be 1 January 2008.

So, Mr Stevenson − I have no doubt whatever that you have ovine animals in your constituency, as I domyself − the five Member States with the biggest ovine and caprine flocks are, besides your country andmine, France, Italy and Greece. Well now, these four Member States have undertaken the task, which seemsso abhorrent to you, of convincing their farmers to tag ovine and caprine animals, because we were told thatthe regulation said that electronic identification was going to be obligatory from 1 January 2008.

I, as a Member of this Parliament, entirely understand this. I also understand that there are Member States –such as yours, which is why I have just been listening to you – which have not fulfilled their duties, and withthis in mind, I voluntarily proposed a date – which has moreover been accepted by the Committee onAgriculture – extending that time-limit slightly, but, as you know, whereas they might pay two pounds ananimal in your constituency, in mine they only pay one pound.

At this point in time, with animal disease problems being prevalent in Europe, I think that a system such asthis provides a guarantee and a way of enhancing the value of what our farmers are producing. It is anidentification system which enables us to know the provenance of any animal transiting Community territoryand be assured that it is in good health; it is a guarantee for the consumer and that has to be good for thefarmer, because he is going to get more for his meat.

If they are not going to get any more for their meat, that is just where we are now with bluetongue,foot-and-mouth disease and the chikungunya mosquito. If that is the case then there is no hope for us. So,please, let us just get to work, let us be coherent and read and examine the regulation referred to by Mr Graefezu Baringdorf –which I would repeat is a 2004 regulation – let us read it carefully, let us recognise that there


are a few exceptions in it, but it is not a matter of do-as-you-please, because the date cannot be voluntary. Itcannot be voluntary because we, the Commission and the Council decided that it was obligatory.

In other words, I cannot turn the clock back to three years ago and tell my farmers that all their efforts upuntil now are completely pointless because the British forgot to ask their farmers to do the same. Do youunderstand me?

I am asking you to read my amendment carefully. My group is definitely not about to question the obligatorynature of the system, because that would create unlawful discrimination between Member States and withinthe European Union itself, although it would not surprise me – and I am not referring to you, Mr Stevenson– that someone who had the gall to reject the Charter of Fundamental Rights in this House today coulddisplay equal or greater gall in rejecting the identification of ovine and caprine animals.

Here we are then: I think we have a regulation, the Commission has made us a reasonable proposal, we havealso made a reasonable proposal to the Commission, so let us try to finish this matter this morning withouttoo much damage on either side.

Neil Parish (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I rise very much to support what Mr Stevenson has just said and alsovery much to support what the Commission is trying to do. I think we do have to realise the scale of sheepfarming and the number of animals involved. You are talking about 25 million sheep in the UK, 8.5 millionin France, 3 million in Ireland and significant numbers in Spain and other countries. The system has got tobe right. If we are going to introduce an electronic system, it has got to be practical and cost-effective, andfarmers have got to be able to use it practically. As Mr Stevenson has quite rightly said, the sheep is an animalthat is not of huge value, so all of this is not going to be done by veterinarians. A lot of this is going to haveto be carried out by farmers, and when they come to read those tags, it is has got to be practically done upthe side of a mountain in wet conditions, and all sorts of things.

I have seen a lot of these electronic systems work in hotel rooms as you move people through differentdoorways, and they say there is no collision between the different tags. You also want a system where, whena lorry-load of sheep drives into a market, in ideal circumstances, you want to be able to electronically checkevery sheep that is in that lorry. This is the ideal system. What I say to you quite clearly is that there is nopoint in moving forward on electronic tagging until we have got a practical system, cost-effective and readyto use. Therefore, I think you are absolutely right to say, ‘Come back at the end of 2009 and see where weare’. As Mr Stevenson has quite rightly said, let us use this as a voluntary system when Member States areready, when there is a lot of movement of sheep, and when we have got a system that works. Please do notbring it in too quickly, before we are ready.

James Nicholson (PPE-DE). – Mr President, once again we are here to debate the tagging of sheep. All I cansay is that it is an awful pity that the Commission did not listen to us way back in the early days when wequestioned what they were proposing then and advised them. I would say to Ms Miguélez Ramos: yes, wedid make these speeches way back at the beginning when there was the discussion on tagging sheep. Butunfortunately what we said was not listened to, even when we said it would be unworkable.

So we did warn you and you would not listen. The reality is that sheep farmers could never afford the costof electronic tagging because they are receiving less now for their lambs than they were 20 years ago! Youtell me of any other part of any other business of any other industry that is asked to put out tremendousexpenditure and receive less for what they are producing than they did 20 years ago. I know this is the casefrom personal experience.

The present system we have is sufficient. So, let us kick this very much into the long grass for the future. Ican accept coming back and looking at it in 2009. Maybe, over that period of time, the electronic taggingtechnology, which at the moment is far too expensive, may, like many other areas of technology, becomemore affordable with a combination of lower costs and better returns to the sheep producer. Then we couldexamine this all over again.

The big challenge to sheep production is to achieve profitability and when that happens we can move forwardwith confidence. I must say it was with great interest that I heard Ms Miguélez Ramos and Mr Stevensonhaving an exchange of views over sheep because they usually have an exchange of views over fish, which istotally different! It is probably even more argumentative than over sheep as they are doing tonight.

But for sheep farmers, receiving such small rewards for hard work, as has been outlined by Mr Parish, makesthis is a very difficult job. There are thousands of sheep on the top of mountains for all of the summertime.


You try and catch them; you try and tag them; you try and follow them. I have to say to the Commissioner:I just wish you would send some of your officials who draw up some of these plans out to these areas andsee what the sheep farmers have to put up with, see what they have to go through. Then you might understandhow we feel and why we put forward these views.

Yes, let us do it on a voluntary basis. Let us do it when we are ready. Let us move at a proper pace and let ustake it at a speed which we can afford.

Markos Kyprianou, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, I will be very brief, as it is late. I would liketo remind the honourable Members that what we are discussing today is the date of introduction of thesystem. A decision was correctly taken to put the system in place, but the date was left open, or rather a datewas fixed which, it was decided, we should subsequently amend or confirm.

The data from a number of Member States showed two things. First of all that implementation was feasible,both technically and economically – as is stated in the report – and also that more time was needed for theMember States to introduce the system, meaning that a more realistic date was needed.

The truth is that the Commission did propose to have this date set at a later stage. I can assure you there wasno intention to circumvent Parliament, and that is precisely why we chose this way of proceeding – havingthis debate, and not inserting an article in the regulation, which would have allowed us to take a decisionwith the Council alone.

There was never any intention on the part of the Commission not to include or involve Parliament in thesedecisions. The setting of a date was considered to be a technical question. Since the principle had alreadybeen adopted, we thought that this technical question could be adopted through comitology and, to repeatwhat I said earlier, we have no problem in accepting the amendment setting a specific date, which I believeallows Member States enough time – two years – to prepare.

However, we would be reluctant to agree to voluntary systems, since the regulation concerns traceability,and traceability has to be effective and applied equally in the Member States. It is also a specific reflection ofthe animal health situation in the European Union. One can look at the direct cost of the system as it appears,but, if you take the longer-term benefits of the savings generated by the reduction in losses and animaldiseases, we believe it will eventually be of benefit from the economic point of view.

Nevertheless, we are ready to accept the amendment by Parliament, which we believe will also be adoptedby the Council next week.

President. − Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf has the floor on a point of order.

Friedrich-Wilhelm Graefe zu Baringdorf, rapporteur. − (DE) Allow me to ask the Commissioner one morequestion. Commissioner Kyprianou, I tabled an amendment providing for certain exceptions, which are notintended to be implemented on a voluntary basis, and indeed the original instrument also allows for avariation, an updating, if it is done in accordance with Article 9(4). In certain circumstances – and these mustnot include voluntary arrangements, which would render the whole exercise pointless – it would be possibleto give some consideration to ways in which the concerns that my fellow Members have expressed herecould be met in practice. This is only intended as a suggestion and a question to which you might like to givesome thought.

President. − That was not a point of order, but would the Commissioner care to answer the question?

Markos Kyprianou, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, as I said, we have a problem acceptingamendments that will affect the main principles and aspects of the regulation.

We will look at it again but, nevertheless, this is a concern.




Mairead McGuinness (PPE-DE), in writing. – I do not believe that sufficient information has been providedon the efficiency and effectiveness of electronic identification (EID) for sheep and goats. Furthermore, I believe


that an economic assessment, notably a cost-benefit analysis of the impact on producers, is necessary beforefixing a date for the introduction of EID.

I do not believe there is any justification for setting a date for the introduction of this scheme until the impactof EID, particularly in relation to traceability and disease control, has been assessed.

In Ireland, the sheep sector is melting down, with many farmers exiting the industry and therefore theimposition of these measures and costs on this sector at this time is unwelcome.

If there is a legitimate justification for EID in this sector, stock owners would be responsive and would setabout introducing it themselves on a voluntary basis. If and when this EID scheme is introduced it shouldtake place on a voluntary rather than a compulsory basis.

Furthermore, should EID be introduced it should only apply to animals born after a certain date and shouldnot apply to existing stock.

22. Agenda for next sitting: see Minutes

23. Closure of the sitting

(The sitting was closed at 11.25 p.m.)


Debates of the European Parliament - EN

Documents

Transcript of Debates of the European Parliament - EN