IN THE CHAIR: MR BORRELL FONTELLES
President

(The sitting was opened at 9.05 a.m.)

  President. The next item is the joint debate on five reports on the discharge of the budget 2003:

- Report by Terence Wynn, section III,

(SEC(2004)1181 C6-0012/2005 2004/2040(DEC)); (SEC(2004)1182

C6-0013/2005 2004/2040(DEC))

- Report by Ona Juknevičienė, section I,

(C6–0015/2005 – 2004/2041(DEC))

- Report by Alexander Stubb, sections II, IV, V, VI, VII and VIII,

(C6-0016/2005 – 2004/2042(DEC); C6-0017/2005 – 2004/2043(DEC); C6-0018/2005 – 2004/2044(DEC); C6-0019/2005 – 2004/2045(DEC); C6-0020/2005 – 2004/2046(DEC); C6-0021/2005 – 2004/2047(DEC))

- Report by Inés Ayala Sender and Carl Schlyter, on the decentralised agencies,

(N6-0216/2004 – C6-0235/2004 – 2004/2051(DEC); N6-0207/2004 – C6-0226/2004 – 2004/2050(DEC); N6-0208/2004 – C6-0227/2004 – 2004/2060(DEC); N6-0209/2004 – C6-0228/2004 – 2004/2053(DEC); N6-0213/2004 – C6-0232/2004 – 2004/2061(DEC); N6-0212/2004 – C6-0231/2004 – 2004/2056(DEC); N6-0214/2004 – C6-0233/2004 – 2004/2062(DEC); N6-0220/2004 – C6-0239/2004 – 2004/2063(DEC); N6-0210/2004 – C6-0229/2004 – 2004/2058(DEC); N6-0211/2004 – C6-0230/2004 – 2004/2055(DEC); N6-0215/2004 – C6-0234/2004 – 2004/2059(DEC); N6-0217/2004 C6-0236/2004 – 2004/2054(DEC); N6-0218/2004 – C6-0237/2004 – 2004/2057(DEC); N6-0219/2004 – C6-0238/2004 – 2004/2052(DEC))

- Report by Marilisa Xenogiannakopoulou, 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th European Development Funds,

(COM(2004)0667 – C6-0165/2004 – 2004/2049(DEC)).

  Wynn (PSE), rapporteur. – Mr President, I consider this report, which we will vote on later today, to be one of the most important reports that this Parliament will vote on during this session. I say that not because it is in my name, but because of its content and the great deal of hard work that has gone into it. I thank those from the Court, the Commission, those Member States with which I have had dealings and also the secretariat of the Committee on Budgetary Control. Without them this report would not be the document that it is, and I give them heartfelt thanks.

If its recommendations are implemented by the institutions, then the Holy Grail of a positive Statement of Assurance – DAS – will be in sight. However, to get to that point we will need some real commitment and cooperation from the Commission, the Court of Auditors and the Member States.

From paragraph 25 onwards, the report outlines the lack of perfection within the DAS methodology. It makes the point that the money within our accounts can be totally legal and regular but that, at the same time, it can be absolutely wasted. That is one of the main failings of the DAS and why the report’s recommendations encourage the Court to improve upon the changes it has already made.

From the Commission’s point of view, whatever the DAS methodology improvements may be, the Commission and the Member States still need to make changes. The Commissioner must do several things. As with every report this Parliament votes on, we always ask the Commission to do extra things. And apart from such items as implementing a Community internal control framework, we are asking that. Here, however, a contentious matter in certain areas, certainly within the Commission itself, is an issue raised in paragraph 8 and Amendment 4. I would wholeheartedly call on Members to support this amendment, which calls on the Accounting Officer to sign off the Commission accounts. It must be said that until that is agreed, the Commission will always be attacked, and Amendment 4 spells that out quite clearly. I have a lot of respect and regard for Commissioner Kallas and I am encouraged by his positive attitude. I call on him not to let the battle of hierarchies within the directorates-general prevent this from being implemented. It is a key part of these recommendations.

However, whatever we ask the Court and the Commission to do, the positive DAS will not be attainable unless the Member States accept their responsibilities, which include their political responsibilities in the control and management of European Union funds. Paragraph 16 outlines the problems quite clearly. The Disclosure Statement, as described in paragraph 19, shows how the problems can be solved.

This report is trying to anchor the Member States’ responsibilities not only at administrative level but also at a political level. This is, after all, a shared management process. It is about time that the other half of this shared management began taking its responsibilities more seriously. In that context, the report states – near the end of my section – that progress is not possible without Member States’ active participation. That is why the committee and the report, if it is adopted, proposes to invite you, Mr President, in your speech to the next European Council, to address the need to improve Member States’ financial management of funds from the European Union. I hope you can do that.

For me, this report has been a fascinating exercise. It is the culmination of ten years of trying to see a positive Statement of Assurance. Ten years ago I said that there would never be a positive DAS with the systems that were in place, and these included the DAS methodology. Today I can say that if this report is adopted, then I am confident that a positive DAS, that Holy Grail I mentioned before, is certainly within reach.

(Applause)

  Juknevičienė (ALDE), rapporteur. – (LT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, first I would like to thank you for entrusting me to express an opinion on behalf of the Committee on Budgetary Control about a matter which is very important to us all.

Today with our vote on the approval of the European Parliament's 2003 budget we shall give our position. A position as to whether our institution, the European Parliament, is using funds, money given by all the citizens of Europe, our electors, correctly and transparently. I would also like to thank my colleagues who have actively contributed to the preparation of this report with their advice and efforts. They presented their proposals and amendments and participated in discussions. There were discussions in the Committee on Budgetary Control and lively debate in my own political group, the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe. Liberals and democrats have always defended and will continue to defend people's right to truthful information, to openness and transparency, as this is the basis of democracy. We know that openness and transparency are not ends in themselves. They are means of ensuring the efficiency of the institution and, most importantly, its accountability to the people. To those people for whom this institution works. The citizens of Europe are becoming increasingly intolerant of ignorance and a lack of information, and are becoming more demanding of those who they entrusted with their votes, those who they elected to this House. They want the money they have paid to bring surplus value, that is to be used purposefully and effectively.

Let me briefly present my report that is the report approved by the Committee on Budgetary Control. This report differs from previous reports in that 2003 saw the introduction of a new finance management system together with the establishment in the European Parliament of an internal audit system. This is a giant step towards more sound and more transparent budget planning and utilisation.

Thus we would like to congratulate you, Mr President, and the services of the Bureau. Another new development is that from this year onwards the task of approving budget implementation shall be given to the President of the European Parliament, not the Secretariat of the Bureau, as was done previously. In the report attention is mainly devoted to four topics.

Firstly, management, how the main decision makers report, that is the Bureau and Quaestors. Here the rotation principle is proposed.

The second topic is the utilisation of money allocated to political groups. It should be pointed out that certain progress has been achieved in this regard, that is transparency in the utilisation of funds, by publishing information on the web. Areas for improvement, however, are also indicated: in the report it is proposed that political groups should draw up standard annual accounts and declare the utilisation of funds publicly.

Thirdly, payments to Members of Parliament. This is a long-standing debate. Then there are the arguments between institutions and, most importantly, various interpretations and suspicions as regards the non-transparent system. The news that following the accession of the new countries, some Members' salaries are 12 times higher than others’ is an unpleasant fact. I believe this is unfair – we all work in the same European institution and we should be paid the same for doing the same job.

I believe that it is wrong not to account for funds used for general expenditure. Those funds must also be calculated.

Another sensitive topic is our working place in Brussels and Strasbourg. This and how you will vote are matters for your wisdom. I believe that the Constitution is right to state that there are two places for the European Parliament to work. As early as 1952 Jean Monnet said that we want to unite people, not states. The European Parliament is the House in which we work and through which the citizens of Europe may be united. They will only be united if we are open to one another, if we work transparently and ensure the correct utilisation and planning of the European budget.

  Stubb (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – Mr President, I would like to start, much like Mr Wynn, by thanking the secretariats of the Committee on Budgetary Control, the PPE-DE Group and my colleagues for helping to push through this report. I would now like to raise five points in five minutes.

The first point is that the aim of all these reports we are pushing through in the Committee on Budgetary Control is to improve the control environment. Having worked in a national administration myself, I can honestly say that I do not think that the control environment in any national administration is as strict and as tough as that which we have in the European Parliament or in the European Union in general. For example, I could easily find out what kind of wine Commissioner Kallas was drinking at a luncheon on 12 December: that is how much detail we can go into! I therefore find it a little sad that some people in this House are trying to use this report for populist means and are trying to dig up all the dirt. We tried to dig up all the dirt we possibly could and fortunately we did not find very much.

My second point is that the report that I was pushing through dealt with six other ‘institutions’: the Council, the European Court of Justice, the Court of Auditors, the European Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions and the Ombudsman. They all passed with flying colours. I would nevertheless like to make two remarks, the first concerning the Council.

For the first time, we had a structured dialogue with the Council in an informal setting and it worked out quite well. We obtained the information we needed and we can be thankful for that. However, I have a slight word of warning for the future: we are getting to a stage in European integration where external relations, especially the common foreign and security policy, are getting more important. This means that, in future, the CFSP budget of the Council will not only be administrative but also executive. It will be particularly important for us to have a very close look at that when we start building the external relations service, to see how we can control it a little bit better.

My other comment about the institutions relates to the Court of Auditors. A specific personnel case was dealt with there. My approach, and I think the approach of all the major groupings in the House, was not to humiliate the person in question and we wanted, therefore, to keep a low profile on it. We had a very good dialogue with the institution in question and the compromise we have put on the table hopefully satisfies all parties involved.

My third point is that we had a very good dialogue with all the institutions. We obtained the information we needed and it worked out in many ways, but there is one thing I would particularly like to improve on and that is the timing of the report. The Court of Auditors came out with the report five minutes before our committee meeting and then we were supposed to have a discussion on it. It simply does not work. The President of the Court of Auditors comes and gives a 45-minute written statement and it is not necessarily the best way to start the dialogue, so perhaps we could improve on that just a little bit.

Coming to my final two points, the first is that the discussion we had in committee was very constructive and the report as such passed with flying colours. There are not many amendments to the particular report I presented, only three in fact. As rapporteur, I would like to reject them. I do not think that they reflect the discussion we had in the group.

Finally, there should be a fairly good agreement amongst the biggest groups in Parliament on adopting this report. Once again, I would like to thank all those involved in pushing it through.

  Ayala Sender (PSE), rapporteur. – (ES) Mr President, I agree with my colleague Mr Wynn that this year has been truly exciting. We have had immense communication, both with the Commission and, in particular, with the directors of the agencies, who have provided us with all the necessary information throughout the procedure, and also with the Court of Auditors.

The creation of the agencies, which right now are carrying out a series of important actions, such as the regulation or implementation of certain actions or promotion, lead us to ask the question whether there are too many of them or whether there are too many different models for them and whether they are all necessary, although Parliament has been involved in many of them, particularly in terms of demand.

In some ways, this decentralisation of Community actions via its agencies is extremely positive, in that it gives the European Union accessibility, proximity and visibility in the Member States, and also, therefore, better knowledge of its citizens and, in this regard, we propose that the global communication strategy for these agencies be enhanced, and there is also greater speed and capacity for manoeuvre. But we must also acknowledge that there are enormous risks, in the sense that decentralisation may lead to a reduction in the control of budgetary execution or an overlapping of activities with those of the Commission or times when there is a lack of coordination or when national interests are put before the Community interest.

That is why our report calls for specific and in-depth reports from the Commission and a series of proposals and common guidelines to prevent these risks. And we would like these common guidelines to be reflected in the Interinstitutional Agreement and not just to refer to the mechanisms for strengthening control and budgetary responsibility in the execution of budgets, but also to everything affecting the harmonisation of its staff and the application of all the Community rules relating to its staff.

We would also like the Commission to carry out an examination and assessment of the structure in particular, since the regulations are already being reviewed, particularly in view of the European added value of these agencies, in other words essentially their need for European action.

With regard to the Court of Auditors, we have also raised the need for greater coordination to increase transparency in the contradictory procedure prior to its report, because we have found that in the application of the timetable there had been problems at certain times which prevented Parliament from knowing exactly whether or not – and in this case at what point – the problems that had been noted had been improved and whether, in the relationship between the Court and the agencies or the Commission, a positive conclusion had been reached. All of this, of course, depends on a positive statement of assurance.

  Schlyter (Verts/ALE), rapporteur. – (SV) Mr President, I wish firstly to thank everyone involved for the work they have helped us with and the desire for cooperation that has existed among the bodies concerned.

Discharge is not only an issue concerning the correct use of money. It is also about the way in which the objectives of the programmes are achieved and about the way in which efficiency in general is to be obtained. I therefore wish to emphasise the aspect of gender equality. We have an obligation to achieve the goals we have set in terms of equality. I have to say that it is a scandal that only half of the agencies have plans regarding equality. That is something they must correct before next year. Otherwise, I shall not be giving them discharge.

The reforms will proceed more quickly if we introduce thoroughgoing gender equality. Old hierarchical and patriarchal decision-making systems and working methods will be broken down. In the case of almost all organisations, four fifths of the people at the top are at present men and four fifths or more in the lowest positions are women. I have to say that we in the European Parliament are no better. What is more, we now have a situation in many countries in which more women than men embark upon university studies. There needs to be a sound recruiting basis for the purpose of changing the employment situation.

Another issue I wish to address is that of the European Agency for Reconstruction. As is well known, it was one of this agency’s officials that was suspected of helping a company purchase energy infrastructure. This is an example of how a scandal should, in actual fact, be dealt with. The director immediately suspended the official and lost no time in passing the document concerned on to OLAF, which began its investigation quickly and had completed it within ten months. The legal authorities were given the information, and it was possible for the proceedings to begin quickly. Now, we are also waiting for the Commission to complete the disciplinary procedure. If we could deal with scandals in this way and stop keeping things secret or trying to conceal them, our institutions would operate better. This shows how important public scrutiny is. However efficient the Court of Auditors may be, it can never discover everything. If, however, we were to have a principle of transparency, we should have 450 million inhabitants able to monitor what everyone did. That is the best method of preventing fraud and corruption.

  Xenogiannakopoulou (PSE), rapporteur. – (EL) Mr President, I too should like to start by taking my turn to thank our general rapporteur, Terry Wynn, all my honourable friends on the Committee on Budgetary Control and the committee secretariat for their cooperation and support during the preparation of this report.

Development policy is an essential component of the European Union's external action. It is a policy which we all hope will efficiently target the eradication of poverty and the bolstering of social infrastructures, education, health and the local development of the countries which we want to support in their efforts to achieve progress and social prosperity.

The European Development Fund is an important tool for carrying out this policy in the ACP countries. However, it needs to be made more effective through a greater focus on actions aimed at poverty eradication and through better and faster implementation.

According to the Court of Auditors' statement of assurance, the accounts reliably reflect the revenue and expenditure relating to the sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth European Development Funds, which is what we are examining today. The Court of Auditors points out certain problems, mainly in relation to use of the Stabex funds, the funds transferred to the European Investment Bank and not utilised and the amounts payable to the European Development Funds and not included in the balance sheet at 31 December 2003. The European Commission should step up its efforts to address the weaknesses identified in supervisory systems and controls.

One issue which also attracted a great deal of our attention was the responsibilities of the Commissioners and, more importantly, the confusion between the responsibilities of the Commissioner for Development and Humanitarian Aid, who is responsible for the policy of the European Development Fund, and the Commissioner for External Relations, who is responsible for the functioning of EuropeAide. During discussions with Commissioner Michel, who also wrote to us and we thank him for that, he assured us that there would be coordinated cooperation in the Commission on this issue. We thank him for their efforts but, as the Committee on Budgetary Control and as the European Parliament, we shall continue to monitor this issue, so that there are no problems in the future.

Another issue to which particular attention needs to be paid concerns the RAL. A detailed study is needed on the part of the European Commission into the origin of this high level of unspent resources, together with a method to speed up the implementation of these resources, which will also result in the improved implementation of the European Development Fund overall.

The decentralisation of resources to the Commission's representations, which was an ambitious plan and is at the completion stage, is moving in a positive direction and we are optimistic. However, we want an assurance that this procedure, which is under way, will also be accompanied by commensurate controls. This is another issue that we shall continue to monitor with a great deal of interest in the immediate future.

Finally, as far as the integration of the European Development Fund into the Community budget is concerned, the European Parliament has also discussed this issue in the past. The view taken by Parliament is that budgetisation will remove the complications which we presently encounter with the implementation of the European Development Fund and will contribute to better financial management and transparency. However, as the issue of the budgetisation of the EDF is a broader issue which touches on the debate on the new financial perspectives, we reserve Parliament's right to take a final stand on this issue when we take a stand on the new financial perspectives.

With these general comments and taking account of the Court of Auditors' report, I should like to recommend that you give discharge to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth European Development Funds for the financial year 2003.

  Kallas, Vice-President of the Commission. Mr President, the quality of the dialogue for this discharge procedure has been excellent. My fellow Commissioners and I were very happy to participate and I warmly thank the chairman of the Committee on Budgetary Control, Mr Fazakas, for the kind and efficient way he led the proceedings.

I welcome the resolution adopted in the Committee on Budgetary Control, its broad support for the Commission’s efforts and achievements and its very constructive approach. It deals with the core political issue of the Statement of Assurance – DAS.

On behalf of the Commission, I congratulate you once more, Mr Wynn, for having contributed so well to bringing so much progress on the Statement of Assurance in so short a time. You, and the Court of Auditors with its opinion on the ‘Single Audit’, have served an excellent first service. The ball is now in our court and, together with the Council, we will try to return it with both speed and precision. Fortunately, contrary to tennis, this is a game where everybody wins. Indeed, we all win if the four relevant institutions – the Commission, the Council, the Court of Auditors and the European Parliament – are able to agree on a roadmap towards a positive DAS in the near future.

The key element in the roadmap, as in the resolution you are adopting today, will be how Member States can provide reasonable assurance to the Commission that adequate supervisory and control systems are in place. The Commission will present a proposal for a roadmap to a positive DAS before July 2005. I hope and expect that the United Kingdom’s presidency will pick up the proposals and lead trialogue negotiations towards an Interinstitutional Agreement in the autumn. Time presses, as legal changes may be needed, both in the legislative package of the new Financial Perspective and in the Financial Regulation.

Mobilising and motivating the Member States will not be easy and the Commission continues to need your support. We can demonstrate that we are doing our part and are prepared to do it better. For instance, the Commission’s accounting system has been successfully converted and is now fully operational. In addition to this, the previous Commission achieved a great deal through its administrative reform and the Committee on Budgetary Control’s resolution is a welcome recognition of this. However, our roadmap will announce further steps the Commission will take to strengthen the Community control framework.

I am happy to inform you that our roadmap has strong links with another initiative, the ‘transparency’ initiative, the purpose of which is to make more data about EU finances available to a wider section of the Union’s population.

I will not comment on the sectoral sections of the Committee on Budgetary Control’s resolution, although I am prepared to respond to any particular questions you may wish to raise. Nonetheless, I would like to add a few words on the four amendments to the Committee on Budgetary Control’s resolution to be put to your vote.

Firstly, I would welcome your support for the amendments proposed by Mr Casaca to paragraphs 1, 2 and 3. Indeed, the Court of Auditors’ statement that outstanding commitments for the Structural Funds represented ‘five years’ worth’ of spending is misleading, since the Court included commitments to be made until 2006 under the seven-year programming of the Structural Funds. The outstanding commitments were, in fact, less than two and a half years’ spending. This is normal, as spending is intended to continue up to the end of 2008 and the final payment is due in 2010. It is therefore incorrect to conclude that the programme was not well managed or that funds will remain unused. I hope you will be able to correct this important point today.

Secondly, I would like to comment briefly on the amendment relating to the role of the accounting officer. What is my answer today? Firstly, that we will take this very seriously. I have had numerous meetings at different levels and with various well-known critics of the Commission’s accounting system. We consider this a very important issue and one of the key elements in our roadmap.

We are studying the implication of the proposal for the accountant to sign off the accounts. We welcome the fact that Parliament has raised this issue and we will come back with specific proposals. You are right: there are supporters and opponents of the views presented in Parliament’s amendment. In my view, there are many questions of this kind where we can say that the matter lies in the details or beyond the details. The main question, in my view, is how to guarantee the right balance between policy-making and financial or fiscal management. Contradictions arise here between the view that the units and directorates-general are responsible for policy-making and the concern that this approach should be balanced so that the financial management will support this policy-making and not interfere with it. It is clear to me, therefore, that this would be one of the most important points and I promise that we do not underestimate this issue but take it very seriously.

I would now like to add a few words on the specific discharges related to the European Development Fund – EDF – and the Agencies. As regards the EDF, I would like first of all to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Xenogiannakopoulou, for a good report and for her open and constructive attitude during the discharge procedure. The Commission was, of course, pleased that the Court was able to give a positive DAS for the EDF.

The report contains recommendations on many important issues. The Commission will follow up these recommendations in the months to come, but I can say already that we are in agreement on the main issues. We will, of course, keep Parliament informed on developments relating to the new accounting system, budgetary support and devolution.

Finally, let me thank Parliament once more for its support for the Commission’s proposal to budgetise the EDF. We believe this is a one-off opportunity to achieve better, simpler and more efficient implementation of the EDF, which will be of great benefit for the ACP countries.

As regards the Agencies, I would also like to congratulate Mrs Ayala Sender and Mr Schlyter. The Agencies are autonomous bodies and it is the directors of the Agencies, not the Commission, that receive discharge from the European Parliament. However, since all the 14 Agencies concerned by the 2003 discharge receive grants charged to the general budget, the Commission notes with satisfaction that Parliament proposes to give discharge to the directors of all 14 Agencies for the financial year 2003.

The Commission will continue to do its utmost to provide all necessary assistance to the Agencies in the future, in particular as regards budgetary, financial and accounting issues. Moreover, within its area of responsibility, the Commission will follow up the requests addressed to it by Parliament in the discharge resolutions for the Agencies.

I will conclude by encouraging Parliament to support the Committee on Budgetary Control’s proposals. I can assure you that the Commission will forward the recommendations upon which you will decide. Finally, it is a unique opportunity for all institutions to go ahead with creating more trust in European institutions. We must escape from under the shadow of suspicions, the shadow of the collapse of a certain Commission several years ago, and reassure citizens that we deal with all matters, including wrongdoing, in the proper way, so that we can create for the European institutions a reputation for reliability.

(Applause)

  Budreikaitė (ALDE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Development. – (LT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. In evaluating the utilisation of the general budget for 2003, it can be said that much effort has been made in terms of the implementation of development policy, in particular in striving for the Millennium Development Goals. The European Commission has improved its accounting system and has established ten basic indicators to evaluate the implementation of the Millennium Development Goals. We believe, however, that the Commission is not giving enough attention or support to the European Union candidate countries, which became Members ill-prepared to implement the European Union's development policy. This shortfall must be eliminated, by devoting attention and resources to education about development in the new Member States and by encouraging old and new Members to exchange experiences.

As the next stage of expansion nears with Bulgaria, Romania and Croatia preparing to become EU Members, it is necessary to pay proper attention to development policy obligations. When evaluating the implementation of the budget of the sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth European Development Funds for 2003, it must be stressed that the Commission did not manage to introduce suitable procedures for evaluating Community aid. The decentralisation of the Commission's representatives in Western countries is not supported by organisational means, it remains necessary to improve management and decision-making efficiency control. The way budget aid is rendered facilitates the work of the Commission, but in the absence of a suitable control mechanism, does not realistically encourage the governments of the countries receiving aid to be accountable to their citizens and this allows the implementation of an uncoordinated development policy. For example, the exhaustion of natural resources through deforestation driven by consumer demand.

With the new financial outlook the ‘budgetisation’ of the European Development Fund would only facilitate aid management, however like budget aid, this in itself would not guarantee aid efficiency.

Thus effort is required to further improve management and control instruments.

  Haug (PSE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety is not happy, but largely satisfied with the implementation of the 2003 budget in the sphere of the environment, public health and food safety. While noting the Commission’s intention to improve the implementation cycle of multi-annual programmes, we do want it to target its invitations to tender more and to give applicants rather more intensive support.

The Commission must, however, stop justifying dilatory implementation by reference to the new administrative and financial provisions. It is a defence that we will no longer accept in future. We believe that the European Environment Agency, the Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products and the Food Safety Authority have worked well and intelligently, and we expect more of the same in future.

  Deprez (ALDE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs. – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, I would first of all like to express my pleasure at the progress that was made in 2003 in the implementation of the budget in the area of freedom, security and justice, even though the payment implementation level was still much too low. I would, however, like to draw attention to the remarks made by the Court of Auditors concerning the use of European Refugee Fund credits.

More generally, I would like to stress that the development of shared management between the Commission and the Member States in budget matters will require the latter to make serious additional efforts. In this respect, I agree with our rapporteur, Mr Wynn, when he writes in paragraph 104 of his report that the European Parliament deplores the failure of some Member States to control and manage taxpayers' money for which they are responsible, and points to the hypocrisy of some Member States in blaming the Commission for failing to control expenditure for which those Member States are responsible.

  Busuttil, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (MT) I am going to speak on the general report and I shall start by offering my compliments to Commissioner Kallas for the correct way he has set about doing his job, both as regards his responsibility as well as for the way he collaborates with us in the European Parliament. However I would like to inform the Commissioner from the start, that this year we are perhaps being too soft in his regard also because this is his first year in office and it is difficult to blame him for something which was done by his predecessors. In the general budget report, we are making a favourable recommendation. This does not mean that we are satisfied about everything. On the contrary. We think that there is still much more to do in order to have stricter controls in the budget of the European Union. After all, here, we are not talking about funds which have fallen down from the sky but about funds which come from people's taxes. In this year’s general report we are saying that the DAS system should be reformed so that it would no longer remain a frustrating target that can never be reached. But we are also making a strong emphasis on the controls being made not so much at a European level but at a national level.

There is the need for national authorities to give a more detailed account of how the funds of the European Union are being spent, when these are spent in different countries or in different regions. I am much afraid that when making use of the European Union’s funds, the governments are not being serious enough in the controls that they are carrying out. It is not right that while the national authorities take great care when spending national financial resources, they do not take equally great care when they spend money passed on to them by the European Union.

National authorities should therefore realise that if they will not introduce the necessary controls they will be risking losing the funds. On our part we are making a series of clear and detailed recommendations in our report to ensure that the money which is spent at national level is spent in a serious way and with all the necessary controls. We are also reminding the Commission that even when European funds are spent by national authorities, it still cannot shirk all responsibility. After all, it is the Commission that is still responsible for the budget. Thank you.

  Fazakas, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (HU) Mr President, I would like to use the short time allocated to me by the Socialist Group in the European Parliament in my capacity as Chairman of the Committee on Budgetary Control to thank the rapporteur and all the members of the Committee and its secretariat for their unstinting hard work, the result of which we are now able to debate.

The present discharge procedure differs from earlier ones in two respects. On the one hand this is the first occasion where representatives of the new Member States were able to participate actively in the work and were thus able to get firsthand experience in one of the European Parliament’s most important activities. I mean this not only from an accounting point of view, but also in terms of the politics affecting Europe’s current and future operation. The other, even more important change, is that this year, building on the experience and renown of the rapporteur Terence Wynn, we reformed the procedure itself, doing away with the earlier written question-and-response format and instead generating direct dialogue with the Commission, the relevant institutions and the European Court of Auditors.

We were pleased to find that this reform was positively received by all parties concerned. We both came to the conclusion that through such a reform, the discharge procedure would no longer be viewed as something of a nightmare, but as a joint task for Parliament, the Commission and the Court of Auditors with the aim of ensuring that the EU operates better, more efficiently and more transparently in the eyes of the public. I would especially like to thank Commissioner Siim Kallas, who is here today, and Mr Hubert Weber, President of the European Court of Auditors, for their contribution to our work, and I look forward to working with them again in the future in this important field.

  Mulder, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (NL) Mr President, I should first of all like to congratulate the rapporteurs, more specifically Mr Wynn and Mrs Juknevičienė from our group. I think it must have been a particular delight for Mr Wynn to be a rapporteur for the discharge after having been on the Committee on Budgets for so many years.

Although we have a new Commission and we cannot hold this Commission responsible for the events in 2003, we still need to learn from everything that has happened during that year. Given that the most striking thing is that there is once again no positive Statement of Assurance (DAS), I welcome the Commissioner’s statement this morning that he intends to present us, by July this year, with a proposal for a roadmap of some kind towards a positive DAS, which is of crucial importance. It is also essential to have in-depth discussions with the Court of Auditors in order to establish in what way we can get one, because it is unacceptable for the Court of Auditors to keep changing the rules of the game throughout the whole period. We have to know how a positive DAS can be achieved. Public opinion demands that we join with this new Commission and this new Commissioner in order finally to achieve a positive DAS.

The responsibility lies with the Member States. One of the paragraphs in the resolution stipulating that in the Member States, the person with the highest political responsibility must stand surety for European money being spent wisely, represents an important new departure in the entire discussion with the Member States. As the Council of Finance Ministers set great store, in any case, by economic policy and related matters, I hope they will adopt it.

One final word for my colleague, Mrs Juknevičienė. It is very admirable that someone from a new Member State should draft such a thorough report. I hope that the amendments will be adopted.

  Staes, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (NL) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I will confine my speech to the discharge of the European Parliament, as other colleagues will be dealing with the other reports. We should be able to say it here too: Parliament’s budget is in good shape. Enormous efforts are being made by our Administration under the leadership of Secretary-General Priestley to manage Parliament’s budget correctly, and they deserve our appreciation.

I should nevertheless like to mention two bottlenecks, namely the fact that we are operating from three locations and the voluntary pension fund. Our working from three locations, namely Brussels, Luxembourg and Strasbourg, is in fact required of us by the EU Treaty. That is already costing us, as taxpayers, more than EUR 200 million a year. Apart from the money aspect, there is also the time factor, which we can no longer justify to our electorate. During previous discharge procedures, we asked the Convention to delete this article in the Treaty from the Constitution, but without success. We, the new Parliament, should therefore make it quite clear that we disapprove of this situation and can no longer accept it.

I should also like to draw your attention to the paragraphs in the report on the European Parliament’s discharge relating to the voluntary pension fund. There is obviously ambiguity surrounding the responsibility of this House and the participants in this voluntary pension fund. As long as nearly ten years ago, Parliament made up a shortfall of EUR 9 million. Although it was decided then that a clear line should be drawn between this voluntary pension fund and the European Parliament’s official bodies, a twilight area continued to exist. This pension fund is going from bad to worse. There is already a shortage to the tune of EUR 42 million. We should therefore stress that the European budget, this Parliament’s budget, should not under any circumstances be used to plug this hole. It would be unethical and irresponsible. Taxpayers’ money may not be used to fill a deficit of EUR 42 million in a voluntary pension fund. I thank you for your attention and hope, above all, that we can, when we vote, ensure that these arrangements are in place.

  Lundgren, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – (SV) Mr President, Mr Wynn has done a brilliant job, as has, for example, his fellow rapporteur Mr Schlyter.

Our parliamentary monitoring system is inadequate, however. The EU has very little standing and legitimacy in the eyes of Europeans, and understandably so. The key words that come to mind in the case of an ordinary European are control from the top, Establishment thinking, waste and corruption. Why are things that way? Evidently, institutional control via the Court of Auditors, OLAF and the Committee on Budgetary Control is not enough. It is not working. Our system continues to be full of irregularities and corruption. Nor, evidently, do freedom of expression, democratic debate, investigative journalism and other such external controls operate. They are not enough. What is required? What, also, are required are what we usually call whistle blowers. Throughout the EU’s machinery and in all bodies and at all levels, officials are required who are loyal not to their superiors but to European citizens and taxpayers.

We have had well-known whistle blowers, discussed all over the world: van Buitenen, Mart Andreasen, Hans-Peter Martin etc. The list is long. What has happened to those who have revealed fraud in the system and directed attention to it? Normally, they have lost their jobs. Now, we have another example of a case like this in the Committee of the Regions. I would therefore request Parliament to support our Amendment 2 to Title VII, paragraph 12, tabled by Mr Titford, Mr Bonde and myself. All this must be put a stop to.

  Camre, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (DA) Mr President, we have here a number of very thorough and very perceptive reports for which I would like to thank the rapporteurs, notwithstanding the fact that in a number of cases I can only express wonder that, after such striking and precise criticism of entirely unacceptable states of affairs, they end by recommending discharge – in other words, release from liability for the administration.

I must emphasise that it is not of course Mr Kallas’s fault. We are talking about something that happened in the past, before this Commission. The fact that we are holding others responsible for the past actually distances us somewhat from the matter.

Mr Wynn writes that he finds it disappointing that the Court of Auditors ‘has no reasonable assurance that the supervisory systems and controls of significant areas of the budget are effectively implemented so as to manage the risks concerning the legality and regularity of the underlying operations’. In other words, we again have no positive Statement of Assurance. We have discussed this problem time and time again over the years. We know all too well that there are many different countries with different administrative cultures, but, when it comes down to it, the problems are due to the fact that the legislation drawn up is inappropriate and often does not even achieve the specified aims. On the contrary, the procedure is based on a method that encourages fraud and evasion, and the failure to comply with the budget is in many areas an expression of the fact that the intended policy is not being implemented.

Moreover, we still do not have a modern, acceptable accounting system in a number of areas – that was what Mrs Andreasen was fired for pointing out some time ago – and the conditions for this are still not in place.

When I read the report, I could not help but think of the libretto of Andrew Lloyd Webber’s opera Evita, which is about Evita Peron, wife of the deceased Argentinean president, General Peron. Talking about a charitable foundation she had established, the lyrics say: ‘A little of the cash has gone astray’. It is a bit like that in the EU. The opera’s lyrics also include the words: ‘When the money keeps rolling out, you don’t keep books’. That was in Argentina in the 1950s, but now it is the EU in 2005. It would never be acceptable in the national states, and it ought not to be acceptable here, either. That is why I am going to vote against the budgetary discharge in certain cases, but in favour of a number of the very sensible amendments.

  Martin, Hans-Peter (NI). – (DE) Mr President, please allow me to concentrate in this debate on the issues relating to this House and to start by yet again pointing out how dire are the consequences of the gentlemen’s agreement between the Council and Parliament not to check up on each other, in that we see in this House a constant striving for ‘more’. That is apparent when we look back at 2003, but particularly so when we look into the future. I find it very regrettable that Mrs Juknevičienė’s report was further diluted in committee; we have less control over travel expenses than we otherwise might, and we are being presented with new openings as regards pension provision and the gold-plated supplementary pensions for MEPs. In the form of the Liberal Group’s important amendments, an attempt is now being made to curb that, but these deal only with the formalities involved in paying these pensions rather than with the scandal that the system represents.

Rather than at last learning something from the situation in which we find ourselves, we again, yesterday, had the spooky experience of the Committee on Budgets discussing what we are going to do with the EUR 90 million to which this House will have access in 2006, with nobody being quite sure what the money is going to be spent on. Although someone resurrected the idea of setting up a television channel for broadcasting this House’s debates, the best way of investing these EUR 90 million in an information campaign would be to give it all back to the taxpayers. That way, we would be sure of favourable coverage, and no more of these resources would need to be wasted.

  Pomés Ruiz (PPE-DE). – (ES) Mr President, I would like to greet Terry Wynn and congratulate him on the excellent work he has done on his report. He has demonstrated his experience and he has used it to ensure that our Committee could work much better this time than in previous years. I agree with him that it is scandalous to hear once again from the Court of Auditors that the accounts of our institution, of the European Union, are not reliable. This is a procedural problem and all of us here agree that the system must be changed so that we may finally see the Holy Grail; a positive discharge of our accounts. There is a fundamental problem: the immense number of controls that make spending inefficient.

As Alexander Stubb, who has had control responsibilities in Finland, as I have in Spain, has said, there are greater controls in the European Union than there are in the Member States or in other institutions. And inevitably ever greater controls only mean that spending is less efficient, that opportunities are missed, that officials do not want to take any responsibility and efficiency is reduced. We shall have to see how much control we want. The public interest does not necessarily benefit because cars travel at 20 km per hour in order to prevent accidents. We shall therefore have to see how we can promote initiative and put more thought into efficiency than into controls.

With regard to the report on the accounts of the European Parliament, I would like to thank the rapporteur for his work and I would like to say that we Members of the European Parliament effectively have hardly any say over our Statute. We cannot decide where we want to meet nor where we do not want to meet. We are hostages to the decisions of the Council, and it is now time for it to take them. But there is no question that, until it does so, it is better not to touch anything and to leave things as they are.

We need a Statute providing for the same fiscal treatment for everybody, and we must not forget that this argument is a substantial element of our Statute and is the way forward.

Thank you very much for the two extra seconds you have allowed me, Mr President.

IN THE CHAIR: MR McMILLAN-SCOTT
Vice-President

  Mastenbroek (PSE). – Mr President, I thank the rapporteur, Ona Juknevičienė, for her excellent work on Parliament’s discharge, which is an important one. The rapporteur pointed out that the report has been the subject of lively debate in the ALDE Group. I can say that the same applies to my own Group. If these discussions prove anything it is the need for a single Members’ Statute, which would solve many of the problems discussed in this discharge. Therefore I call on the Council to reach a compromise. Parliament has already done so.

I should like to focus attention on two separate issues. Firstly, the amendments concerning the voluntary pension fund and in particular the estimated deficit have led to much discussion among my colleagues. The majority of my Group has decided not to support the extra amendments put forward, but instead to support the critical text already in the report. I, however, support these amendments, as will the rest of my delegation. Again, I ask my colleagues to do the same.

The second issue is the need for a single working place for this House. In my view this issue reaches to the core of Parliament’s credibility. The amount of public funds spent annually on this dispersion to multiple working places is immense and the general public neither understands nor supports this inefficient way of working. I believe that we need a single seat. I also believe that Brussels would be the most logical choice as the other institutions are already based there. However, I recognise the historic value of Strasbourg and I understand the value of this Parliament to the city. Therefore I call on the Council and the Commission to offer the city a high-level alternative for the future, on which I have some ideas.

Commission President Barroso has expressed ideas on the need for a European institute for technology as a part of the Lisbon Agenda. I support that idea and this building would be perfect for a high-level university and technological research centre where Europe’s best and brightest could be assembled for the ambitious future of this Union, instead of its troubled past. Therefore I call on this House to support the amendments. I call on the Council to take them seriously and solve this issue once and for all.

  Davies (ALDE). – Mr President, Parliament grows in authority, but allows its reputation and that of its Members to be dragged through the mire by its failure to ensure that arrangements are put in place for the payment of expenses and allowances that are of a kind that would be expected in any private business. I recognise that some of the problems in securing reform come from the unjust arrangements for the payment of Members’ salaries, but that cannot excuse the fact that at this time there are no arrangements in place for the auditing of Members’ general expenditure allowances. As things stand, it is possible for those who belong to the voluntary pension funds to allow their private contributions to be met out of public funds, without making reimbursement.

Such a practice, if it occurs, would be wholly indefensible. It would amount to embezzlement of public funds. All of us are tarnished by the suggestion – and perhaps the reality – of such practices. We should today take the opportunity to vote for reform and transparency. We should take the initiative and ensure that this House sets high standards for the whole of Europe. We should not wait for changes to be forced upon us by the pressure of public scandal.

  Van Buitenen (Verts/ALE). – (NL) Mr President, the Commission’s Internal Auditor does not know whether the accounts are complete or correct. The accounting system does not automatically include all the facts and figures. The Internal Auditor’s department literally says that interested parties do not know whether the Commission’s figures reflect reality. Parliament has not gained any access to the important information required if it is to give discharge; there was only a summary of the original report by the former Internal Auditor, Jules Muis. Mr Muis left the Commission on 1 April 2004. His recommendations fell on deaf ears. Even the chef de cabinet warned Mr Muis, telling him: ‘We know how to break people like you’. The final report by the Internal Audit Service on Eurostat was made available to only three Members of this House for their inspection; as only one of them was re-elected, only one Member has access now.

The Committee on Budgetary Control does not accept this revenue and expenditure account, because the figures have not been signed off by the person responsible for doing so. In any other business, this would mean that this revenue and expenditure account could not be used as a basis for a discharge. Mr Wynn was right in identifying this shortcoming and we, as representatives of the people, now have the duty to postpone the grant of discharge until such time as the person responsible has summoned up the nerve to add his signature. The person responsible for this in 2002, Mrs Andreasen, has just filed a petition to Parliament on this very subject. Although her petition is admissible, Parliament has so far refused to hear her. The Court of Auditors is equally doubtful of the effect of the controls within the Commission’s accounting system and of the legitimacy of expenditure for each Member State.

My endorsement of Mr Stubb’s report will depend on whether the amendments of the Independence and Democracy Group with regard to the Committee on the Regions are adopted. The former Internal Auditor and now unfortunately whistleblower, Robert McCoy, did his duty as auditor, but was destroyed. He did not fall to his knees before Parliament, which was a condition for discharge. In addition, in one of the amendments tabled by the Independence and Democracy Group, it is stated, and rightly, that OLAF failed to submit its enquiry report to the Belgian courts. Once again, the whistleblower was prevented from giving his side of the story in the Committee on Budgetary Control. In view of how Mrs Andreasen, Mr Muis and Mr McCoy, and all the others I have not mentioned, have been treated, can we grant discharge on behalf of the citizens as a matter of course?

  Bloom (IND/DEM). – Mr President, this parliamentary Committee on Budgetary Control has attempted not only to brush under the carpet serious allegations of financial discrepancies at the Committee of the Regions, but also to wash its hands, like Pontius Pilate, over yet another whistleblower left to face appalling and unjust treatment for being brave enough to tell the truth. It beggars belief that Mr Stubb could have drawn up any report, let alone one of such a sensitive nature, without making sure he interviewed all the key players. Yet it seems he could not, or would not, see the Committee of the Regions’ former Internal Auditor.

On the back of this shocking disregard, it is little surprise that Mr Stubb’s report contains so many howlers. The original draft claimed that the then Internal Auditor had not been subject to an internal inquiry, when the Committee of the Regions’ Secretary-General had admitted in writing that he had been. Mr Stubb claims that: ‘... none of the officials who were the subject of the administrative inquiry has been promoted since the completion of the report’. However, he omits to mention that several of them were allegedly put forward for promotion. Most nauseatingly, the report states that the former Internal Auditor was assured that he had ‘the full support and cooperation of both CoR members and staff’. That man has since been locked out of his office and hounded out of his job for telling the truth. Mr Stubb’s report is rotten to the core, just like the EU institutions it represents.

  Mote (NI). – Mr President, the Committee on Budgetary Control on which I sit does not budget in any meaningful sense and shows very little control. I would just like to remind this House of some of the fundamentals. The European Union’s income comes in an endless stream: percentages of VAT, customs duty and GDP from the Member States. There is no means of stopping this flood of cash and no means of returning it either. If this were an elected government as opposed to a bureaucracy, the very use of this vast sum of money, let alone its distribution, would be far more critically analysed, and accountable democracy demands that surpluses be refunded by the reduction in taxation.

According to the Court of Auditors, the EU has lost some EUR 600 billion over the time since the UK joined, which is more than four times the total net contribution my country has made to this place. Nothing will adequately deal with these problems until and unless the Member States themselves independently set up a genuinely separate, full auditing procedure over the management of all EU funds. The Member States are the paymasters.

  Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (PPE-DE). – (EL) Mr President, I should like to start by congratulating the rapporteurs, because they have done a careful and systematic job, taking account of the positions and comments of the members of our committee, which has resulted in a broadly acceptable text. The competent parliamentary committee therefore proposes discharge for all the agencies. However, the comments it has formulated require examination, because they will be useful for the policy of the European Commission in respect of these agencies and to the agencies themselves in their daily management.

We all agree that the agencies must have suitable financial resources, so that they can function, and that their objective must be transparency, efficiency and added value to the work of the central institutions of the European Union. That is why the Committee on Budgetary Control, apart from specific comments on certain agencies, expressed its views on a framework of management rules based on common, harmonised guidelines, which will emerge following substantive dialogue with the European Commission.

We believe that it would be exceptionally useful if a more careful study were carried out of synergies between the actions of certain agencies and the action of certain sections or directorates of the European Commission. We believe there should be better communication and cooperation, so that, instead of overlapping objectives and work, we have complementarity and enhanced European added value.

We agree with the rapporteurs' views that, in certain agencies, there needs to be better utilisation of human resources, together with systematic information on the need to apply equality in the agencies. They must set an example for our action and policies on gender equality.

Finally, as they are decentralised, the agencies have an excellent opportunity to get close to the citizens and their actions must also be visible in the Member States in which they are established.

  Casaca (PSE). – (PT) Mr President, I too should like to join in the tributes paid to all the rapporteurs, but I wish to highlight, if I may, the role played by the rapporteurs from the Socialist Group, especially our colleague Mr Wynn, whose outstanding work will undoubtedly define the discharge process between now and the end of this mandate. I also wish to mention our colleagues Mrs Ayala Sender and Mrs Xenogiannakopoulou who, along with our chairman Mr Fazakas, have formed a team in which the socialists have come to the fore and can have great pride in their work.

I should also like to congratulate you, Commissioner, on your excellent speech, and on the clarity with which you addressed the issues arising from the discharge. I must say to you, however, that I am not particularly interested to know which wine you drank on 12 December, based on a note presented by Mr Stubb, but I am certainly very interested to know which companies were funded by export subsidies and pastry subsidies from the Community budget to dispose of 30 000 tonnes of adulterated butter. The problem is that, after six years, the Commission still tells me that it cannot disclose such confidential data, and that Members of Parliament and the European public do not have access to this information. This strikes me as the biggest problem that we face.

  Schlyter (Verts/ALE). – (SV) Mr President, most languages have proverbs to the effect that people should put their own houses in order before requiring others to do so.

It is therefore important for us to get our benefits in order. Travel allowances are emphatically not there for the purpose of adjusting incomes. Rather, they are straightforward travel expenses that should be paid out on the basis of actual costs. If we want to adjust salaries, we need an extra budgetary item which is publicly accounted for. My colleague, Mr Staes, explained the problems involving the pension fund or supplementary pension. It should be self-funded, with the deficits covered by those who are in the scheme. It is unfair that taxpayers should shoulder the loss when share speculation goes wrong and that those who are in the scheme should take the profit in the event of successful speculation.

Our ordinary travel allowances are generous. People wishing to claim the full amount should account for how they have used it. Those who cannot do so should receive a lower refund. Certainly, it takes time to account for expenses, but it is time well spent if it leads to increased credibility for Parliament. In the election campaign, I discovered that the publicly available web site no longer contained information about the rules governing our benefits. Since it is not secret, this information should be published there immediately. This is an area subject to voters’ most frequent questions. I hope that the rapporteur’s Amendment 6 and the other amendments that strengthen the wording are supported.

  Fjellner (PPE-DE). – (SV) Mr President, there is a lot I should like to emphasise in connection with the matter we are now to address, namely discharge for the 2003 budget. This includes shortcomings in the accounting system, the Member States’ unwillingness to claim back funds paid out in error, the European Development Fund and excessive travel allowances paid to MEPs. In view of the limited time I have to speak, I wish, however, to focus upon a smaller but, in terms of principle, important part of the EU budget, and one that is quite incomprehensible from our citizens’ point of view: the subsidies for tobacco cultivation.

Every year, European taxpayers are forced to pay out close to SEK 10 billion in subsidies for tobacco cultivation. That is a terrible waste and a quite disgusting way of dealing with people’s tax money. To cap it all, the tobacco subsidised by the EU is of such very poor quality that no European manufacturers want to use it. Instead, this very same tobacco is used to drive tobacco manufacturers in poor countries out of business.

The subsidies for tobacco cultivation are no less bizarre in view of the fact that the Commission has now launched an anti-smoking campaign estimated to cost SEK 700 million. May I say that this is the height of hypocrisy. In debating the Commission’s discharge, Parliament can make it clear that tobacco subsidies must be abolished. With his casting vote in the Committee on Budgetary Control, the June List’s Mr Lundgren has, unfortunately, ensured that we now have a parliamentary situation in which the European Parliament is supposed to defend the most shameful agricultural subsidies. I appreciate the fact that Mr Lundgren stated publicly yesterday that he had made a mistake. The only problem is that the damage has already been done. It remains the case that, despite the fact that, before the elections for the European Parliament, the June List promised to work towards phasing out tobacco subsidies, the most abiding result to date of that self-same June List having been elected to Parliament is its having contributed to ensuring the very survival of the tobacco subsidies.

I hope and believe that, in plenary, Parliament will do everything it can to correct Mr Lundgren’s gaffe and vote in favour of an opinion stating that Parliament wants to see tobacco subsidies abolished.

  Bösch (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, Mr Wynn, the general rapporteur, has touched on something fundamental in the shape of the issue of the Member States’ share in responsibility. We know that, of the funds in the European Budget, some 80% flow out via the Member States. Another aspect I want to touch on here is one that has come to light in a report just published by the Court of Auditors.

Between 1971 and September 2004, irregularities in the agricultural sector totalled some EUR 3.1 billion; 30 years on, some 20.2% have been collected from the recipients of funding, while 5% had to be borne by EAGGF, and EUR 144 million by the Member States. EUR 2.2 billion, equivalent to 70%, are still outstanding and will not be recovered. It follows from this that the Member States are quite simply paying too little attention to the European Budget and to the money that flows back to them via Europe. I am not entirely sure whether a statement by the finance ministers is the most appropriate way to deal with this.

The Committee on Budgetary Control, and this House too, have had some success in getting what is termed the n+2 rule introduced into the Structural Funds. The introduction of a similar rule for the recovery of funds will end up being inevitable.

  Ferber (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking the rapporteurs for the discharge reports that have been presented, which show that this House takes very seriously the scrutiny of whether the extensive funds, nearly 95% of which are disbursed in the form of subsidies – which itself shows what is problematic about the EU Budget – are actually properly utilised. I very much want to thank Mr Wynn, who has come up with a range of workable proposals, and I can do no other than urge you, Commissioner, to act on them. Your predecessor was a great one for announcing things, but when I see what she promised to implement as long ago as 2000 and set it against what you have to get through, Commissioner Kallas, what becomes clear to me is that there is still room for improvement here.

If I may take a very practical example, something had to be done about the accounting system even before Commissioner Schreyer took office, and it is to you that the honour now falls of actually doing it. I hope you will waste no time in doing so. The report gives good guidance as to how to go about it.

The purpose of the discharge reports is not, however, to make statements on every conceivable problem. I am also addressing my fellow-Members in this group when I say that, where the Tobacco Regulation is concerned, our job is not to examine the legality or otherwise of paying bonuses, but rather whether they have all been paid in a lawful manner. Those are the ground rules, whether we like them or not.

Turning to the discharge of this House, I do not know whether it is the greatest problem in the world whether people do or do not smoke in individual offices. It does not affect the Budget and must therefore be sorted out elsewhere, so let us concentrate on things that really do have to do with the budget and with money and its disappearance, things about which Mr Bösch has had something to say and where there is much to be done. The President is about to cut me off, so I will now finish by saying ‘thank you’ to the rapporteurs.

  dos Santos (PSE). – (PT) Mr President, I have three very brief points to make. Firstly, I agree entirely with the annual Statement of Assurance submitted by the Member States, given that this statement fully embodies the principle of shared management, already duly defined.

My second comment concerns own resources. I also agree with the observation made in Mr Wynn’s report on this matter, namely that the Commission should be concerned with the benchmarking criteria and national accounting calculations of each Member State.

My third and final observation concerns the issue of how to disclose any technical irregularities to the general public, thereby giving people the idea that irregularities and fraud do take place in the implementation of Community funds.

To conclude, I should like to make one final point. I endorse the implementation of the budget by the agencies, although I regret that no mention was made of the Maritime Safety Agency, and more specifically to the process of putting this agency in place.

  Elles (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I also wish to congratulate our rapporteurs, in particular Mr Wynn, on their reports on the budgetary discharges. I remember that the first one Mr Wynn produced in 1994, and my own in 1996, produced a different type of debate on discharges than the one we are having today.

Undoubtedly, as Mr Wynn has indicated to us, should the recommendations of his report be accepted and implemented then we would see a significant step towards getting the Statement of Assurance – DAS – which most of us in this House want. This would give greater credibility to management of funds by European institutions. This means greater responsibilities will have to be taken by all concerned, including responsibilities for the Chief Accounting Officer to sign off the accounts. The Commissioner has shown that he wants to go that way, but I strongly urge that Amendment 4 be adopted. We need Commissioners to take individual responsibility for ensuring directorates-general effectively manage the funds under their responsibilities. We also need to ensure that whistleblowers are properly protected should they wish to come forward with information about the operation of Community policies.

Above all, we need implementation with regard to the issue of shared management that Marta Andreasen mentioned. Shared management is no management unless there is a proper internal control framework to ensure that monies are properly accounted for in Member States. That is why we as Conservatives strongly support the move towards the greater involvement of Member States in the way in which things should be done.

In conclusion, we welcome very strongly the idea of having proposals by July, with a view to having an interinstitutional agreement by the end of this year. However, they are still just intentions and, therefore, Conservatives will be voting against discharge because, for the tenth year running, we note that there is no positive Statement of Assurance available.

  Mathieu (PPE-DE). – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I think we need to remind ourselves what a discharge is. A discharge must allow us to say that the European budget has been properly implemented and to guarantee the reliability of the accounts and the legality and regularity of the transactions. A discharge must also allow us to assess the progress made in implementing the recommendations contained in the previous discharge.

I must therefore express my surprise as to the substance and form of this report, especially the European Parliament section. I do not understand the highly disagreeable tone taken by the rapporteur and the authors of certain amendments concerning all the Members of this Institution. The list of criticisms in fact implies a kind of dishonesty, and I absolutely will not endorse it. I do not think you can heap opprobrium on the Members of the European Parliament in this way. I would like to add that it is inconceivable that we should change the current rules on allowances until we have a single Statute for Members of the European Parliament. Incidentally, is this discharge the right place to talk about the use of tobacco and cigarettes on our premises? It is totally off-subject, though I grant it is a real problem.

Finally, and in particular, what can I say about the calling into question, once again, of the European Parliament’s seat in Strasbourg? May I first of all remind you that, contrary to what the report before us today says about it, Parliament is not competent in the matter. Apart from the 1992 Edinburgh European Council, which decided by unanimous vote of the Heads of State or Government that the European Parliament’s seat should be in Strasbourg for political reasons, that decision was also set forth in Protocol No 12 to the Treaty of Amsterdam so that it could be guaranteed by the Treaties.

A year ago, a similar proposal was made to abolish Parliament’s seat in Strasbourg and transfer completely to Brussels, and the Members of the European Parliament in their great wisdom rejected that proposal in plenary session; moreover, the members of the Convention pointed this out when discussing the Constitutional Treaty. The opponents of Strasbourg must not be allowed to use the 2003 discharge to make a renewed attempt to change Parliament’s seat. This question is off-subject and outside our legal competence.

  Morgan (PSE). – Mr President, I was responsible for the Committee on Regional Development’s opinion on this discharge. The Court of Auditors gave a relatively clean bill of health to the internal organisation administration of the structural funds, but that was not the case in relation to the Member States.

One of the fundamental problems we have with the whole system is that of shared responsibility. When the Member States fail, the Commission gets the blame. Until we sort out that issue we will not get very far. Therefore I suggested that we should not agree to sign the interinstitutional agreement until the Member States agree to sign annual statements of assurance. I am sorry that some of the other parties did not agree to pre-empt that situation in this report. I hope they will show more backbone when it comes to the interinstitutional agreement.

It is also important that we have more preventive measures in order to stop fraud and mismanagement. It is essential that the Commission use the Court of Auditors a bit more in terms of giving opinion on the development of policy. Will the Commissioner give a commitment to ensure that, in future, there is a systematic policy of asking the Court of Auditors for its advice during the development of policy? There is a real opportunity now, in particular with the new seven-year programmes coming up.

  Kallas, Vice-President of the Commission. Mr President, I would like to thank you all for these contributions and for the very constructive and good mood in which you are discussing what could be termed not so attractive issues. These issues become more unattractive when something is going wrong, and so if we can approach this work in a positive way then we will have a quiet and calm attitude.

I would like to say that we have a unique momentum. We have had good discussions with the Council. The Council has expressed its readiness to discuss these issues of shared responsibility, although it is too early to set out the details. We also had good discussions with the Court of Auditors. It too is ready to discuss all the methodology questions and the question of the reliability of ‘audit evidence’. The point is that if we propose some ideas by the summer, that does not mean that we will necessarily get a positive Statement of Assurance – DAS – this year, but at least we will manage do so within a short period of time. So the momentum is unique and I hope that we can propose adequate details and solutions to meet these expectations. I fully agree with what Mr Elles said. This is a very good approach today, a good attitude, but the details must also be expanded upon in an adequate manner.

We must also find responses to certain demands for simplification, because, being extremely concerned about serious financial control and about surveillance mechanisms, we have introduced enormous amounts of rules, documents and applications. As one honourable Member said, these enormous amounts of rules still do not mean we can fulfil the requirements of all documents in an absolutely legal and correct way. We still waste money and this serious control is still not there.

We must fulfil programmes. We must implement decisions and we must not have long delays due to the enormous amount of documents and to the need to follow bureaucratic rules. So in parallel with the clear need – especially with regard to the discharge issue – to strengthen and clarify the control and surveillance systems, we must also seriously address the question of dynamism in decision-making, so as not to have a system in which control is impossible.

I hope that we will meet soon to discuss possible proposals on how to achieve a more reliable and more transparent control and discharge system for the Community budget.

  President. The joint debate is closed.

The vote will take place at noon.

  President. The next item is the debate on the report by Glenys Kinnock, on behalf of the Committee on Development, on the role of the European Union in the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) [2004/2252(INI)] (A6-0075/2005).

  Kinnock (PSE), rapporteur. – Mr President, the Millennium Declaration adopted by world leaders in 2000 represents an unprecedented declaration of solidarity. It is evidence that there is real determination to achieve the Millennium Development Goal targets, which would lift 500 million people out of extreme poverty, would save 30 million children who would otherwise die before their fifth birthday, and would save more than 2 million mothers who would otherwise not have survived pregnancy and childbirth. Hundreds of millions of women and girls would be educated, and millions would have access to clean water and sanitation. The world has the technologies, the policies and the financial resources to deliver the promise and vision of the MDGs.

On aid, MDG8 highlights the need for substantial increases in ODA. Only four Member States have already reached the 0.7% target. Others have set timetables. Austria, Germany, Greece, Italy and Portugal, meanwhile, are all far off target. At the current rate, Germany will not reach its target until 2087. Italy, one of the world’s wealthiest countries and a G-8 member, gives only a miserly 0.17% of its GNI in aid. There has to be close monitoring of annual intermediate targets by EU finance ministers and foreign ministers. I should like to ask the Commissioner to respond to that part of our resolution. The financial perspective suggests that further squeezing of development spending by other categories, as well as within the external relations category, threatens the likelihood of us contributing as we should to meeting the MDG targets.

The Commission must continue to work to improve the quality and effectiveness of our aid using the MDGs as the tool to guide our policies. Member States should collaborate and coordinate in a coherent way more than they do currently with the Commission, in order to tackle how aid can be best used to serve and fulfil the MDGs.

On unsustainable debt, most EU Member States are committed to cancelling the bilateral debts of the world’s poorest countries. Again, I am afraid that Italy must be singled out and named and shamed as a country continuing to make progress at a snail’s pace on this issue.

On trade, I totally agree and concur with the opinion presented by the Committee on International Trade, which covers a number of our concerns as far as the European Union’s role as the world’s biggest trading bloc is concerned: our role in dealing with access to markets, building capacity and other aspects of trade and trade liberalisation.

The European Union negotiates in a way that sometimes calls into question whether there is a clear enough understanding of the pro-development objectives that are referred to on so many occasions. This is true of both the WTO negotiations and the EPA negotiations where I can confirm that, as far as ACP countries are concerned, there is the sense of a need to feel that closer consultation has occurred and that there is greater understanding by DG Trade of the development aspects to which they give such high priority.

On the common agricultural policy, Member States must urgently tackle the practices that depress world prices, distort poor-country markets and undermine earning opportunities for their farmers.

I believe that the amendments on trade and agriculture policies, which we will vote on later, are in all cases inappropriate and, in a number of cases, propose totally unrealistic options.

Furthermore, Parliament should reject Amendments 10 to 16, which reflect unacceptable conservative views on essential aspects of MDG targets. The supply of condoms for the treatment of sexually-transmitted diseases and access to safe and legal abortion must remain as clear priorities if the over-arching goal of poverty eradication is to be achieved. Five hundred and thirty thousand women died in pregnancy or childbirth last year. There were more than 3 million stillborn births. Four million infants did not survive their first year of life. We should support the real need to facilitate access to responsive post-abortion procedures. There is also a need to facilitate access to high-quality and safe services to the fullest extent provided and allowed for by the laws in the countries concerned.

As the WHO reported only yesterday, 78 000 deaths occur as a result of unsafe abortions. Millions of women in desperate need resort to unsafe induced abortion. I would contradict those people who believe that any woman takes the decision to terminate a pregnancy lightly, and say very firmly that it is not and never would be the case. She has the right to choose good-quality responsive abortion and post-abortion care under the law. A woman has the right to choose.

(Applause)

  Michel, Member of the Commission. (FR) Mr President, honourable Members, the Commission of course warmly welcomes Mrs Kinnock’s report on the role of the European Union in the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). I would like to congratulate Mrs Kinnock and the Committee on Development on this report, which ought to stimulate discussion and negotiation on the measures required to achieve the MDGs.

Your report, Mrs Kinnock, rightly emphasises the importance of the governments adopting strategies for achieving the Millennium Development Goals. It also stresses that the European Union’s development policies, the main objective of which must be the reduction of poverty, must be anchored in the Millennium Declaration and the MDGs.

The European Union’s MDG Synthesis Report outlines the progress that has been made in this regard. The European Union has on a number of occasions underlined that the review of the Millennium Goals at the United Nations summit in September 2005 will be crucial for accelerating progress towards the achievement of the MDGs. With a view to the European Union’s contribution to the summit, in November 2004 the Council invited the Commission to prepare specific ambitious proposals for action to be taken, in particular for development financing, the coherence of development policies and the priority to be given to Africa.

The Commission will today be adopting a number of communications constituting its response to the Council’s invitation. This global political package summarises the EU’s contribution to development and identifies the measures to be taken to accelerate the achievement of the MDGs.

In many respects, your report and our communications share the same concerns and the same recommendations. I would like to mention a few of your report’s conclusions which we believe are very important and which are key points in the package of communications we will be presenting.

First of all, as you underline, it is essential that we continue increasing development aid. The Commission is proposing new intermediate targets for 2010 in this regard; additional new sources of financing must be considered alongside the public aid budgets.

I also welcome the attention you pay to the coherence of development policies; it is in fact essential that we look at how policies other than aid can help in achieving the Millennium Goals. The communication on the coherence of development policies identifies no fewer than 11 priority areas where the challenge of achieving synergy with the development policy objectives is considered particularly relevant, in trade, for example – that goes without saying – in research, the environment, agriculture, fishing, to name but a few. Major synergies are possible with these different competences.

Many of your report’s recommendations are included in the EU Synthesis Report on the Millennium Goals, for example – as you rightly mention – the special attention that must be paid to the education of girls, to the necessity of meeting the needs of the most vulnerable groups, especially children, orphans, young women and the elderly.

In response to the challenges Africa has to face, it is essential that the development partners give that continent priority. The European Union must do more, and wants to, to enable Africa to achieve the Millennium Goals. Africa must be the focus of our attention and it is vital that aid resources for Sub-Saharan Africa be increased. The European Union must ensure that a major proportion of the additional public development aid is directed towards Africa. Our proposals in the matter of coherence must also apply first and foremost to the African continent.

Finally, in addition to all our existing programmes, especially under the Cotonou Agreement, the Commission is proposing new commitments in fields with an obvious multiplier effect. I am thinking of governance, interconnection and equity.

Preparations for the New York summit are quickening apace. I also want to thank you for your contribution and I hope to continue working with you to ensure that Europe’s position is equal to the challenge of achieving the Millennium Goals.

Now, Mrs Kinnock, I would like to say a few words about the communications which I shall shortly be submitting to the College of Commissioners. The process of preparation for the September summit has shown the progress made in many poor countries and the importance of the efforts made by the international community, and by the European Union in particular, for achieving the Millennium Goals. All the reports, the Secretary-General’s report, the Millennium Project report written under the direction of Professor Sachs, also show that the goals that were set for 2015 can still be achieved if we want to. As you said, however, this will require major investment by the developing countries as much as, obviously, by the donor countries. As the poor countries’ largest international donor and largest trading partner, the European Union therefore has a particular responsibility towards our own citizens, who expect us to set an example at international level, because it is an imperative of human solidarity, but one which is also in our own interests. If we want a more stable and a safer world, we must invest more massively in development. The EU also has a responsibility towards partners who often see Europe as a model: consider the African Union, for example, which has taken the European Union a benchmark. I believe the proposals I will be presenting this afternoon are equal to this challenge.

Those proposals have three main parts: first of all, development finance and aid effectiveness; secondly, policy coherence and, thirdly, priority for Sub-Saharan Africa.

On financing – and this will answer your question – the European Union has stuck to its commitments, and in 2006 its aid effort will probably exceed the joint target of 0.39% of the Member States’ gross national income. Obviously, this effort will have to continue, and I am proposing that the Member States set themselves a new individual intermediate target of at least 0.51% in 2010, corresponding to a collective effort of 0.56%. That would allow us to achieve the rate of 0.7% in 2015; that rate was set by the United Nations a long time ago and the Millennium Project experts believe it is necessary in order to achieve the MDGs. In terms of annual aid, that would be an increase of no less than EUR 20 billion per year in 2010, with EU aid rising from EUR 46 billion in 2006 to 66 billion in 2010.

In addition, new sources of finance must also be encouraged. I forgot to say that I am going to suggest that the new Member States reach 0.17% in 2010; the difference is because they have much further to go; that should allow us to reach 0.7% in 2015. Additionally, then, new sources of finance must be encouraged, but that should on no account be a pretext for delaying or reducing the EU’s commitments for 2010.

The second aspect is improving aid effectiveness, another important task. The last few years have seen substantial progress in the management of Community aid. At EU level, the main challenge today is to implement the commitments given by the EU for better policy coordination, complementarity on the ground and procedural harmonisation. Europe must be much more than the mere sum of our States’ individual budgets.

The second aspect is the use of budget aid – to which I want to give priority – although aid effectiveness would gain much from it. It is not just a question of money, however. The real challenge is to contain globalisation by exercising a solidarity that will lay the foundations for a world social contract; that will involve not only an increase in public development aid but also global public policies that will allow the benefits of globalisation to be shared out more equitably.

Likewise, I am quite pleased to say that the Commission has for the first time agreed to talk about coherence and to identify, in competences other than development aid, no fewer than 11 areas that are development-related and may give it added value. I believe this is important. It is the first time the College has taken up this challenge and I think it is worth pointing that out.

The third component of our proposals is the priority given to Africa. There are three reasons for this. Sub-Saharan Africa is the most backward region. Europe is a weighty partner and Africa is a geopolitical partner that will assume increasing importance. The United States and China have already understood this, which explains their growing interest in that part of the world.

I propose stepping up our action in areas that have an obvious multiplier effect. There are three lines of approach here. Firstly, in the area of governance, we must support the implementation of the reforms emerging from the African peer review mechanism. We must also provide refinancing for the peace facility, to support the African Union and sub-regional organisations in conflict-prevention.

I would describe this first line as the political line, in the general sense of the term. The second line is the economic line. Infrastructures and network interconnections must be supported on the basis of the African Union’s and NEPAD’s strategies to facilitate South-South trade. I am in fact thinking here of really getting the large Trans-African networks off the ground as we had to do in Europe with the large Trans-European networks. We must make the construction and implementation of these large Trans-African networks a definite priority objective. That is the economic line. I am thinking of all the infrastructures, of everything associated with communications, of technology transfer, and so on.

The third line is the social line. It is obviously the politics of equity. The European Union must develop incentives and support the African countries in their efforts to promote social cohesion, employment and environmental protection. I am thinking more specifically of education, health and culture. During my hearing, I said that culture was a far more important vector of development than people think and I would like to make the most of it.

This set of communications seeks to unite the Member States around a European vision that would give the EU the influence, credibility and visibility it needs in order to make an effective contribution to the September 2005 summit. At present, I am touring the capitals to mobilise the national parliaments and the Member States on this question.

I hope that in September these three communications will result in the complete redefinition of development policy, as I said, in the form of a new development policy statement, which I intend to translate into a common European development strategy. I see absolutely no reason why we cannot do for development what we have succeeded in doing for the common security strategy. I would also like to come up with a real plan of campaign for Africa based on the three lines of approach I have just mentioned.

That, Mr President, Mrs Kinnock, honourable Members, is the reply I wanted to give you. I hope I have been complete. If there are other questions or if I have inadvertently failed to answer any of your questions, do not hesitate to ask me. I am of course at your disposal to answer them.

IN THE CHAIR: MR ONYSZKIEWICZ
Vice-President

  Martens, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (NL) Mr President, Commissioner, we are discussing the Millennium Development Goals which are the very heart, the guiding principle and goal of the EU’s development policy. Central to these goals is the elimination of poverty. The rapporteur is right to emphasise three areas where the European Union should really do better: delivering on promises, closer policy coordination, and the more efficient deployment of resources. I am pleased that the Commissioner afforded ample consideration to this in his speech. Indeed, the pledge to set aside 0.7% of the GDP for development aid is as yet being met by only five Member States. Both policy coordination and our assistance to developing countries in developing their local and regional economies lack credibility if we, at the same time, sabotage these via our agricultural and trade policy. I am pleased that this is a major consideration for the Commissioner. Thirdly, as regards the efficient deployment of resources, we can achieve much more if we work more efficiently and make more use of the possible ‘quick wins’, such as the distribution of mosquito nets in the fight against malaria.

I should also like to stress a few items of importance, which are also covered in the report. As regards the importance of education for girls, it cannot be emphasised enough that girls and women often suffer disproportionately from hunger and other problems, of which the lack of access to education is certainly one. Moreover, research shows that the education of girls has a positive bearing on the whole of society, including the fight against poverty as such.

Secondly, it is important to diversify the cultivation of products and attain a firm foothold for small and medium-sized enterprises, with a view to creating a stable economy. Thirdly, there is the need for what is termed special and differential treatment of poor countries, which will also be an important consideration for the WTO. Fourthly, the availability of, and access to, basic health care, on which any health policy depends. Finally, there is a need for the reinforcement of capacities on all fronts.

In short, there is much to be done and fortunately, Europe does do a great deal. As the largest donor, Europe faces a huge challenge, as the Commissioner already stated, if it is to be the largest player in terms of vision, coherence and decisiveness.

  Van den Berg, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (NL) Mr President, the world leaders have the enormous responsibility of giving the agreements reached in 2000 real substance, by halving poverty, sending children to school and eliminating illness. If we apply this to Africa, we have to conclude that the situation is tragic in all these respects, because instead of bringing those goals towards 2015 closer, we are moving further away from them. At this rate, we will not achieve them in 100 years. This creates an image of incompetence on the part of world leadership, especially where Africa is concerned. That there is no need for this is clear from Mr Geoffrey Sachs’ recent report. Given sufficient funding, sound priorities in place and a sufficiently campaign-based focus, malaria could, for example, be eradicated, children – particularly girls – could go to school, and poverty could be halved.

As the Commissioner has already said, the UN Summit in September will offer the opportunity to clinch millennium deals. That is why it is, of course, extremely important that the Commission and the Council should translate the agreements reached at that Summit into European objectives for the EU. As the Commissioner said, we can do this by means of funding at Member State level, but also by this House and the Council giving multi-annual funding sufficient priority, and this being reflected in the percentage for social expenditure of the millennium goals, including, in particular, this 20% for basic education and basic health care. The current figures – 2% for education, 6% for health care, also in the European Development Fund figures – are alarming.

I would urge not only the Commission and the Council, but also Parliament, to really take these requirements on board, so that we can avoid a confrontation and can together back this initiative all the way. We are prepared to give the Commission leeway in the implementation, provided that the agreements are uncompromising; above all, they need to be laid down clearly and effectively, because the current levels of 2% and 6% are really unacceptable. We would have to wait for another 100 years, and that we refuse to do.

  Cornillet, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (FR) Mr President, I would like to thank Commissioner Michel for his favourable reception of Mrs Kinnock’s report. I believe it is important that the Commission and Parliament should coordinate their positions and present a united vision.

As you say, the European Union is the largest donor, with 55% of world public aid. We therefore need to keep ourselves in first position and keeping promises is something that is rather well regarded in politics. I have noted the step-by-step increases you propose; the targets are both praiseworthy and achievable – Mrs Kinnock spelled them out, so I will not repeat them. An overall 0.7 is achievable, and with the stages you mention we will rise to 0.51 in 2010 and reach 0.7 in 2015.

I would simply like to point out that the EUR 20 billion a year increase you mentioned is more or less the equivalent of one and a half European Development Funds a year, whereas the European Development Fund is a five-year programme. A great deal of money could therefore be paid out if we want to make that kind of effort.

That is why I would like to draw your attention very quickly to four small points: first, the absolute necessity of policy coordination, which you illustrated with your 11 areas, also applies for agricultural subsidies if we are not going to ruin with one hand what we are giving with the other; the same is true between European countries if we are to avoid the healthy emulation that is sometimes found on the ground.

Then, our partners must assume some responsibility; this of course involves a governance requirement and a requirement for budget aid to be verified, which seems to be another good method, and finally, as you stressed, Mr Michel, the accompaniment of large regional projects, in particular for large Trans-African networks. We already have the possibility of using the balance of the EDF to finance some of these large networks.

The third point is the control of public money. It is essential that the way taxpayers’ money is used should be entirely visible. If we want to be able to ask for even more, we must have identifiable and demonstrable objectives for our friends in the European countries who are giving public money for this purpose.

Lastly, the place of the private sector. We will achieve nothing without political security, without legal security, without infrastructures and without a market. Public aid is no substitute for development involving the private sector. Let us therefore be exemplary donors, but let us be lucid partners.

  Joan i Marí, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, in order to eradicate famine in the world, many things must be changed in the European Union. The common agricultural policy, which is not very accurate in the allocation of funds, has made things difficult in Europe and in many developing countries, especially in ACP countries. On the one hand, Europe should guarantee that the common agricultural policy is not being used to increase the benefits of large producers while small producers are in a very complicated situation. On the other hand, it should be guaranteed that product subsidies by the EU will not be an obstacle for the developing and ACP countries. Theoretically, the EU could help to eradicate poverty and famine in the world if it changed its agricultural policy. Better conditions in the developing countries should mean benefits for Europe and for the whole world. But before that, we also need to eradicate the very clear discrimination in the EU, which favours the big producers while small ones and thousands of farmers have to leave agriculture every year.

  Morgantini, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs Kinnock's thorough report, with which we are in agreement, states that achievement of the Millennium Development Goals will require a change of system, a change involving the governments of countries in both the northern and southern hemispheres, as well as international financial institutions. We need to overturn the rules of international trade, rejecting the imposition of trade agreements and indiscriminate liberalisation and, instead, support fair trade and a culture based on rights – the right of access to education, water, food and healthcare. Today is the start of the Global Week of Action to deliver those rights and control international trade, and there are people here in Parliament, today, who are emphasising that need.

It is not the first time that the United Nations and the international community have attempted to launch a programme to eradicate poverty. However, there have been 15 years of broken promises, while the aim of devoting 0.7% of the GDP of more developed countries to the poor nations is still a remote one. Mrs Kinnock is right when she says that the policy of Italy – my country – is shameful; I share her view, although I believe that the UK’s involvement in the Iraq war is also shameful.

The EU and the Member States must not fail in their moral responsibilities and obligations. Alternative sources of finance must be discussed. We must prevent spurious accounting, avoid expenditure on security being classed as development spending and stop budget figures being inflated by debt cancellation measures. The debt must be cancelled.

True development cooperation can be achieved by equipping those countries with the infrastructure and tools needed for them to organise their own economic and social development. Human rights, gender, the environment, children’s rights: the issues have all been identified.

  Janowski, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (PL) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, today we are debating an issue that reveals the true nature of the world about us. An attempt is being made to close the yawning gaps that currently exist between the living conditions of the people inhabiting this planet. This can also be regarded as a practical test of our understanding of the word ‘neighbour’, in relation to both individuals and nations. Speaking in this House and at this point in time, I feel obliged to mention the Holy Father John Paul II, whose memory this House honoured yesterday, as this issue was one of particular concern to him, and he appealed to the consciences of people all over the world. The history of humanity shows us that the Millennium Development Goals, which as we know were adopted in the Jubilee Year 2000, are indeed worthy of their name, as we should not forget that the fight against poverty has been waged on Earth for millennia.

The Millennium Goals must be implemented effectively and as rapidly as possible. I should therefore like to thank Mrs Kinnock for the effort she has put into drafting a report setting out the European Union’s role in achieving these goals. At the same time, however, I am unable to consent to pro-abortion measures masquerading under the name of reproductive health rights being termed progress, as is the case in paragraph 15.

The short speaking time available to me makes it impossible for me to examine this issue in full, even though it is of enormous significance. I should, however, like to share some thoughts on the matter with you. It is sometimes said that people are poor because they are stupid, and it is also said that they are stupid because they are poor. This vicious circle of helplessness must be broken, and aid must be given to poor countries and regions in the form of large-scale investment in education. It is true that primary education is mentioned in the second of the Millennium Goals, but in my opinion this falls a long way short of what is needed. Good secondary schools and universities must be built in these countries and regions. I would particularly like to stress that the schools and universities must be situated in the countries and regions in question, in order to ensure that these nations produce educated people who wish to help their fellow citizens. We must therefore pay close attention to the needs of local communities, instead of attempting to bestow happiness in line with someone else’s ideas, however noble they may be. Otherwise we will be building houses on sand, and our actions will amount to giving people fish rather than teaching them how to fish for themselves.

I should like to touch upon one more issue, namely that appropriate funding is needed to solve these problems properly. This will involve a great deal of money, but no more than the richer countries, which include the European Union, can afford. The funding currently available is by no means adequate.

I should also like to alert the House to the fact that quite considerable funding could be obtained for this universal cause by introducing a tax on foreign exchange transactions, or in other words a Tobin tax.

  Vanhecke (NI). – (NL) Mr President, it goes without saying that no one in their right minds would object to something actually being done in order to structurally reduce global poverty and hunger by 2015. In order to actually achieve this, we will need to look beyond the present report’s unilateral measures, and, above all, to admit that massive development aid of the past 30 years has in the final analysis, all things considered, had very little impact.

For example, what destroyed the favourable infrastructural and trade position in black Africa in the sixties was general corruption, ethnic conflicts and the devastating ideological hair-splitting on the part of the ruling elites. Why is it, for example, that Zimbabwe, in a matter of a few decades, has been transformed from the granary and storehouse of the whole of southern Africa into a land ravaged by terrible starvation? We should therefore have the courage to spell out the two major obstacles to lasting development of the poor countries; they are corruption and bad governance, and they are hardly our fault.

  Záborská (PPE-DE). – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Millennium Goals are of concern to us all. It is true that development is a global concept for the all-round promotion of the welfare and dignity of human beings, but the means for achieving that can be summed up in one word: solidarity. It is therefore remarkable that the European Union provides more than 50% of world development aid.

The European Union, however, does not promote respect for cultural diversity and different traditions in its external relations, even though they are the key to European integration. Financial aid conceals issues of geopolitical power and cultural influence, and the European Union sometimes buys the votes of the developing countries in the United Nations General Assembly. If we are to take joint decisions, we must listen to and respect every one, and even more so when we are looking to define positions affecting fundamental cultural and moral values. The nations of the UN who are mentioned in the Preamble to the Charter are entitled to have their dignity and their traditions respected regardless of their economic level. So far as human rights are concerned, they must be strengthened by giving them a sound ethical basis, otherwise they will remain weak and without foundations. We must reaffirm that human rights are not created or granted by anyone but that they are inherent in human nature.

The resolution on which we are being asked to vote shows the gap between how the wealth that the family represents is understood in the developing countries and in the European Union. Would we not be very much open to criticism if we were to use such important issues as the achievement of the Millennium Goals for our own ends? There cannot be real peace until donors fully respect the cultural context of the developing countries.

  Scheele (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, I am convinced that Mrs Kinnock’s report makes a very considerable contribution to examining the European Union’s achievement of the Millennium Development Goals, or its progress towards doing so. As regards our chances of achieving these objectives, we are in a very, very sad state, and Mrs Kinnock’s report shows what changes in policy are needed if we are to achieve them.

I would like to say something about debt relief policy as well as about the report that we will be voting on tomorrow. It may have escaped a number of Members of this House that, when discussing debt relief policy, it has to be said that two thirds of the developing countries spend more on servicing their debts than they do on social services. That this has an effect on the achievement of – or failure to achieve – the Development Goals hardly needs to be said.

What this means is that there is a need for change in many policy areas, but also for a doubling of the aid we currently give, and for the resultant amount to be sustained for at least 10 years – hence the commendation for those Member States that have already reached the 0.7% mark.

Mrs Kinnock’s report stresses the need for the 0.7% mark for bilateral development cooperation to be achieved. I regret that this cannot be the occasion for ‘naming and shaming’, but Mrs Kinnock’s explanatory statement lists the states that are a long way from reaching the 0.7% mark: Austria, Germany, Greece, Italy and Portugal. I would ask the Commission to perhaps produce a timetable for all the Member States or bring pressure to bear on them to get them to achieve this target.

  Budreikaitė (ALDE). – (LT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. On the subject of the implementation of the Millennium Development Goals, it is proposed that the aid given to developing countries should be doubled for a period of at least a decade, that all debts should be written off until 2015, and that new additional sources of aid should be sought, by introducing new taxes for EU Member States.

There is, however, very little talk of aid efficiency. By not imposing conditions such as the efficiency of the utilisation of loans given, positive tendencies for social and economic development, and requirements for the implementation of democracy and human rights, developing states will not be encouraged to accept responsibility for the social and economic development of their countries and will not feel accountable to their citizens.

When talking about aid for developing countries we ought to rethink the European Union's aid policy and offer measures by not only confining ourselves to the Millennium Goals, but by looking for ways of encouraging economic growth in developing countries, in particular investment, and especially in small and medium-sized businesses, thereby giving developing countries the opportunity to rise to a more developed level and a developed state level. Thank you.

  Auken (Verts/ALE). – (DA) Mr President, the Millennium Development Goals have to be achieved, and they have been described well by Mrs Kinnock, for which I thank her. We must face the fact, however, that it is unlikely, for the time being, to be possible to get the total budget up to 0.7% of all the Member States’ GDP. That is why we must also look at other sources of funding.

One of the proposals put forward, which genuinely has potential, is to introduce a levy on aviation fuel. Aviation fuel is one of the major contributors to the greenhouse effect. Such a levy would both provide money for the poor – assuming the money is used for this, of course – and would at the same time be in harmony with the Kyoto Protocol. Quite a few governments have, to put it mildly, been hesitant to adopt this proposal, and I include my own Danish Government here. I very much hope, however, that the European Parliament will push ahead with this development.

Allow me simply to mention another proposed source, namely the enormous amounts spent on our agricultural subsidies that are destroying things for the developing countries. At the very least, the damaging export subsidy should, in any case, be phased out as quickly as possible.

  Zimmer (GUE/NGL). – (DE) Mr President, while giving my support to Mrs Kinnock’s report, I would also like to refer to Geoffrey Sachs’ statement to the effect that the achievement of the Millennium Goals requires that the EU’s strengths be combined. It is therefore necessary that we earnestly strive towards the 0.7% of GDP for development aid without further delay, and also that we ensure that the whole of the poorest countries’ debts are written off. I therefore call upon the Council to take up the opportunity presented to it this week to use the gold reserves within the IMF for this purpose.

Secondly, I would like to point out that the Commission for Africa has urged the necessity of a further USD 25 billion per annum being allocated in order to resolve Africa’s life-and-death problems, to which – and I would also like to draw your attention to this fact – both the IMF and the World Bank must, once and for all, give their attention, particularly in view of Paul Wolfowitz’ presidency of the latter.

  Wijkman (PPE-DE). – (SV) Mr President, because of a late flight, I was unable to listen to most of the debate, but I am of course very familiar with the arguments and want to begin by congratulating Mrs Kinnock on an excellent report.

The Millennium Development Goals are first and foremost a moral issue. The huge differences in standards of living that exist in today’s world are becoming evermore absurd. We have both the knowledge and the resources to eradicate poverty now, and there is no excuse for not stepping up our efforts. I welcome this report which contains a series of constructive proposals that I hope will influence the Commission’s work during the next few months. Certainly, the Millennium Development Goals are not easy to achieve. Increased efforts are needed not only in the industrialised countries but also on the part of the recipients. We must bring about a fairer trade system. Corruption is a major problem and must be combated vigorously. We need more money, but we also need more effective aid. The lack of coordination of donors’ contributions is a major problem. In the same way, the lack of dialogue so far within the EU about who is to do what among the Member States and in the Commission is a great problem.

The content is also crucial, of course. Allow me just to mention one area that is too often neglected within development cooperation. I am thinking of the management of natural resources. The poor majority in rural areas are completely dependent upon what is produced by the countryside. A development in which forests, pasture land, soil for cultivation and fresh water resources are decimated and reduced in quality is therefore extremely serious. A major analysis of this development, known as the millennium assessment, was presented last week and makes for depressing reading. The destruction of basic natural resources is generally accelerating throughout the world and constitutes a major obstacle to achieving the Millennium Development Goals. I assume that significantly more attention will be given to this aspect of development cooperation in the Commission’s forthcoming work.

I would once again thank Mrs Kinnock.

  De Rossa (PSE). – Mr President, I welcome Glenys Kinnock’s report. It is a comprehensive, practical and indeed pragmatic approach to a very serious and horrific situation. I also welcome the Commissioner’s intention to develop a common development strategy and I would urge him to engage with national parliaments, as well as with others in the Member States. I am quite sure he will find a groundswell of support for his approach to this issue.

The statistics for poverty and mortality are quite horrific. Every time this electronic clock in front of me ticks, a child dies needlessly. Every minute the clock ticks, three women die needlessly in pregnancy or childbirth. Yet there are people here who would have this Parliament decide against allowing those women to exercise their choice on their health, on the kind of contraception they might use, and whether or not they should choose abortion.

I urge this Parliament to reject the amendments which seek to do that. This Parliament has no place dictating to women in the developing world as to how they should address their health needs.

  Van Hecke (ALDE). – (NL) Mr President, in this brief speech, I will confine myself to one aspect in this connection, but one that is to my mind an important one, namely the role of international trade, of fair trade, in the pursuit of the Millennium Development Goals. I do not think that anyone stands to benefit more from promoting world trade than do the developing countries. If sub-Saharan Africa were to increase its share in world trade by 1%, its revenue from exports would increase by 60 billion. Following the ‘everything but arms’ campaign, the European Union, being the world’s largest trade bloc, should be able to make it clear that it is being serious about this by setting a date by which all export subsidies for agricultural products must be cancelled. Surely it is no longer acceptable to be given a daily subsidy of USD 2 for every cow, while half of the world population has to survive on less than that. If we abolished these unfair agricultural subsidies, it would add to the EU’s credibility in this policy area.

  Lucas (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, I would like to congratulate Mrs Kinnock on an excellent report. I am very happy to introduce the opinion of the Committee on International Trade, which was passed unanimously and adopted en bloc by the Committee on Development. That demonstrates the growing consensus that while trade clearly has a role in poverty eradication, the current trends and institutions of trade policy will need urgent reform if they are genuinely to lead to poverty eradication and sustainable development.

Our opinion notes the recent report by UNCTAD and others that demonstrates that unfettered and extensive trade liberalisation does not necessarily translate into significant poverty eradication, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. I quote from the UNCTAD 2004 report on least-developed countries, which says: ‘The emerging post-liberal trends do not indicate that substantial and sustained poverty reduction will occur. On balance, future poverty reduction seems to have worsened’. So our first point in this opinion is to ask the Commission and Council to note that analysis and to modify trade policy accordingly.

The first place they could apply that reformed trade policy is on the EU proposals for economic partnership agreements, because again increasing evidence suggests that if economic partnership agreements are to become genuine instruments of development, they have to offer non-reciprocal market access for as long as developing countries require it. I welcome recent statements from my own government in the UK that appear to guarantee poorest countries as much time as they need before acquiring that reciprocity. I urge the Council to adopt that position but warn that it will not be credible unless Article 24 of the GATT is revised accordingly as well.

Finally we call on the Council and Commission to address the almost forgotten issue of commodity prices, which is strangely absent from the WTO agenda. According to Oxfam, developing countries would have earned USD 243 billion more in 2002 if the real prices of ten key commodities had remained at their 1980 levels. That is almost five times the world’s annual aid budget. We desperately need urgent action on this issue if we are to have any chance of meeting the MDG goals.

  Michel, Member of the Commission. (FR) Mr President, honourable Members, I would like to begin by thanking everyone who has spoken, or rather most of them, for their remarks. I think most of what has been said will be reflected in the communications which I will be asking the Commission to adopt, most probably in a few minutes’ time, and which I outlined to you a few moments ago.

Most of the other remarks that have been made will be debated and, I hope, decided, in the development policy statement I announced, which is being opened for very wide discussion, consultation and debate today and should therefore be ready when we reconvene in September.

I would like to highlight one fundamental topic: market liberalisation; the last speaker raised this question, and as a liberal I am sure I will surprise you here. I, too, think that market liberalisation can only be beneficial if there is a State capable of enforcing the rules. I believe that in the 1990s we were wrong to think that total market liberalisation, even where there was no State, would spontaneously create wealth for distribution. I am in broad agreement with the limits you place on market liberalisation.

There will be more debates of this kind over the next few weeks and months. However, I would like to take the opportunity now to ask you whether the time for action has not now come. There have been plenty of studies, consultations and findings. We can of course continue to reflect, to debate concepts, categories and principles: all that is very important; but I would like my policy to be above all a policy of implementation, of getting things done. I am therefore appealing to you – speakers have made a number of specific proposals today: if you have definite ideas about how our development policy can be implemented effectively, I am obviously interested to hear them.

Without in any way disputing the validity of some of the rules governing development, I have to say to you that when some of those rules are given a strictly technocratic application, they make the achievement of certain goals virtually impossible. That is a question I would like to be able to debate with you from time to time. In any case, I promise I will place a number of proposals before you in the next few weeks to try to be more effective. Ensuring that there is coherence between different policies is in fact one way of being more effective. Well-managed budgetary aid, sectorally oriented, for example, may obviously make us more effective; better coordination, greater harmonisation between national rules, is obviously another way of being more effective. Those are just a few examples. Mr President, honourable Members, thank you for all these comments and considerations. I promise to make best use of them.

  President.   The debate is closed.

The vote will take place at 12 noon.

  President.   The next item is the Commission statement on the fight against malaria.

  Michel, Member of the Commission. (FR) Mr President, honourable Members, malaria remains a disease closely associated with poverty. Every year, more than a million people die after contracting it, most of them children below the age of five. Malaria is therefore still the main cause of infant mortality in Africa. The disease affects mainly Africa, although other continents are also affected.

The fight against malaria continues to be under-funded, even though the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, to which the European Union is the main contributor, has made more resources available to the countries concerned in the last few years. Despite these efforts at world level and despite the efforts made by the countries of the South, the annual shortfall in resources at world level will probably reach USD 2.6 billion in 2007. Given that the countries most seriously affected by this disease are also among the poorest, most of the necessary resources will have to come from external partners, if the countries concerned are to be able to fight malaria and achieve the sixth Millennium Development Goal. The European Union must therefore increase its contribution through bilateral programmes and through the Global Fund.

We do nevertheless have effective instruments for fighting malaria. In 2001, the Commission formulated a policy and an action programme to fight the three main diseases of poverty, that is HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis. In 2004, the Commission presented a review of its work, showing, among other things, that it had increased its financial contribution to the fight against these diseases four fold. This contribution includes in particular an increased allocation to research. The Commission’s annual contribution to the Global Fund is EUR 259 million for the period 2003-2006. This will enable it to support programmes proposed by the countries concerned for the production of mosquito nets impregnated with insecticide that is effective long term and the production of medicines. The Commission has also adopted a new policy framework for continuing the fight against these diseases beyond 2007. That policy will be implemented in cooperation with the Member States of the European Union, with multilateral partners like the World Health Organisation, the ‘Roll Back Malaria’ programme, and with the countries of the South, including the African Union, civil society and the private sector.

The main activities will remain essentially the same. A strong emphasis on prevention, in particular mosquito nets impregnated with long-term insecticide and the introduction of new anti-malarial drugs such as artemisinin-based combination therapies in countries where there is resistance to existing drugs.

The Commission will also continue to invest in research and development of preventive vaccines, diagnostic tools and new curative drugs. If the efforts to develop new tools and drugs are to allow those that need them to have access to them on an equitable basis, the social sectors, health in particular, will obviously have to be strengthened with greater investment and more human resources in the health services.

  Fernández Martín, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (ES) Mr President, I welcome this Commission Statement on malaria, because three years ago, by approving our contribution to the budget of the Global Fund to Fight Malaria, Tuberculosis and AIDS, the Commission accepted Parliament’s request that it report to us regularly, and the previous Commission did not always do so. Furthermore, because in the fight against contagious diseases linked to poverty, AIDS is often the focus of attention, despite the fact that tuberculosis and malaria claim more victims every year and there is more chance of their being eradicated.

Just a few years ago, malaria seemed close to eradication in many countries; today it is the most frequent cause of death in sub-Saharan Africa, affecting more people and regions in which it had been eradicated. Recent figures suggest that there are more than 3 million direct and indirect victims of malaria each year. It is good that the Commission should promote the debate on the national protocols on the treatment of malaria, but that is not the most important thing if the objective is to include new therapeutic combinations, such as artemisinin and other therapeutic drugs. Mosquito nets treated with insecticides and intermittent preventive treatments significantly reduce morbimortality, but so far only Vietnam and certain countries in Latin America are showing encouraging results. In Africa, less than 10% of exposed children sleep protected by mosquito nets and the systematic use of those nets only protects 1% of the population at risk.

The Commission, as a member of the governing council of the United Nations Fund for fighting these diseases, should increase the attention paid to malaria and, in view of experience, it should do the same with the sixth and seventh framework programmes for research and technological development, to which we provide EUR 400 million for research into these diseases, and thereby assist greater numbers of people at less economic cost, although that means fewer profits for the pharmaceutical industry.

  Van den Berg, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (NL) In view of a death toll of 2 million people annually, 3 000 children daily and Africa being a hotbed of it, the need to fight malaria is self-evident. It is, of course, a crying shame to realise that we have both the expertise and the means, yet nevertheless this situation persists. The medication is available and the illness is curable. Simple, impregnated bed nets are the most effective and cheapest way of preventing infection, but the reality is that only 2% of children in Africa sleep under them. That is mainly attributable to organisational blockages and bottlenecks in their distribution. Geoffrey Sachs has brought us back to face the facts. The means are there; we are now waiting for the political will. He mentions quick wins, but I can see only structural benefits if these are underpinned by real campaigns and if we set clear priorities. We have proved to the world once before that we are up to this, having managed, for example, to eradicate nearly 99% of the incidence of polio.

What matters now is not to get various poverty-related illnesses competing against each other, but to tackle the root of basic health provisions in Africa together. Naturally, as the Commissioner already said, priority should be given to the most vulnerable areas that lack basic provisions or regional structures, and where hygiene is poor. Moreover, we should not forget that 50% of Africa’s population lives in urban areas, so the problem is not only a rural one; it is also very much present in the cities, which require yet another form of organisation. It is always local organisers, those basic health provisions, and the bottlenecks in the systems that lead to problems, and I hope that, with his strategy, the Commissioner will be able to make some changes in those areas. People on the ground will be keen to lend a hand, for it is they, of course, whose parents have children who will die of malaria. They know how serious this is and will certainly want to give their full cooperation.

  Savi, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (ET). – Mr President, Commissioner. As the unprecedented outpouring of assistance brought about by the Asian tsunami – which showed that the globalising world is able to devote significant resources to a common cause and also achieve positive results – gradually begins to recede, we must nevertheless recognise that every month smaller ‘tsunamis’ take place, and that the relief offered for dealing with them is clearly insufficient.

Commissioner, malaria kills 3 million people every year, and each month this disease causes the death of 150 000 innocent children, most of whom never celebrate their fifth birthday. It is a fact that 40% of the world’s population, who live in extremely poor areas, are threatened by malaria. 90% of malaria deaths occur in the sub-Saharan region, specifically among children. In these areas, malaria kills one child every 30 seconds, and every minute of inactivity on our part leads to the death of two children.

Today malaria is becoming a negative catchword worldwide, and Jeffrey Sacks, the Head of the UN Millennium Project, recently stated that if we can allocate 2-3 billion USD, it is in our power to save the 3 million victims of malaria. This money would be needed to buy or subsidise mosquito nets and insecticides, and to solve problems of immunisation.

At the same time, Jeffrey Sacks has noted that it is time for Europe to take the initiative in a global sense, since the European Union is the primary donor to the global fund, and is bound by the Cotonou Agreement until the year 2020.

Considering all of these facts, I had intended to present a verbal question to the commission, which – for reasons I cannot understand – was unsuccessful.

Since significant advances have been made in the treatment of malaria in recent years, the Commission could ascertain what specific initiatives the European Union might adopt in order to liquidate this pandemic disease, concentrating especially on malaria prevention. Secondly, would it not be worthwhile considering how, in addition to existing public sector investment, we could also involve more private sector investment in the development of malaria vaccines?

Thank you.

  Hassi, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (FI) Mr President, more than a million people die of malaria every year and at least five hundred million people contract the disease, most of them in Africa. Children and pregnant women are worst affected by the disease.

The fight against malaria is connected with the fight against poverty, but we must remember that the threat of malaria is predicted to grow with climate change. The fear is that due to global warming the malarial mosquito will spread, for example, to the southern parts of Europe and the United States. The prevention of climate change is therefore also the fight against malaria.

Recently, the role of DDT in the fight against malaria has been discussed. The use of DDT in the fight against malaria is permitted, but we must not close our eyes to the harmful effects of DDT. DDT is damaging to human reproduction, it hampers the development of children’s brains, causes nervous system disorders and weakens our resistance to diseases. Therefore, in the fight against malaria we have to do our utmost to promote the use of less harmful methods, such as its natural enemies and bed nets containing DDT and insecticides.

  Martínez Martínez (PSE). – (ES) Mr President, while I support what the Commissioner has said in his statement, I believe that this debate concerns an immense scandal taking place in the world and in our societies. The figures provided by my fellow Members are sufficiently clear: 3 000 children die each day, particularly in the sub-Saharan countries, as a result of the disease which has been fully studied and the prevention and treatment for which is entirely within our capacity.

To meet the challenge to our countries represented by this scourge is an issue on which the consistency, credibility and, of course, dignity of the European Union and the developed north in general is at stake. I therefore believe that if we are not able to deal with this problem effectively, we will not have the moral authority to talk about values or human rights; specifically, to talk about human rights in Geneva to a country such as Cuba, which has been able to eradicate this disease in its territory and which has more doctors in sub-Saharan Africa fighting this disease than the 25 states of the European Union put together.

  Gomes (PSE). – (PT) I welcome Mr Michel’s statement that funding is to be increased in the fight against malaria, a disease that is intrinsically linked with poverty and a fresh outbreak of which has led to child deaths. We want more, though. We want the EU to take up the suggestion made by Professor Jeffrey Sachs, and to launch and play a leading role in a world anti-malaria programme, given that, owing to a lack of political will and of adequate public funding, there is still no vaccine and not even widespread distribution of insecticide-treated bed-nets.

The EU can make the difference in the fight against poverty if it succeeds in raising funds and taking the lead in positive and far-reaching projects, as in the malaria prevention project before us. If so, the EU will be making a decisive contribution towards achieving the millennium goals, which are in fact more than goals – they are commitments that must be honoured by the Union and its Member States.

  Berlinguer (PSE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the World Science Forum has shown that a mere 10% of the world’s research is being directed at 90% of diseases – which, being the diseases of the poor, have no market and are therefore ignored by science. It is vital, above all, to reverse the priorities of scientific research and to target diseases affecting the vast majority of the world’s population. Commissioner Michel, if Europe and the rest of the world fail to make their contribution to this effort, malaria will continue to kill and the Millennium Goals will not be achieved.

  Cornillet (ALDE). – (FR) Mr President, to take up an idea from one of the other members of my Group, I simply wanted to say that in this matter of malaria we have a unique opportunity to put into practice what I said just now about the Millennium Goals: the absolute necessity that the European Union should act visibly so that our compatriots, who are the taxpayers who pay for public aid, can have something to feel proud of.

We have a unique opportunity to tackle the problem of malaria and say that the European Union is assuming responsibility for that. We have the scientific resources, we have the logistical resources, we have the financial resources, and it will give us an opportunity to demonstrate our commitment to development aid and to increasing happiness in the world.

I am therefore asking the Commissioner to kindly think about the possibility, not of our being one of the main players, which I think we already will be, but of our being if necessary the only player.

  Michel, Member of the Commission. (FR) Mr President, I would first of all like to thank most of the speakers for their support for the European Union’s perspectives as I explained them a few moments ago. It is clear that the fight against malaria deserves Europe’s support more than ever. The Commission wants to ensure that this disease remains a political priority at global level and in our dialogue with the countries affected. As I said in my opening remarks, the fight against malaria requires efforts and resources in various areas of policy, such as research, trade and, of course, development cooperation and humanitarian aid.

The Commission will be presenting an action programme for continuing the fight against malaria, tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS through external action. We will be working in close cooperation with the Council, with the Member States, with you and with our strategic partner, the World Health Organisation. Europe must continue to help the countries affected to achieve the Millennium Development Goals, in particular the one concerning malaria. You can be sure that the European Union will make this fight one of its policy priorities.

  President.   The debate is closed.

(The sitting was suspended at 12 noon and resumed at 12.05 p.m.)

IN THE CHAIR: MR FRIEDRICH
Vice-President

  President. The next item is the vote.

(For results and other details of the vote, see Minutes)

  President. The next item is the election of a new Vice-President in accordance with Rules 12, 14 and 17 of our Rules of Procedure, Mr Costa having been appointed as a member of the Portuguese Government. The only candidate of whom I have details is Mr António dos Santos.

Our Rules of Procedure state that, where only one position is vacant and there is only one candidate, he or she can be elected by acclamation. Are there any objections? There appear not to be. Mr Manuel António dos Santos is therefore elected as our new Vice-President.

(Applause)

I look forward to close and constructive cooperation with you, Mr dos Santos; you will be in the chair for tomorrow evening’s sitting.

Before the vote:

President. Although Mr Navarro has tabled an oral amendment, I do not see him in the Chamber.

  Jarzembowski (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, perhaps I might be permitted to take over the amendment, which was debated yesterday evening from 10 to 10.30 p.m., and I believe there was general agreement in favour of the amendment. I would therefore be happy to take over the oral amendment.

  President. Could you read the oral amendment out? All right, then I will. It reads: ‘whereas short sea shipping, which accounts for more than 40% of intra-Community traffic, forms an integral part of the European transport system given that short sea shipping means the movement of cargo and passengers by sea or inland waterways between European ports or between those ports and ports situated in non-European countries with a coastline on the enclosed seas bordering Europe,’

(Parliament adopted the oral amendment.)

On Amendments 4 and 51:

  Buitenweg (Verts/ALE), rapporteur. – Mr President, Amendment 51 is not a typical Verts/ALE Group amendment. It is a compromise amendment. I would like to ask you to put that to the vote first. I would also like to propose one change, as indicated in the voting list, that the word ‘should’ be replaced by the word ‘shall’. The text will then read as follows: ‘The proposed provisions are not intended to affect specific measures in force in national legislation in the context of the fight against certain serious and complex forms of crime, in particular terrorism’. The following will then be added: ‘all measures shall be in conformity with the European Convention on Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union’.

(Parliament agreed to this proposal. The President established that there were no objections to the oral amendment.)

Before the vote on Amendment 9:

President. Mr Staes has proposed that Amendment 9 be treated as an addition. Are there any objections?

(As over 37 Members objected, the proposal was not adopted.)

  Rack (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, I would like to say something about our agenda as a whole. Today’s agenda is a typical example of the way this House divides our work up. All the legislative dossiers that we voted on today were debated overnight and without the public present, whereas in daylight, in prime time and in the public eye, we debate only draft resolutions and other things of the same kind. I think that is wrong.

(Applause)

  President. Mr Rack, I get your message. I have to say, though, that it is of course the Conference of Presidents that decides these things, and some things have to be done in the evening sittings. I do, however, regard your comment as important and will mention it the next time these matters are discussed.

Galeote Quecedo report (A6-0067/2005)

  Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) The EU has gradually been adapting its structures to the new realities of the enlargement. Although these changes may seem insignificant, given that many of them are merely formalities or administrative adaptations, all are genuine indications of the profound change that has redefined the concept of the Union. I am therefore happy to vote in favour of this report.

  Ribeiro e Castro (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) The purpose of this report is to amend Regulation (EC) 1059/2003 of the European Parliament and the Council on the establishment of territorial units for statistics (NUTS), in light of the most recent enlargement, with the aim of providing a single, uniform means of subdividing territorial units when drawing up regional statistics for the Union.

The opportunity created by EU enlargement has facilitated the introduction of necessary amendments aimed at making the system more efficient, of which I should like to highlight the redefinition of the framework of the existing administrative units and the provision relating to a category of smaller administrative units.

The provision of smaller administrative units will enable us to remedy the lack of uniformity that has characterised the NUTS classification, with the same level applying, for instance, to the whole of Sweden and to the Brussels region.

I agree with the rapporteur that greater emphasis could be placed on certain elements. He says, for example, that it is not desirable at the moment to change the legal basis of the proposal amending the regulation and he calls on the Commission to issue a communication on the matter.

Díaz de Mera García Consuegra report (A6-0079/2005)

  Coelho (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) There has been an alarming rise in the amount of euro counterfeiting. The euro is one of the main targets of organised criminals, who are highly sophisticated and take advantage both of the fact that the EU no longer has any internal borders and of the lack of technical and operational resources in some of the Member States.

What we need are joint, harmonised and effective responses, which must involve close cooperation with Europol.

The proposal tabled by six Member States, however, enabling Europol to be designated as the EU's Central Office for combating euro counterfeiting, is not realistic, owing to its limited capacity to carry out its duties.

In spite of its good intentions, the proposal does not solve the underlying problems of Europol’s structure. Europol must be communitarised, provided with Community funding and given a more easily amendable legal basis. It must also be subject to qualified majority rule and the codecision process, and be under the democratic control of Parliament and the Court of Justice.

I endorse this report because, as things stand, the euro can only be adequately protected if the national central offices currently in existence retain their powers to protect the euro. As such, a mechanism must be established aimed at close cooperation and exchange of information between those offices and Europol.

  Martin, David (PSE), in writing. I welcome the designation of Europol as the Central Office for combating euro counterfeiting, which is surely a problem we can only effectively tackle collectively rather than an individual member states.

In order to maintain the current downward trend in counterfeiting statistics, such as the respective 5% and 38% decline in false 50 and 100 euro notes, we must continue to take further steps towards an appropriate collective legal framework, within which euro counterfeiting can be clearly criminalised and information centralised to make anti-fraud action more effective.

  Ribeiro e Castro (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) Given its value, the territory it covers and the importance attached to it by economies outside the Community as a monetary unit of reference, the euro is now one of the most sought-after currencies among counterfeiters, who are using increasingly sophisticated techniques and methods that the authorities of individual Member States are often unable to combat.

Consequently, we must always be on the lookout for the best ways of protecting the euro and of establishing effective Europe-wide combat against euro counterfeiting.

In this regard, I believe that Europol can play an important role in centralising and disseminating information, thereby contributing towards the effectiveness of the national offices in charge of fighting this type of crime. If it is to take on this role, however, its capacity to interact and its operational capability must be enhanced. Unless such changes take place, and in light of its budgetary and legal limitations, as the rapporteur rightly points out, one is entitled to raise doubts as to its ability to accomplish that task.

I voted in favour.

Demetriou report (A6-0059/2005)

  Posselt (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, I welcome the Demetriou report on the European Police College and voted in favour of it, even though it does not go far enough for my liking. I did of course have the honour of floating the idea of a European Police College back in 1998, following which the idea was taken up at the Tampere Summit. It was originally set up as a network of national colleges, and this report represents the final step in its becoming an institution.

That said, I have to say that we need to press on down this road if this college is to become a real institution serving – as was Parliament’s intention from the very outset – the training of national and European police units, and the training of police officers from every nation in accordance with European standards.

  Coelho (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) Police cooperation is a key factor in providing European citizens with a high level of security within the area of freedom, security and justice. Accordingly, the police services must be continually developed and a wide range of common quality standards for policing methods throughout Europe must be adopted.

The balance sheet on the first three years of the European Police College (CEPOL) is clearly positive – considerable advances have been made. This is in spite of the difficulties caused by the absence of legal status and of a seat, and by the fact that its budget has been financed by Member State contributions. Decisions on the issues of the seat and the legal personality were adopted in 2004.

The purpose of the proposal before use is to transform CEPOL into a Union body with legal personality and status; to accord it increased powers and Community funding; to provide it with its own seat, departments and staff, who will be subjected to EU rules and regulations; to replace voting by unanimity with voting by majority; and to provide for the use of all official languages and access to documents.

I endorse the Demetriou report and the amendments tabled by the rapporteur aimed at minimising the risks involved in centralising the system. I must also highlight that training provided by CEPOL is to be complemented at national level and that the national institutions must continue to work as a network.

  Martin, David (PSE), in writing. I welcome this move to establish a European Police College as a body of the European Union.

I am particularly pleased that the UK has been the Member State has had the honour of being selected to host the European Police College

  Pafilis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The objective in establishing and upgrading the European Police College is to speed up the adaptation of the national law-enforcement authorities in each country to the fight against the grass-roots movements threatening the policy of the EU. It forms part of the more general effort to adapt the repressive mechanisms of each Member State of the EU to the so-called fight against terrorism. It aspires to provide a uniform 'education' for the police forces of the Member States, so that they will be more effective in guarding the interests of big business and in preventing and suppressing grass-roots fights and demonstrations. In the face of this requirement, national sovereign rights are being ceded so that the common interest of the plutocracy in each country can be served by yet another repressive mechanism which requires extended jurisdiction, a legal personality and the capacity to interfere in the internal affairs of all the countries.

At the same time, the aim is to train police forces in 'non-military crisis management', in other words in combating grass-roots demonstrations in non-EU countries as well.

We shall vote against the report on the establishment of the European Police College, noting that its objective is not to combat crime, but to suppress the grass-roots movement.

  Ribeiro e Castro (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) The Commission’s proposal is of major importance in the times in which we live. Crime is, broadly speaking, on the rise throughout Europe, and a more effective European Police College (CEPOL) will help the public to feel safer.

The amendments tabled by the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and by the Committee on Budgets, adopted unanimously in committee, have improved the original proposal significantly.

CEPOL was conferred legal personality in 2004 and now requires further development. These measures, intended to provide for an adequately-staffed secretariat, financing exclusively from the Community budget and the recruitment of police staff, are intended to meet this requirement.

Mr Demetriou’s report offers workable solutions to problems that I consider to be of the highest importance.

I voted in favour.

Navarro report (A6-0055/2005)

  Goudin and Lundgren (IND/DEM), in writing. (SV) The members of the June List have chosen to abstain in the vote on this report. The report is an own-initiative report based mainly on the Commission’s statement on short sea shipping. The European Parliament never needed to produce this document. We appreciate that the Commission may need to evaluate shipping in order to examine how the internal market might be developed better. We do not, however, think it necessary in this situation for the European Parliament also to have written a report on the subject.

  Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) Coming from Portugal as I do, and speaking as the vice-chairman of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, I have significant concerns, you will appreciate, about the future of maritime transport. As I have said before, I believe in the virtues of increasing the use of sea and river transport for both passengers and goods. I also believe, along with the Commission communication and the report before us, that this will only happen if we work at various levels, for example by removing bureaucracy, by streamlining administration and by striving to improve the infrastructure.

I therefore voted in favour.

  Ribeiro e Castro (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) Along with inland water transport, which is a secure, environment-friendly means of transport and which accounts for around 7% of the goods traffic of the former 15 Member States, coastal shipping also deserves greater attention and promotion.

I welcome the proposal before us, which takes a significant step towards the ‘motorways of the sea’ that we wish to see. I should like to highlight the introduction of coordinated measures in the areas of shipping, ports and intermodality policy in order to boost the role of ports as transport network hubs, along with measures to ease administrative and customs formalities.

I feel that this resource, which is valuable and sustainable over the medium and long term, remains under-funded. As the report points out, it will only be profitable to make the heavy investment needed to provide regular, frequent and varied services if there is sufficient concentration of tonnes transported. For this to happen, port facilities must be improved and the possibilities offered by new technologies must be exploited.

In line with the targets set in the 2001 White Paper, the ‘motorways of the sea’ should be made part of the trans-European transport network in the same way as motorways or railways.

Peillon report (A6-0054/2005)

  Coelho (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) The purpose of the proposal before us is to introduce new measures concerning the European research area intended to help meet the target set at Lisbon of the EU becoming the most competitive knowledge-based economy in the world by 2010.

It is particularly important that this legal instrument be adopted, because in order to achieve this goal Europe will need some 700 000 more researchers by 2010. Accordingly, it is essential to facilitate, by means of a specific simplified procedure, the admission and mobility of third-country nationals for the purpose of scientific research, to make the Union’s labour market more attractive to researchers from around the world.

Nonetheless, whereas the aim is to foster the admission and mobility of researchers, it is also essential that monitoring measures be put in place to ensure that this does not lead to a brain drain in the least developed countries.

We must also take the necessary precautions as regards immigration. Legal immigration channels must be opened in a controlled fashion, within certain parameters, such as the categories of migrant in question and the needs of each Member State.

  Martin, David (PSE) , in writing. I welcome this report as a step closer towards the goals of the Lisbon Strategy. The Kok report identifies ‘increasing Europe's attractiveness for researchers and scientists’ and ‘making R&D a top priority’ among the policy areas requiring urgent action.

These Commission proposals further the establishment of a European research area, aimed at breaking down the barriers between national research systems and enhancing the mobility of researchers, thus promoting the transfer of expertise and the formation of scientists' networks.

It is essential for non-EU researchers to be taken in if we wish to meet the Barcelona target of investing 3% of the Member States’ GDP in research and technological development. In order to do so the EU will need to recruit 700 000 researchers by 2010 and it will not be able to produce this number of researchers itself.

It is therefore essential to remove the barriers preventing scientists from coming to the EU. However, I appreciate that a balance must be struck between the need to give the European research area a boost and immigration and security concerns. Therefore I agree with the idea of classifying researchers within the category of highly-qualified migrants...

(Explanation of vote abbreviated in accordance with Rule 163)

  Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) If Europe is actually intent on being the most competitive economy, it must show total commitment – both material and human – to research. Consequently, we must welcome and applaud moves to make it easier, less bureaucratic and more attractive for researchers from third countries to come to EU Member States. It is also essential to bear in mind, however, that it is difficult to see the removal of human capital from developing countries as a way of helping or cooperating. Policies of this nature must therefore always be properly thought through and well balanced.

Nonetheless, in light of the fact that the Portuguese legal framework blocked the granting of residence permits under the conditions laid down in the directive, which led to the granting of a two-year derogation, I call on my government to press ahead with the necessary amendments, because if it does not, Portugal will not only fail to benefit from this policy of attracting researchers, but will in fact suffer loss.

  Ribeiro e Castro (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) The European research area has become a key factor in the EU’s new strategic objective for the coming decade, which is to become the most competitive and most dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world.

For Europe to achieve this aim, it will need 700 000 more researchers by 2010. In so doing, it will be meeting the objective of dedicating 3% of Member States’ GDP to the activities of technological research and development.

The need for more researchers must be filled initially by adopting a range of integrated measures, such as boosting the appeal of science to young people, improving career prospects for researchers in the EU and increasing opportunities for training and mobility. Given that the EU will probably not find that large number of researchers in its territory, however, steps must be taken to attract more researchers from third countries.

Lastly, I welcome the importance that the proposal attaches to family reunification. The difficulties experienced in researchers bringing their families to the European area constitutes a major obstacle to their mobility and may lead them to choose a different career.

I voted in favour.

Motion for a resolution on hazardous substances (B6-0218/2005)

  Ribeiro e Castro (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) I welcome this motion for a resolution by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety regarding draft implementing measures, such as the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment, that would ‘exceed the implementing powers provided for in the basic instruments’.

All indications are that in this area the Commission has not acted in accordance with the provisions of Directive 2002/95/EC. We should therefore ask the Commission to re-examine its proposal for a decision in order to restore Community legality.

I voted in favour.

Buitenweg report (A6-0064/2005)

  Gollnisch (NI). – (FR) Whether it is legal assistance, translation and interpretation, information on the law, protecting suspected persons or providing consular assistance, these five procedural rights relating to the right of defence, which are set out in the Commission’s Green Paper, are in fact the core lawful standards for criminal procedures. No one can deny that the current situation is unsatisfactory.

Just one example: a man has been in prison for five months here in Alsace, despite the fact that everyone is presumed innocent until they have been proven guilty, in accordance with Article 9 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 26 August 1789. Mr Lezeau, who is accused of being responsible for racist graffiti in Herrlisheim cemetery, must now prove his innocence, from his cell and despite the severe handicap of being presumed guilty from the word go by the Public Prosecutor in Colmar, Mr Schultz, on the basis of completely derisory evidence.

Were this report to allow such scandalous and iniquitous situations to be resolved, then yes, we could support this text. But I fear that it will do no such thing. I believe that this report is simply part of a scheme to foist a single judicial area upon us, and there is nothing to say that this will be a better guarantor of our freedoms.

  Goudin and Lundgren (IND/DEM), in writing. (SV) The fact that the EU is to define common minimum standards governing basic common procedural rights for suspects and defendants in criminal proceedings may appear laudable. The proposal is, however, part and parcel of setting up a common criminal justice system. Guarantees of these minimum rights already exist in the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed by all the Member States.

It is doubtful whether the principle of subsidiarity has been observed and whether there is any legal basis in the Treaty for harmonising the Member States’ criminal justice systems. Legal uncertainty will, moreover, arise as to whether the European Court of Human Rights or the Court of Justice of the European Communities has the preferential right of interpretation.

The June List is therefore voting against the proposal.

  Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) The fight against terrorism has raised awareness of the need effectively to combat crime. This has had the positive effect of constant efforts being made, broadly supported by the majority, to strike a balance between the aim of effectively fighting crime and the duty to respect the rights, freedoms and guarantees of those accused of crimes.

Furthermore, the need for trust, mutual recognition and, most importantly, cooperation between the Member States, must not undermine the Member States’ exercise of sovereignty, especially in an area as country-specific as criminal law. In light of the solutions aimed at meeting these concerns, namely the introduction of the oral amendment tabled by the rapporteur in relation to Amendment 51, I was able to vote in favour.

  Ribeiro e Castro (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) Parliament had already adopted a recommendation on the Green Paper on procedural safeguards for suspects and defendants in criminal proceedings in the EU, which set out the main aspects of this question.

Through her suggestions, Mrs Buitenweg calls on the Commission to include the remaining measures contained in the Green Paper.

To my mind, the report before us stands out for two reasons: firstly due to the fact that it upholds the guiding spirit of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, particularly Articles 47 and 48; secondly, due to the aim of increasing the harmonisation of the rules governing criminal proceedings.

I also welcome the proposal to create a section containing definitions of the most commonly used concepts, and the proposal to create a written ‘Letter of Rights’ for defendants.

Given that I agree with the rapporteur’s suggestions and that I feel that the Commission has indeed tabled a much smaller list of minimum guarantees to be observed, I voted in favour.

Wynn report (A6-0070/2005)

  Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE). – Mr President, this is the tenth year that the European Court of Auditors has not given a positive Statement of Assurance – DAS – on the Commission’s accounts. We have recently seen whistleblowers hounded out of their jobs, and the charter that Mr Kinnock set out for whistleblowers is simply not working. We have no decent benchmarks from the Court of Auditors, so Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control cannot judge whether things are improving within the Commission’s accounts. And the buck does not seem to stop with the Commission, even though the Treaties say that it does: the Commission is always pointing the finger at the Member States saying that is where the money goes missing and it is not its problem.

Finally, the European Parliament is blinkered. It does not want to cause any trouble for the Commission, whilst all the time people in my constituency – in Leicester, in Lincoln, in Louth, in Rushcliffe in Nottingham – write to me asking what we are doing to sort out the Commission’s accounting problems. Parliament has chosen to do nothing. That is why I voted against the discharges.

  Elles (PPE-DE), in writing. I and my British Conservative colleagues have voted against the Parliament’s reports on the budgetary discharge because, for the tenth year running, the Court of Auditors has been unable to give a positive statement of assurance for the EU accounts. Conservatives believe that this must be tackled as a matter of urgency by the Commission, with zero tolerance of all cases of mismanagement and fraud, focusing on three main areas:

1. The accounting systems must be improved. The new system must be monitored closely to ensure that it is delivering the world class standard of accounts that we are promised.

2. Whistleblowers must actually be positively encouraged to come forward. To achieve this all whistleblowers must be treated fairly and must be seen to be treated fairly.

3. The area that concerned the Auditors most is the 80% of the budget that is spent in Member States. The Commission is responsible for the expenditure of all EU funds but in reality the power is delegated to paying agencies in member states. The objective must be the introduction of the principle of making Member States responsible for this expenditure.

  Ribeiro e Castro (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) I welcome the support for the discharge in committee. It is now up to the Commission to monitor the implementation of the general budget. The conclusion that one can draw from Mr Wynn’s excellent report is that levels of implementation were broadly positive. The rapporteur does say, however, that this was in contrast to the worrying discrepancy between amounts made available and implementation.

I feel that this warning is more than appropriate. As such, we will be able to strike a better balance, in the new financial perspectives for 2007-2013, between drawing up policy and the process of ensuring that it is implemented correctly. It is therefore all the more important that we re-examine the governance set-up in the Commission and the distribution of administrative processes.

Without prejudice to each Member State’s responsibility to implement each budget, which I wish to highlight (and which I support), it is important to remedy the organisational and bureaucratic problems that had hampered it (research and consumer protection being glaring examples) and had led to low implementation levels (68%) in an area as crucial as that of freedom, security and justice.

I particularly support the Court of Justice’s proposal for a Community internal control framework and a single audit model and I welcome the emphasis that this report places on the development sector.

  Schlyter (Verts/ALE), in writing. (SV) We have a new Commission, which can scarcely be held liable for what the old one did. The business of following up and claiming back funds paid out in error is still, however, a problem for the new Commission, and further measures need to be taken in this connection.

The most important reason for refusing discharge is that not all of the members of the committee were given all the documents they had requested in order to be able to examine the Commission.

Juknevičienė report (A6-0063/2005)

  Howitt (PSE). – Mr President, I very much regret that Parliament has voted for discharge in spite of the fact that there is an outstanding claim against one of its former Members for falsely claiming allowances. I am not going to comment in this speech on whether the former British Conservative MEP, Mr Bashir Khanbhai, was responsible for falsely claiming expenses. However, I note that, as long ago as July 2004, the Quaestors concluded that he had done so, and here we are, nearly ten months later in April 2005, and no money has been repaid. The protracted length of this matter is bringing this Parliament into disrepute. I hope that next year, when we come to the discharge of Parliament’s budget, this matter will be long concluded.

  Stenzel (PPE-DE). – (DE) Thank you, Mr President. On behalf of the delegation of the Austrian People’s Party, I too would like to say something about the Juknevičienė report. As an expression of our desire that a Members’ Statute be adopted, we have not voted against most of the amendments tabled by the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, and have largely followed the line taken by the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, believing as we do that these additions are not immediately relevant to a discharge report. We are aware that negotiations are currently underway with the Council concerning a Members’ Statute, and we want it to be negotiated as a package and these negotiations to result in a proper solution, which we do not want to pre-empt.

  Cederschiöld, Fjellner, Hökmark and Ibrisagic (PPE-DE), in writing. (SV) Taxpayers’ money must always be handled with the greatest respect. Elected representatives must of course comply with established regulations.

It should be up to elected representatives to decide how appropriations for carrying out their mandates are best used. What literature and which newspapers they read cannot be subject to someone else’s control. Nor should other politicians ever be able to decide what telephone conversations are justified, or politicians be required to reveal whom they consult or talk with. They need to be able to protect their sources and contacts among the electorate. In the light of this, we have voted against the demands for annual audits of MEPs’ office expenditure allowances. In the case of one item, we have, for technical reasons, been forced to vote in favour of an annual audit because we support the requirement that the deficit of the European Parliament’s pension fund should not be covered by public funds.

A majority of the Members of the European Parliament should never be given scope to influence other elected representatives’ ability to represent their parties or their countries. Swedish MEPs are responsible to Swedish voters for their actions and not to political opponents in other countries. We have therefore voted against Parliament being able to suspend MEPs.

  Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) Among the many aspects addressed in this resolution on Members’ allowances, a majority in Parliament once again insists on establishing a flat salary for MEPs, arguing that there should be no difference between the salaries that they receive.

What is not mentioned is that establishing a flat monthly salary – of around EUR 8 500 (around 1.7 million escudos) for all Members, regardless of the countries that they represent – would create a morally untenable situation if one were to compare this salary with that of the workers (and of other politicians and people in public office) in most countries, and this is certainly true of Portugal.

MEPs’ salaries should reflect the salaries of the members of the national parliament of the country in which they were elected. MEPs are elected nationally and are – and should continue to be – bound by national rules.

We should continue to apply measures aimed at accountability and at strict monitoring of the finances allocated to the MEPs to carry out their duties.

I therefore voted against.

  Kirkhope (PPE-DE), in writing. I and my Conservative MEP colleagues have long supported attempts to ensure that the European Parliament has only one official seat, and that it should be in Brussels. The cost to the taxpayer of the Strasbourg seat is estimated at around GBP 150 million per annum. This is a gross waste of public funds. British taxpayers deserve to have value for money. The costs of having to support parliamentary operations in both Strasbourg and Brussels have now become indefensible, and we will continue to campaign to have Parliament sit only in Brussels in future.

  Lulling (PPE-DE), in writing. (DE) I cannot vote in favour of the report by the Committee on Budgetary Control, full as it is of unreasonable assertions, misrepresentations and false suppositions as regards Members’ remuneration, the reimbursement of their travelling and general expenses, and the rules on voluntary pension arrangements. It is positively repugnant how individual Members attempt to make a name for themselves using disinformation and defamation in some of the media, all of which ends up doing harm to the good name of this House and of the EU as a whole.

The irresponsible attempt by various self-appointed clean-up operators to depict as fiddlers the generality of MEPs who keep to the rules and are guilty of not one single breach of them can no longer be tolerated. My abstention from voting on this report – even though I voted in favour of the considerable improvements made to it – is intended to make that a matter of record.

Another reason why I am unable to vote in favour of this report is that its statements concerning Parliament’s seat in Strasbourg and its places of work in Luxembourg and Brussels quite simply go against the Treaty currently in force and the decisions that have been taken on where Parliament should sit. The additional costs that it denounces as a consequence of our working in three places are largely the result of a wildly inaccurate calculation which takes no account of the advantages of these decentralised arrangements, and behind which – I would add – lies the unwarranted egoism of the Brussels lobby.

  Morgan (PSE), in writing. I have voted in favour of amendment 11, which refers to travel at cost. It is essential that we have transparency in terms of MEPs' expenses.

I would also like to declare an interest, as I am a member of the MEP pension fund. Nevertheless, I feel it is wholly indefensible to expect European taxpayers to subsidise any shortfall in the pension fund, which is why I have voted for amendments 5 and 12.

  Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) When we vote on the discharge of accounts, there is no clear distinction between what is in line with political decisions governing financial management and the recognition of the validity of the accounts presented; if I have objections to raise as regards the former, the same is not necessarily true of the latter. Otherwise, the report contains certain points and recommendations that completely justify my vote in favour. In this context, I wish to express my support for single status for MEPs, which would put an end to the unacceptable inequality between people elected by equal citizens. I also endorse the objective of turning Brussels into Parliament’s sole, permanent seat in order to make best use of human and financial resources; after all, for Parliament to have two seats implies twice the cost, which is burdensome and absurd. Lastly, I agree with the need to increase funding earmarked for interpreting. Knowledge of foreign languages must not be a precondition for MEPs to carry out their duties.

  Ribeiro e Castro (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) I welcome the good results obtained in 2003, the first financial year for which the Directors-General have drawn up annual activity reports. The Secretary-General subsequently forwarded them to the President and to the Committee on Budgetary Control, with a declaration offering reasonable assurance that Parliament’s budget was implemented in accordance with the principles of sound financial management, and as to the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions. A high level of budgetary implementation was also achieved.

I regret the fact that this report has been seen as an opportunity for further attacks on Strasbourg as a seat of Parliament. It is true that having two seats generates high and unnecessary costs, as well as great inconvenience. Opting for Brussels, however, is not the only way forward and would be a divisive and short-sighted move. Alternatively, we could hold every sitting in Strasbourg, which, as much as anything, would strengthen Parliament’s day-to-day practical and functional independence from the Council, the Commission and their bureaucracies. This, to my mind, is the right response to the situation. It is only if we take such a decision – a permanent seat in Strasbourg and an end to the moveable feast – that the French authorities and the local authorities in Strasbourg will make the necessary investment and will justify lasting modifications to the transport system.

Sender and Schlyter report (A6-0074/2005)

  Ribeiro e Castro (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) The broad support for each of the 14 discharge processes as regards the Decentralised Agencies leads one to the automatic conclusion that their activities must have an end product. If so, there will in turn be a general improvement in the effectiveness of the EU’s activities. From the creation of the first agency, in the 1970s, until the most recent – the European Network and Information Security Agency, set up in March 2004 – the execution of specific tasks of a technical, scientific or management nature has effectively become visible, which was among the guiding objectives of their creation.

We have drawn on the experience gained in order to find new methods and make improvements, both in terms of their integration and the transparency of their activities and in terms of enhancing complementary action, whereby the necessary resources are better organised and geared more efficiently towards achieving results and a communication strategy is devised to disseminate those results. These are some of the methods suggested in the report, to which I would add that we must scrutinise the day-to-day running of the projects and the actual relevance, effectiveness and efficiency of each agency model in terms of how it is implemented and of its contribution to Community policies.

Xenogiannakopoulou report (A6-0069/2005)

  Ribeiro e Castro (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) As I have stated on countless occasions, I feel that the EU’s external dimension, and in particular development aid, is one of the most important aspects of the European project.

I therefore welcome the opinion delivered by the Committee on Development, that the most important objective should be to eradicate poverty by bolstering social, educational and health-related infrastructure, to increase the production capacities of the poorer sections of society and to provide support to countries that require it most urgently, to enable them to increase growth and local potential. Against this backdrop, as I said in the other parliamentary seat, I feel it is essential that 20% of EU expenses earmarked for development cooperation should be channelled into basic education and health in developing countries.

The European Development Fund (EDF) is a key instrument in implementing such policies in the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries. Consequently, as this report proposes, the Commission must speed up disbursement of EDF aid in order to prevent resources not being used, an alarming tendency that has come to light. The swifter implementation that we would wish to see must go hand in hand with greater transparency, greater accountability and compliance with the principles of sound financial management.

I voted in favour of the motion for a resolution.

Kinnock report (A6-0075/2005)

  Landsbergis (PPE-DE). – (LT) Mr President. I would like to make a couple of comments on Article 47 of Glenys Kinnock's report. It presents a superficial and inhuman attitude to the question of abortion. In the text abortion is viewed as a technical procedure, where the only concern is for the woman's physical safety, nothing is said about mental factors and only the woman is discussed, not that person who could be born. It also approves in essence any legal regulation, by stating that there must be some sort of legal regulation. In some countries, particularly beyond the borders of the European Union, this may be entirely unacceptable. Thus with such an attitude to abortion not only the initiators, but the European Parliament itself, help cruelty take root in our society. I am convinced of this, and am sorry that this has happened.

  Goudin and Lundgren (IND/DEM), in writing. (SV) The global fight against poverty is a very important issue demanding substantial international commitment. The June List is, however, of the view that this issue should not be dealt with within the framework of EU cooperation. The EU Member States must decide independently on levels of aid and possible debt cancellation.

International cooperation on combating poverty must take place in the context of UN cooperation. The UN has extensive working experience of the fight against poverty and is the international organisation best suited to managing international cooperation within this area. The fight against HIV/AIDS is most appropriately carried on within the World Health Organisation (WHO).

The June List seeks limited EU cooperation. We are opposed to the EU seeking influence and competences in respect of issues already dealt with by existing international organisations.

  Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) The report before us presents an assessment of the situation that it is condemning – for example that the number of people living below the poverty line continues to rise and that the fight against poverty requires a radical change of policy in order to combat the structural causes of poverty, such as the unaffordable debt payments by developing countries and unfair distribution of wealth. Yet it also reveals its ‘limitations’ by not proposing any measures effectively to combat the causes that it highlights, by accepting the liberalisation of world trade and by failing to call for unconditional debt relief for all developing countries, as proposed in the amendment that we tabled and that was rejected.

It does contain a number of positive elements, however, such as the need for water-related services to remain under public control as a matter of principle, in other words adopting the amendment that we tabled, which reaffirms that water is a shared resource of humankind and that access to water is a fundamental human right that should be promoted and safeguarded.

  de Brún and McDonald (GUE/NGL), in writing. Sinn Fein has a strong record of support for the MDGs and the objective of halving world poverty by 2015. Mrs Kinnock’s report outlines the many steps which need to be taken by the EU and its Member States to achieve these important goals. Our support for her resolution is in that context. Recitals 47 and 63 contain elements which are outside Sinn Fein party policy and our support for the core elements of the resolution should not be taken as a full endorsement of the detail of these two recitals.

  Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) The EU has enormous obligations – and advantages, let us not forget – when it comes to contributing towards development. The endless rhetoric of defending a set of values, a model of growth and a way to behave in international relations must be translated into practical action. This policy, which must be treated as a matter of priority and which must serve to expand the area of economic and democratic development and of respect for human rights, must not, however, be confused with a policy pursued by certain groups, movements or parties of gradually exporting their political agendas. There is a heritage in the developed western world to which we belong that is sufficiently widespread and embedded, and this heritage must form part of our efforts to support development. This should be the backbone of our policies aimed at implementing the millennium development goals.

  Ribeiro e Castro (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) The fight against all forms of poverty requires global commitment involving the international community and it is the most developed countries that have the greatest responsibility in this regard.

Reducing by half the number of people living in extreme poverty, containing the spread of HIV/AIDS and universal access to primary education across the world are aims that are worthy of support across the board and are issues to which the EU must not turn a blind eye.

Accordingly, I voted in favour of the motion for a resolution because I feel that the millennium development goals constitute targets that the EU, as defender and promoter of human rights, must support and foster. If they are achieved, they will represent significant global progress and a sign of genuine, practical and effective humanism.

Nevertheless, I feel compelled to point out and to express my disappointment at the attempts made to manipulate concepts by using language in Parliament designed to muddy the waters on these objectives, the most glaring example of which is the use of euphemistic expressions to mean, purely and simply, the spread and encouragement of abortion. In this section, I voted against. One can hardly say that such practices represent victory over poverty; rather, they are defeats for the human race.

  President. That concludes the vote.

(The sitting was suspended at 1.05 p.m and resumed at 3 p.m.)

IN THE CHAIR: MR BORRELL FONTELLES
President

  President. The next item is the debate

on the recommendation by Geoffrey Van Orden, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, on the application by the Republic of Bulgaria to become a member of the European Union [AA1/2/2005 – C6-0085/2005 – 2005/0901(AVC)] (A6-0082/2005),

on the report by Geoffrey Van Orden, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, on the application by the Republic of Bulgaria to become a member of the European Union [2005/2029(INI)] (A6-0078/2005),

on the recommendation by Pierre Moscovici, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, on Romania’s application for membership of the European Union [AA1/2/2005 – C6-0086/2005 – 2005/0902(AVC)] (A6-0083/2005),

on the report by Pierre Moscovici, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, on Romania’s application for membership of the European Union

[2005/2028(INI)] (A6-0077/2005),

and on the report by Bárbara Dührkop Dührkop and Reimer Böge, on behalf of the Committee on Budgets, on the financial implications of the accession of Romania and Bulgaria [2005/2031(INI)] (A6-0090/2005).

  Van Orden (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – Mr President, in the past five years under various governments we have seen an intensification of political, economic and social reform in Bulgaria during its negotiations for European Union membership. I have had the honour and pleasure of acting as Parliament’s rapporteur for Bulgaria throughout this period. Bulgaria is now on the brink of accession. The most important role now to be performed by Parliament is to give its assent to Bulgaria’s application to become a Member State of the European Union. I trust that tomorrow Parliament will warmly endorse the recommendation for accession.

The process of modernisation does not stop with the signature of the Accession Treaty, which we hope will take place on 25 April.

I note that the Accession Treaty for Bulgaria, and, indeed, Romania, differs from the treaties with the previous group of accession countries in two important respects. Firstly, there are the ‘safeguard clauses’, which would allow accession to be delayed by up to a year in certain circumstances. To my mind it is unfortunate that Bulgaria has been caught in the wake of concerns that are more acute in relation to another country. I have always insisted that Bulgaria should be judged on its own merits, in which case the invocation of safeguard clauses should be seen as a remote possibility. Nevertheless, they are a reminder that much still remains to be done in terms of modernisation and the practical implementation of legislation. It is only right that Parliament be fully involved in any consideration of application of the safeguard clauses. The Commission, therefore, must take full account of Parliament’s views and I understand that Commissioner Rehn will give us further reassurance on this point.

The second difference is that ratification of the European Constitution becomes concurrent with ratification of the Accession Treaty. On a personal note, I should point out that my reservations about this are mollified by my expectation that the Constitution will fail, and so blushes will be spared.

I have just returned from Sofia. There is a pre-election mood in the country. All the political parties are in favour of EU accession and well understand that there is much work still to be done. The next government will have to mobilise resources and demonstrate real political determination to bring about the necessary reforms, in particular of the judiciary and the police services. There must be public confidence in the effectiveness and impartiality of the fight against corruption, organised crime and trafficking. The pre-trial phase and the role of the Public Prosecutor are two particular concerns that must be further addressed.

There are many other issues. The integration of the Roma community remains a priority. This is a matter of resources and political will on the part of government and motivation on the part of the Roma community to adapt to the norms of mainstream society. I am not convinced by an amendment to my report calling for some new regulatory body with all its inevitable bureaucracy.

On the subject of Kozloduy, the Bulgarian authorities, assisted by the international community, have introduced exceptional safety measures and responded positively to the requirement for closure of certain units. A little flexibility should now be shown in return, bearing in mind the important contribution Bulgaria makes to regional energy needs. I am encouraged by the decision of the Bulgarian Government to relaunch the construction of the second nuclear power plant at Belene.

On 30 March members of the Committee on Foreign Affairs voted overwhelmingly for the text of my report as it now stands and I, therefore, do not recommend further amendment.

Finally, on a separate but nevertheless important matter, I welcome the invitation by Libya for a visit by the President of Bulgaria. I hope this will lead to the early release of the Bulgarian and Palestinian health workers arrested in 1999 and now under sentence of death. At the same time, we strongly support the practical assistance being given by the European Union to help relieve the suffering of children affected by HIV.

This is an exciting time for Bulgaria. We are on the eve of the assent vote for Bulgaria’s accession and I strongly urge the House to vote in favour.

  Moscovici (PSE), rapporteur. – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as I have said to you on several previous occasions, following the negotiation of the accession conclusions with Bulgaria and Romania at the European Council of 16 and 17 December 2004, the Commission issued an opinion in favour of this accession on 22 February 2005. It is now Parliament’s turn to give its assent to the applications of the two countries. In this context, I think it is important – and I believe that Mr Van Orden shares this point of view – to avoid dissociating the votes on Bulgaria and Romania. We should therefore be equally welcoming in both cases, and resoundingly so.

The Committee on Foreign Affairs also voted in favour of Romania’s accession by a very substantial majority, and today I am asking you to give your assent to Romania’s accession. Why should you do so? I am doing so because I continue to champion a positive, clear and rigorous attitude. Positive because Romania’s accession is a political objective of the European Union and is what the Romanians want. Positive because a great deal of effort and a great deal of progress have been made on the road to accession, and I believe that this has acted as a catalyst on Romanian society: the previous government had started to work, the present one is continuing the job and we are on the right track.

At the same time, I suggest being clear and rigorous because, let us not deny it, problems remain, and we are familiar with them. Much remains to be done in the field of justice and home affairs, in particular in connection with the fight against corruption, organised crime, border controls, and the recognition and protection of minorities, including the Roma and the Hungarian minorities, as well as in the fields of competition and the environment. The Romanian Government must, we will continue to say, focus in particular on actually implementing administrative and judicial reform, on the fight against corruption, on the fight against social exclusion and poverty, on freedom of information, which is of course decisive for us, and on strengthening local and regional governance.

I would add finally that there are safeguards or instruments that mean that we can continue to act. I am thinking, for example, of the possible recourse to the safeguard clauses, which should not be seen as a sanction but rather as a lever for action, as a way of exerting positive pressure to ensure that matters move in the right direction, particularly in the areas that I have just mentioned.

With this in mind, the debate in the Committee on Foreign Affairs focused on an absolutely decisive point, that is the role of our Parliament. You see, one question concerns us in this assent procedure: what is going to happen once the Accession Treaty is signed, since the Council is asking the European Parliament to give its assent to an accession that will not take place for another twenty months? This procedure is actually unusual, since as a rule we give our assent further down the line. Many Members are concerned about this situation. They fear that by, as it were, signing a blank cheque, they will forgo any capacity to act in the period of time that separates us from the actual accession, and this when problems exist – and may even increase – and when there is a possibility of a safeguard clause being invoked. It is therefore important for the Commission and the Council to involve the European Parliament fully in monitoring the situation to ensure that Romania respects its commitments.

At a meeting of the committee concerned, Commissioner Rehn gave a political undertaking to involve Parliament in preparing for the accession of the two countries, and in particular to consult Parliament should the safeguard clauses be used. Several Members have worked on this issue and we have had amendments tabled on the citations and recommendations made in the reports on Bulgaria and Romania, because essentially Parliament has a role to play as a partner in these two situations.

President Borrell, who has been very active on this matter, has moreover written a letter to President Barroso on the subject, asking him to confirm the position adopted by Commissioner Rehn on 30 March, which he has done, but I imagine that he will mention this himself.

The President-in-Office of the Council, Mr Jean-Claude Juncker, has also had an exchange of letters on this subject with President Borrell. What can we expect today therefore, if not a confirmation of this undertaking not only from the Commission but also from the Council Presidency today or tomorrow? I hope, Commissioner and Mr President-in-Office, that you will be able to give us some reassurance on this point so that we can all vote in favour of this assent.

It will then be incumbent on the European Parliament, when the Commission publishes its next report in November, to assess whether this undertaking has been respected and to draw the necessary conclusions. In any case, what we want is for Parliament to be able to adopt this report by as large a majority as possible, for it to do so in an awareness that this marks a new phase in the enlargement of the European Union and in the completion of a joint project, but also for it do so with the feeling that I detected when I spoke to many Members, the feeling that Europe needs to be protected, that it should be possible to vote in safety and that this Parliament should also be one of the guarantors of that protection and that safety.

  Dührkop Dührkop (PSE), rapporteur. – (ES) Mr President, the European Parliament report approved unanimously last night has two fundamental origins. Firstly, the Council’s statement in March 2004 that the financial package proposed by the Commission for Bulgaria and Romania is fair and balanced, entirely excluding the other arm of the budgetary authority.

Secondly, the Council intends to include fixed sums in the annex to the Accession Treaty, for 2007 to 2009, for non-obligatory expenses which are to become obligatory, thereby violating the institutional and budgetary competences of the European Parliament.

The European Parliament profoundly regrets that the Council has systematically refused to reach an agreement in order to produce a joint declaration with Parliament on the financial implications of the accession of these two countries. For Parliament, the lack of will on the part of the Council demonstrates a lack of honest cooperation within the spirit of the interinstitutional agreement.

Parliament firmly rejects this violation of its budgetary competences.

In this annex, in which the figures will be established, items that are entirely the competence of the European Parliament are becoming obligatory. So Parliament is calling on the Council to agree to this joint declaration. We are leaving this door open until the signature of accession: for the Council to agree to draw up this joint declaration.

Furthermore, it should be emphasised that the Council should be in no doubt that its refusal is sending a horrendous signal for the future negotiations on the financial perspectives.

  Böge (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs Dührkop Dührkop and I would actually have preferred to put before you today a joint negotiated statement that would secure Parliament’s rights in matters of budgetary policy and present a credible financial package in respect of Romania and Bulgaria. I would also have hoped that the Council would have learned something from the many and varied difficulties that we had with the last enlargement round, but, lamentably, the efforts of this House’s delegation to the negotiations and also of the Luxembourg Presidency have not been crowned with success in this respect.

If I may allude to what Mrs Dührkop Dührkop said, Parliament’s rights, whether in relation to the Budget or to anything else, are not peanuts; they may not just be infringed at any appropriate opportunity. To do so puts the next packages, on which – in the interests not only of the European Union’s capacity to act – we are to negotiate together, in a poor and unfavourable light. For that reason, I want to reiterate, for the record, that we, on the basis of the figures and estimates that the Commission has made available to us, as well as of our own investigations, are taking it as read that the total sum of money set aside for Bulgaria and Romania from 2007 to 2013 is likely to amount to some EUR 44.3 billion, including EUR 16 billion in the period prior to 2009 – some EUR 12.5 billion has been agreed in the Accession Treaty – and EUR 28 billion for the period from 2010 to 2013. That is one thing. The problem with it, though, is that, if there is no Financial Perspective, these agreements infringe the European Parliament’s budgetary prerogative, as they make non-obligatory expenditure into commitments and hence interfere to some degree with Parliament’s room for manoeuvre and structuring options in the event of the failure of the Financial Perspective, especially in the areas of internal and foreign policy, in subsequent financial planning. With such a poor outcome to negotiations, that is something that every Member and every political group should consider very carefully.

(Applause)

  Schmit, President-in-Office of the Council. – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the founding fathers of the Community clearly stated in 1957 in the Treaty of Rome that they were, ‘determined to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe’. In the preamble to this Treaty, the Member States call upon the other peoples of Europe – including the countries that were separated from it at the time – who share the same ideals of peace and liberty, to join in their project to build a united Europe. Tomorrow, by adopting the assents marking the completion of the Union’s fifth enlargement, comprising Bulgaria and Romania, the European Parliament will enable the Union to take a decisive step forward in the process of unifying our continent. This is a further stage in the unification process, the Bulgarian and Romanian nations thus regaining their place within this Europe, whose history, heritage and culture they share. These two countries will thus find their proper place in a continent open to culture, learning and social progress, as the preamble to the Constitution underlines.

By giving your assent, you are making a vital contribution to a Europe without demarcation lines, a Europe of democracy, freedom, peace and progress, sharing the same values that have been embedded in the Constitution for Europe.

Furthermore, the accession of these two countries to the Union is first and foremost an accession to these values, to this European model to which the citizens of Europe, all European citizens, are attached.

Our most noble ambition, shared by the citizens of these two countries, who have won back their freedom after almost five decades of sometimes terrible oppression, is precisely to anchor these countries in these values.

I will ask a simple question, which is also addressed to the honourable Member: can any convinced European who wishes to move Europe forward along the path of democracy and human rights, but also of social rights, reasonably take the risk of rejecting the Charter of Fundamental Rights, an integral part of the Constitution, which marks a fundamental milestone in the building of our Europe, of a Europe based on common values?

(Applause)

These two countries have moreover been fully involved in drafting this Constitution, which will give Europe more solid foundations.

The success of this enlargement depends not only on the practical efforts made by Bulgaria and Romania in the process of reforming their societies. It also needs the support of our citizens, who must understand the significance of this enlargement for the stability of our continent. The European Parliament has a vital role to play in lending its political legitimacy and credibility to this process.

This fifth enlargement process, which was launched in 1997 by the Luxembourg European Council, has been comprehensive, inclusive and progressive. The twelve countries involved have all undergone the process under the same conditions and have been called on to join the European Union on the basis of the same criteria. It has taken place in phases, at each candidate country’s own pace, depending on its degree of preparation. This has made it possible to ensure that each country has had the same opportunities to join the European Union, but also the same obligations to meet. At the European Council of December 2002, which decided on the accession of the ten new Member States, the declaration on a single Europe underlined the continuous, inclusive and irreversible nature of the enlargement process, clearly announcing our objective of wishing to welcome Bulgaria and Romania as new Member States in 2007.

The accession negotiations have not always been easy – as the Commission can certainly confirm – but I think that the results contained in the Accession Treaty are fair and appropriate and broadly in line with the results of the negotiations with the ten new Member States.

Bulgaria and Romania now have about twenty months to put the finishing touches to their preparations for accession. In its latest regular reports, the Commission considered that, given the progress made by these two countries, their track record in implementing their commitments and the preparatory work in progress, they should be ready to join the Union on 1 January 2007. The Commission confirmed this conclusion with its favourable opinion of 22 February on the accession of the two countries. The European Council considered that Bulgaria and Romania will be able to assume all of the obligations arising from accession, provided that the two countries continue their efforts within the time allowed, that they complete all of the necessary reforms and that they honour all of the commitments given in each of the areas of the acquis.

You are not unaware of the legitimate questions about the proper and timely implementation of the acquis, in particular in the field of justice and home affairs, in Romania’s case, and also of the competition and environment policies. There is no short cut on the road to accession. The credibility of the process depends on the fact that each country can only join on the basis of the same political and economic criteria and its capacity to fulfil all of the obligations arising from membership. This implies the existence of the necessary administrative and judicial capacity to complete this task successfully.

Bulgaria and Romania are fully aware of what is expected of them as future Member States. Since the accession negotiations were opened, the Union has emphasised what accession to the European Union means: full acceptance of all of the rights and obligations, both current and potential, arising from the Union’s system and its institutional framework, including the Constitution – for which I am more optimistic – as well as the real and actual implementation of the acquis.

Looking at the reports of Mr Moscovici and Mr Van Orden on the applications for accession of Bulgaria and Romania, I am convinced that we share the same analysis that these two countries should be in a position to join the Union in January 2007 and to assume fully the obligations arising from their accession.

In the meantime, the Union will continue to support Bulgaria and Romania in their preparations by all the means at its disposal. Until the day of accession, the Europe Agreements, which were concluded in 1994, will remain in force. They have functioned properly and been a key tool for preparing Bulgaria and Romania for accession. But it is clear that it is incumbent on Bulgaria and Romania to make every effort to be ready. It would be impossible to underestimate what this means in economic, social and political terms, and the work done so far certainly deserves all our respect.

The European Union will continue to monitor carefully the preparations made by the two countries and the results achieved, including the actual implementation of their commitments. I can assure you that the Luxembourg Presidency takes the work of monitoring very seriously. In fact it is vital to the two countries’ own interests to be really ready. If they were not, they would run the risk of not being able to benefit fully from being members, if, for example, it were to prove necessary to invoke the safeguard clauses in certain sectors.

We are aware of the institutions’ respective roles in this context. Let us be quite clear about this: assuming assents from the European Parliament to the applications for accession by the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania, if the Commission submits a recommendation to the Council seeking to implement one of the safeguard clauses in the Accession Treaty, the Council’s decision will take due account of the position of the European Parliament.

The Council gives this assurance today to Parliament, which is right to wish to monitor developments in the two countries closely. As we have already heard, a letter to this effect has been sent by the President of the European Council to the President of the European Parliament. I would reiterate that enlargement can only succeed if it enjoys the broad support of the peoples of the Union. You represent these peoples. You represent the citizens of Europe. Your voice has to be listened to, your judgment deserves to be taken fully into account should any decisions have to be made about implementing safeguard clauses.

With this in mind, may I remind you that the work of the European Parliament does not end with your assent. Your political contribution to the enlargement process will continue to be valuable. We are grateful for the political support that you have lent to the process as it has unfolded, in particular by engaging in an open and constructive dialogue with your counterparts, the elected members of the Bulgarian and Romanian parliaments.

In conclusion, allow me to remind you that the historic project that you are debating today is the accession of Bulgaria and Romania. All of us agree that the accession of these two countries will constitute a decisive step towards putting the injustice and artificial division of Europe behind us.

I should now like to say a few words about the financial implications. Concerning the financing of this enlargement to 27 countries with Bulgaria and Romania, I should like to remind you that the negotiations with these two countries have been conducted on the same basis and in accordance with the same principles as those that were applied to the ten new Member States. On the basis of a proposal from the Commission, the Member States have approved a financial package setting out the only identifiable expenditure in favour of these two countries, which will cover a period of three years, as was the case for the ten. Afterwards it is the acquis that will apply, including the next financial perspective. It is a question of justice and fair treatment, but also of predictability for the two countries. We cannot negotiate without putting the cards on the table, particularly where the financial aspects are concerned for the first difficult steps that they will take as Member States.

It is clear that, given the date envisaged for the accession of these two countries, the situation in which we find ourselves is different from that experienced by the ten new Member States. For this reason, we already established an essential principle at the Thessaloniki European Council: discussions on the future political reforms or the new financial perspective must not stand in the way of continuing or concluding the accession negotiations with Bulgaria and Romania. In the same way, the results of these negotiations must not prejudge the discussions or agreement on the political reforms or the new financial perspective.

Like you, I regret that it was not possible to reach an agreement between the Council and Parliament. We were very close to an agreement. Was it the jangling of nerves – particularly, I think, in the Council, to be fair – before the difficult negotiations on the financial perspective, which prevented us from reaching this agreement? I would like to reiterate clearly that there may have been some misunderstandings. Perhaps certain technical considerations prevailed over a positive political approach. I can assure you, on behalf of the Presidency, that, for us, the European Parliament’s institutional and budgetary powers and competences are in no way called into question by the proposals tabled, and that the interinstitutional agreement remains fully valid. I cannot promise, as Mr Böge has asked, to seek an agreement on a declaration even before the agreement is signed, but we will make one final effort to do so, and who knows?

  Rehn, Member of the Commission. Mr President, following your positive resolutions in December, in February the Commission adopted a favourable opinion on the accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union. In fact, if they complete their homework successfully, these two countries will be represented in this House in less than two years’ time. They will take their places here as observers after the Accession Treaty.

I wish to stress, as I did at the Foreign Affairs Committee on 29 March, that President Barroso and I have repeatedly underlined that while the conclusion of the negotiations and the signature of the Accession Treaty imply that agreement has been reached on the terms and conditions for the accession of Bulgaria and Romania, they do not mean that the preparations for membership are complete. In the remaining 21 months, Bulgaria and Romania must deliver on key reforms and fully meet the commitments they have made in the course of the negotiations. The clock is ticking. Every day, every week, every month counts from now on. Both countries are the subject of very close monitoring by the Commission, by the Member States and by Parliament. They will remain so until the eve of accession.

I want to reassure you that if the Commission judges, on the basis of its monitoring, that either Bulgaria or Romania are manifestly unprepared for membership, I would not hesitate to recommend the use of the remedial tools. This includes the clause allowing us to postpone accession by one year until 2008. I am convinced that the honourable Members of Parliament will agree to this approach. I therefore look forward to a regular dialogue with you on the implementation of Bulgaria and Romania’s commitments.

As President Barroso confirmed in a letter to President Borrell last week, the Commission will seriously consider the views of Parliament before issuing any recommendation on this issue, in particular after the release in November of our Comprehensive Monitoring Report on the progress towards accession made by Romania and Bulgaria. For this, I would like to thank especially the Committee on Foreign Affairs, its chairman, rapporteurs, and the coordinators for their cooperation and for a very sound solution. In my view, this respects the Treaty and at the same time gives the European Parliament a voice in the process in the spirit of true European democracy.

I visited Sofia in mid-March and Bucharest at the beginning of March. Let me give you a brief outline of the Commission’s current assessment of the progress made by the two countries.

Mr Van Orden’s report on Bulgaria welcomes the conclusion of the accession negotiations. The country has indeed made steady progress in recent years. Nonetheless, Bulgaria needs to keep up the momentum in its preparation for accession. We are watching this closely through our intensified monitoring mechanism. Bulgaria needs to make sound and solid efforts to reform the judiciary, and to fight against corruption and organised crime. The reform of the judiciary, in particular of the pre-trial phase, is the overarching priority until accession. This is the priority of all priorities for Bulgaria.

Let me turn to Romania. In its opinion on Romania, the Commission called on the country to pursue with determination the reforms that still need to be made. In particular, this covers the effective implementation of reforms of the public administration and the judiciary, the fight against corruption and the fulfilment of the commitments made in the field of competition and state aid, as well as the environment. In his report, Mr Moscovici adds to these priorities organised crime and the control of external borders. I fully share his views. These must be among the critical conditions when we evaluate Romania’s progress towards accession.

Romania has started to tackle the accession requirements seriously, especially in the field of justice reform and the fight against corruption. I am glad to say today that all the key strategic documents required as a result of the negotiations have recently been transmitted by the Romanian Government to the Commission on time. These concern the fight against corruption, reform of the justice system and border security. The documents are currently being assessed by the Commission.

In another key area which we will be watching very closely, that of competition and state aid, Romania has inter alia fulfilled its obligation to submit its national plan for steel restructuring, and has done this on time before the deadline.

Progress is also being made in the areas of police cooperation, where new laws on the Gendarmerie and the National Police have been adopted. Romania is engaged in discussions to determine the shape of its future funding commitments regarding border management.

The political determination now has to be further translated into concrete actions. Based on my frequent meetings with the Romanians in both Bucharest and in Brussels, I have a strong belief that the new government has understood the scope and the importance of the monitoring exercise, as well as the urgency to deliver concrete results in the first semester of 2005.

In my view we have reason to be cautiously optimistic as regards Romania’s preparation for accession. Let us have a fair game. The jury is still out and it is now time to give Romania the benefit of the doubt in terms of its preparations for accession as a fully-fledged member state of the European Union.

Before concluding, let me briefly touch upon the financial implications of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania, to which Mr Smith referred in his speech. Commissioner Grybauskaitė has worked closely with the two rapporteurs Mr Böge and Mrs Dührkop Dührkop, my former colleagues from the Committee on Budgetary Control. The Commission’s position on the matter is as follows. The amounts agreed in the accession negotiations with Bulgaria and Romania for the period 2007-2009 are included in the Accession Treaty. The financial perspective for 2007-2013 is to be broken into broad categories of expenditure for the EU-27, not on distinctions of allocations between certain groups of Member States, some of which can only be very indicative anyway. The Commission believes that distinguishing indicative amounts by certain groups of Member States is not in line with the spirit and the letter of the interinstitutional agreement.

To conclude, both the European Commission and our financial assistance programmes will continue to support the efforts of the two countries to intensify their necessary preparations. The timely signature of the Accession Treaty is important with a view to sustaining the momentum and ensuring the successful preparation for the accession of Bulgaria and Romania. I count on your support in this respect.

  Maat (PPE-DE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Agriculture. – (NL) Mr President, I am very touched by what Mr Schmit said, on behalf of the Council, about the EU’s social values. It is in the light of those values of the EU that we should view this enlargement. There is no doubt that Romania and Bulgaria should, in time, form part of the European Union, but from the point of view of agriculture and the Committee on Agriculture, I have to conclude that there is no sign of the funding having yet been sorted out. It is a complete mystery how we will be funding the accession of those two countries. I would remind you of the social rights you mentioned and the values we uphold. I assume that it is not the Council’s intention that the 25 current Member States’ rural areas should fund this accession. That is inconsistent with the EU’s high values and so I assume that the Council will pay cash on the nail.

The second point concerns the functioning of those countries in a new European Union. The Commission was right to raise questions about border control. I would note that our excellent food safety policy has enabled the European Union to achieve a high standard, and that is an area in which Romania leaves a great deal to be desired. You have to realise that, if we were required to take a decision now, large parts of Romania would not be able to join the common European market when the time comes, while we do sell products on their market; the fact that 30% to 40% of the population still lives in the countryside and has to make a living from it means that Romania is not far enough advanced in this area. I may be putting it bluntly, but honesty compels me to do this if I study the countryside’s social structure.

I would like to congratulate Bulgaria on its reform programme and on what it has done about ownership rights. It has also managed to make a good job of implementing its rural development programme, in contrast to Romania, which I have to criticise for failing to spend sufficient SAPARD funds to get rural development underway. It would therefore be valuable if Parliament were to have some extra time to take a decision, because the new government has made a good start, but results are at present thin on the ground. Those who draw a comparison with previous accessions must be realistic. Bulgaria is moving towards the ten countries that joined most recently, but Romania is lagging behind in respect of rural development, agricultural policy, the risk of animal diseases and legislation in the area of food safety. That helps determine our European values which we hold dear, which we uphold, and which, in our view, benefit society, provided we can enforce them. Unfortunately, at the moment, I have to conclude that there are many points of criticism to be made about Romania in terms of its agriculture.

  Millán Mon, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (ES) Mr President, tomorrow will be a very important day for this Parliament, for Romania, for Bulgaria and for all EU citizens. We will effectively be approving the signature of the Accession Treaty for both countries; this will conclude the process of the fifth enlargement, south-eastern Europe will gain in terms of stability and progress and also the dream of reunifying Europe will become a reality.

The opinion on Romania that we will vote on tomorrow is consistent with the first Moscovici report, approved by this Parliament last December. In it we said yes to the timetable established for the accession of Romania and we called for the implementation of a series of reforms in well-known areas.

This opinion is also consistent with this Parliament's desire to remain closely involved in the process leading to accession in January 2007. I am talking about the monitoring of reforms and also this Parliament's desire to remain involved in the event of the activation of the so-called safeguard clauses.

In this regard, I am pleased that the Commissioner, Mr Rehn, has repeated his commitment to fully involve Parliament in the rest of the process until January 2007 and I also take note of the commitments made in this regard by the Presidency-in-Office of the Council.

These are crucial times in the history of Romania, of course. I would like to emphasise the immense support amongst the Romanian people for the integration of its country into the Union. It is an historic objective which has enormous support amongst the Romanian citizens and is also supported by the political forces in that country. I have witnessed this once again this morning in a meeting with distinguished parliamentarians from several Romanian political parties.

I trust that the Romanian authorities, stimulated by this broad support, will continue to comply with the commitments in the Accession Treaty with complete determination and rigour, as Mr Rehn has just explained to us.

The time has come for Romania to join Europe. This is the priority and I hope that tomorrow Parliament will express its confidence that the Romanian Government will meet these expectations and thus issue its favourable opinion. Parliament will follow Romania’s progress towards integration very closely. It deserves to be in the Union, not just because of its history, its geography and its culture, but also because of its European will and conscience.

  Wiersma, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (NL) Mr President, tomorrow, this House will be delivering its verdict on Romania’s and Bulgaria’s accession to the European Union. We are still 20 months away from the currently planned date of accession, though, and quite a few of the questions which have been discussed at length in this House remain unanswered. Our key concern is the state of affairs in Romania. A number of necessary reforms in public administration and the administration of justice must be carried out as a matter of priority. The fight against corruption deserves more decisive action, and better guarantees are needed for the freedom and independence of the press. These aspects, along with many others, have been mentioned in Commission reports and those of our own rapporteurs. Like the Council and the Commission, we want to keep the pressure on in Bulgaria and particularly in Romania, so that the necessary reforms can actually take place within the agreed timeframes.

The shortcomings in Romania are so severe that our ‘yes’ at the moment amounts to conditional consent. There is still the option of activating the safety clauses in order to protect the European Union against the adverse effects of possible shortcomings. Should either country’s shortcomings be too serious, then its accession can even be postponed. As this House should not simply stand by during monitoring and during the process of deciding whether to use safeguards or to postpone accession, we have asked the Council and the Commission to be actively involved in the monitoring and decision-making process right up to the day of accession, and the speeches we have heard this afternoon indicate that they are prepared to do so. This puts the European Parliament in a better position and, above all, benefits democratic control of the enlargement process, and I also see it as a political agreement. Should a large majority of this House have cause to cast doubt over Romania’s or Bulgaria’s progress or state of readiness at a later stage in the process, then the Council and the Commission could hardly ignore it if they want to avoid major political confrontations. Our consent tomorrow will therefore be conditional. It is also a political agreement of some sort with the accession candidates. It sends a message to them that in the next 18 months, they will be high on our list of priorities, and that it is their own commitment that will eventually be decisive.

  Lambsdorff, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Parliament will tomorrow be voting on whether or not to welcome Bulgaria into the European Union, and I would like to congratulate Mr Van Orden, on behalf of the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, on his report on the subject, which is thorough and does a good job of striking a balance between, on the one hand, the enormous progress Bulgaria has made, and, on the other, the problems that still – as we know – remain to be resolved. What is beyond doubt is that the country is on the right road towards achieving membership of the European Union by 2007. Our group, that of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, will therefore be voting in favour of Bulgaria’s accession, and will be assuring the country of its critical but constructive support as it continues on its way.

The Bulgarian Government has proved itself capable of fulfilling the accession criteria and of credibly complying with the demands made of it. This positive momentum must continue to be maintained in future, and, with elections due to be held in June, must not be allowed to slow down efforts at reform, particularly with regard to matters already referred to, such as the privatisation of Bulgartabak and the reform of criminal law.

It is true to say that this is a significant day for the European Union, and so I would like to make use of this opportunity to say something about the fundamental characteristic of the forthcoming enlargement round for the European Union as a whole; I refer to the actual compliance with the performance criteria set out in the report. The European Union’s credibility – on which depends the necessary public support not only for the accession process, but also for the work of the European Union as a whole – must be maintained, and it will be so only by the consistent assessment of the candidates for accession, based on their own performance and their own merits. It is for this reason alone – and this I say for Mr Moscovici’s benefit – and not out of any doubt about the European prospects of the two candidates, that my group regards the individual assessment of candidates as so fundamental.

In this respect, the consistent line taken by the Commission is to be welcomed. Commissioner Rehn has made it clear that he will not hesitate to recommend the application of the safeguard clause if he thinks it appropriate. We will see to it that what he has announced he will actually do if the need for it becomes apparent. My group is glad that this House will have a full part to play in this. I also believe – particularly having seen the inglorious behaviour of many Members of the Group of the European People’s Party this lunchtime – that we should be having this debate in Brussels rather than in Strasbourg.

  Lagendijk, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (NL) Mr President, in December last year, my group voted against Mr Moscovici’s report because we felt that it took far too positive a view of Romania and that there was no indication whatsoever to suggest that the fundamental problems would be addressed, such as fighting corruption and guaranteeing independent media and a free press. I will be quite honest: if Mr Nastase’s party had won the elections in December last year, then it would have been quite straightforward for my group. We would be voting ‘no’ tomorrow against Romania’s accession. Romania’s old government was part of the problem rather than of the solution, but fortunately, there is now a new government whose priorities are in line with this Parliament’s concerns. Since this new government came into office, it has made it clear that it is serious about tackling the very problems that I mentioned a moment ago. Since then, former ministers and former members of parliament have lost their immunity from prosecution. Twenty-five high-ranking police chiefs who are suspected of corruption have been dismissed, and it is expected that criminal proceedings will be initiated against former ministers on account of corruption.

In short, this government, particularly the Justice Minister, deserves our support. I would like to say to all those who intend to vote ‘no’ that voting ‘no’ to this present government would be to penalise it for the old government’s mistakes. It would destabilise this government and if there is something I do not want, it is the old government back in power. To this government, then, I would urge you to say ‘yes’, but a conditional ‘yes’. It is crucial that this House continues to keep a grip on the enlargement with Romania and that is why I have taken the initiative to demand an undertaking from the Commission and the Council that this House will definitely continue to be involved in the enlargement, even after tomorrow. I am pleased with the rapporteur’s cooperation, and also pleased that cooperation with the Members of this House was a success. I am particularly pleased with the undertaking Mr Rehn gave today, which was also included in a letter by Mr Barroso to Mr Borrell.

Should it prove necessary in future, in the next 18 months, to refer to the postponement clauses, Parliament will have full involvement in this. If this House is of the opinion that too few reforms are being carried out in 2005 or 2006, and that it is therefore necessary to start the postponement procedure in very specific areas, including the fight against corruption, that is then possible and that then creates a political fact which will require a reaction from the Commission and the Council at European and at national level. After all, we should not overlook the fact that the Treaty with Romania and Bulgaria will be subject to ratification and that, in future, their parliaments will be taking into account what is said in this House.

My, or rather our, message to the new government is: yes, we will give you the benefit of the doubt. By all means, continue carrying out reforms, but bear in mind that this House will continue to monitor you with a very critical eye and, as the Commissioner already stated, we will not hesitate to avail ourselves of the postponement procedures should this prove necessary.

IN THE CHAIR: MR TRAKATELLIS
Vice-President

  Meijer, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (NL) Mr President, Bulgaria and Romania were not immediately admitted during the large enlargement round in 2004 because negotiations with those countries were falling behind.

The point I would like to make about Bulgaria is that it indulges in building large roads and airports without giving any consideration to public health, nature, the environment or current EU rules. In addition, the large Roma population, despite projects subsidised by the European Union, is far from being treated on an equal footing. Poverty and unemployment are rampant. The current government is in power thanks to the temporary popularity of one person: the man who wanted to be king but does not have any organised and cohesive backing to speak of. This strange situation will probably come to an end after the elections of 25 June. Since Bulgaria is no worse than some states that were admitted in 2004, that criticism cannot be a good enough reason to wait any longer than 2007.

Romania’s membership is much more controversial. In recent years, there were no guarantees for the independence of the press, justice and non-governmental organisations. Although Romania has signed up as candidate member of the European Union, I get the impression that it has a higher regard for the US and Turkey. Romania is in such a bad state that neighbouring Moldova’s initial eagerness to return to it has completely evaporated. Government tasks have been neglected, but room has been created for a wild-west economy. In a bid to extract minerals cheaply, the country hires foreign freebooters who use dangerous chemicals which can seriously pollute the soil, groundwater and river water. In neighbouring Hungary, which has previously been hit by toxic river water from Romania, people are anticipating with fear the gold extraction project in Rosia Montana in the Romanian province Alba, which will involve the use of cyanide. Moreover, Romania has concluded an agreement with the United States to sabotage the International Criminal Court in The Hague. Romania is US Defence Minister Rumsfeld’s shop window of the ‘new Europe’.

Romania’s performance is worse than that of any of the countries that have been admitted to date. That could, in itself, be a reason to reject Romania’s membership for the time being. My group, however, defends the right of European countries with a low standard of living to join the European Union quickly, provided they waste no time in complying with requirements in terms of human rights, democracy and the environment. Romania’s unconditional admission would make it more difficult to bring pressure to bear on Turkey to become a decent democratic country before being admitted to the European Union. Moreover, it takes away any serious argument to delay negotiations even further with the former Yugoslav republics Croatia and Macedonia, which had hoped to join at the same time as Romania. We do not know what Romania’s short-term development will be like under a new government; nor do we know whether a solution to the existing problems is in sight. That is why it is appropriate that the option of postponement should continue to exist as a lever. Not only the Council, but also this House, should possess that prerogative.

  Belder, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – (NL) Thank you, Mr President, Mr Moscovici’s report on Romania’s application to join the European Union excels because of its clarity and honesty. It covers both the results and shortcomings in this crucial phase of Bucharest’s long and arduous road to Brussels. In paragraph 6, the rapporteur underlines the European obligations that the Romanian Government has not yet met. Not for nothing do judicial and administrative reforms, as well as the fight against corruption feature so high on that list. According to a well-informed spokesperson, we should in any event not doubt the integrity and commitment of the new Romanian Justice Minister, Mrs Monica Macovei, although she meets with much resistance even within her own ministry. I would welcome the open expression of support to her on the part of the Commission. Such a positive message could even have a double effect through being received both in Romania and elsewhere. I therefore also endorse what Mr Lagendijk had to say on this subject. In addition, the Commission could prompt the Romanian Government to launch a new drive against corruption in imitation of the ‘No backhanders to anyone’ campaign, for, in the final analysis, this evil affects the whole of society.

I sincerely hope that Mr Moscovici’s report contributes to Romania, deo volente, joining the European Union as a responsible member on 1 January 2007. In fact, I would express the same wish with regard to Mr Van Orden’s excellent report on Bulgaria.

  Vaidere, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (LV) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is important for Bulgaria and Romania to be able to assume obligations deriving from membership of the European Union. In the same way it is important for the European Union, so that enlargement does not pose risks to the Union itself.

In view of the situation in Transdniester and in the Balkans, especially regarding issues such as smuggling and trafficking in people, it is important that external borders fully conform to European Union standards. That is why I also proposed that the European Parliament resolution should call upon the Romanian and Bulgarian Governments to pay particular attention to the security of the new external borders. The Committee on Foreign Affairs has supported my proposal.

As a representative of Latvia, I am clearly aware of the huge amount of work that states have to accomplish and what important decisions they have to take, particularly in the final years before joining the European Union. Romania and Bulgaria have made considerable reforms on the path towards European Union membership. In my view, it is now important not to slow down the speed that has been taken and to continue the reforms that have been begun, paying particular attention to domestic affairs and the improving of the legal system, observance of human rights, and especially, and I would like to give this point particular emphasis, the combating of corruption, as well as the guaranteeing of secure external borders for the European Union. The reforms in Romania and Bulgaria will have a positive influence not only on the welfare of the citizens of these countries but also on development in the western Balkans. I would like to draw particular attention to the situation in the neighbouring state of Moldova, where, as a result of Bulgaria and Romania becoming European Union Member States, the values of peace, stability and prosperity might be translated into reality in the near future. In connection with Bulgaria and Romania I believe that we should look ahead to the future constructively. If some issues are still not settled, the support that is needed must be provided in order that they may be able to fulfil the legal requirements from the first days of membership. The European Parliament’s political support for Romania and Bulgaria will only reinforce these countries’ determination and will serve as political capital for the active continuation of reforms.

  Battilocchio (NI). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am speaking on behalf of the New Italian Socialist Party and also as a member of the delegation to the EU-Romania Joint Parliamentary Committee. We need to reiterate the previous requests made by this Parliament and strongly demand that the Bucharest Government should tackle the unresolved problem of suspended cases of international adoption of Romanian children, who have had to wait a long time – too long – to be united with their new families. To date, despite the many promises and expressions of goodwill, nothing definite has been done and time is passing with no formal measures taken by the competent authorities.

The children concerned have often endured horrifying experiences and are being held in public institutions, which I had the opportunity to visit. These are old, dilapidated and lacking in any affection or human warmth. Let us avoid these children being given yet another slap in the face.

Meeting their new families has given these children hope of a different life and a better future. Let us do everything in our power to prevent this hope turning to disappointment and to avoid these children ultimately being denied the right to a peaceful and happy childhood.

  Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra (PPE-DE). – (ES) Mr President, having congratulated the rapporteurs, Mr Moscovici and Mr Van Orden, I would like to say that the debate we are holding here this afternoon is even more important than the accession of Romania and Bulgaria.

The statement today from the Commission and the Council substantially strengthens the powers of this Parliament and extends its validity beyond the strict limits of the assent procedure. This statement represents a very significant precedent which we cannot and must not ignore in the future.

It is clear that the political and budgetary prerogatives of this Parliament must be preserved and I believe, Mr President, that this Parliament must not be afraid to demand compliance with the commitments made here this morning — in the event of any non-compliance — but I do not believe there is currently any reason for us to have any doubt or suspicion in this regard.

As well as stating that Parliament’s prerogatives must be preserved, Mr President, I would also point out that Romania and Bulgaria cannot be held hostage to the budgetary or political quarrels amongst the different institutions currently making up the European Union. In my opinion, therefore, Mr President, this Parliament must tomorrow approve, with the agreed reservations, which I believe to be more than sufficient, the favourable opinions proposed by the rapporteurs, according to the terms approved in the Committee on Foreign Affairs, so that the Accession Treaty can be signed, as scheduled, on 26 April.

Having said this, Mr President, according to the statements made here today, the European Parliament's powers remain intact so that, if necessary, it can play the role it deserves, and in the mean time I would insist that tomorrow we must approve the favourable opinions expressed here today with all the reservations, which I believe to be sufficient.

  Dobolyi (PSE) . – (HU) Mr President, we have almost reached the conclusion of a process which, for Bulgaria, has been a very long one. The path that leads to membership of the extended family of the EU has been regarded by Bulgaria as a priority, a priority that has spanned several governments, supported by popular mandate. The decision that now lies in our hands continues the reunification of Europe that was initiated two years ago by the European Parliament in this very same building in the case of the ten new Member States.

This enlargement enables us to extend the domain of stability, peace and prosperity to Romania and Bulgaria. It enables us to spread the values of Europe, which is based on democracy, pluralism and the rule of law. As Mr van Orden mentioned in his balanced report, Bulgaria still has some work to do to fulfil its obligations. Also, as Commissioner Rehn, Mr Wiersma, and other honourable colleagues have mentioned, I am delighted that Parliament will play its part in monitoring the preparatory process in future too. This is why I would like to call upon our Bulgarian friends to continue the excellent work which they began a good many years ago and which will enable us to conclude this period on 1 January 2007.

On behalf of the PSE Group, I would like to say that we are ready to welcome the people of Bulgaria into the association to which they have always belonged, since they share our history, culture and values. In so doing, we mark the end of an artificially created break, just as in the case of Romania. I am also delighted to be able to take this opportunity to say a few words about Romania as a Hungarian MEP, because I believe that this enlargement will provide a solution for the 2 million Hungarian people living in Romania, and that from 2007 onwards we will be able to live in a common Europe without borders.

  Neyts-Uyttebroeck (ALDE). – (NL) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to start by paying tribute not only to the rapporteurs, Mr Van Orden and Mr Moscovici, but also to those fellow Members who have guided both Bulgaria’s and Romania’s efforts over the past few years. I would like to mention Baroness Nicholson, in particular, who has done this for Romania with unflagging zeal.

As a large majority of my group will be consenting to the Accession Treaty with Romania, it is to this subject that I should like to devote my speech. Although there are still questions surrounding its state of readiness in the areas of justice, the fight against corruption and external border control, we appreciate and unreservedly support the major efforts the current government is making in order to catch up. I should also like to express our appreciation for the assurance which the Commission and the Council have given that Parliament will remain involved in subsequent progress that is yet to be made. In the past, cooperation between Parliament, the Commission and the Council, in the persons of either their shadow rapporteurs or their coordinators, has been exemplary and they have thus removed our biggest doubts. As you know, those doubts mainly concerned the long 20-month period that will separate the signing on 25 April next and the actual accession on 1 January 2007.

Having now been given the assurance that we, as an institution, will be involved in the possible activation of the safeguarding clause, we reiterate our full support to Romania, a country that currently has what it takes to ensure that this clause need not be resorted to. That aspiration is certainly very dear to me. In any event, it can count on our support and sympathy.

  Horáček (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, although we are in favour of Bulgaria’s accession to the EU, for its membership will be of considerable political significance, there must be no letup in the efforts towards reform. We will not, however, be voting to endorse the Van Orden report in its present form, for some things are absent from it and others too indistinctly outlined – human rights, for example. The Bulgarian authorities must draw up a clear plan of action for combating people-trafficking and put it into practice. Conditions for patients in psychiatric homes must be improved. There is a need for further improvement in the integration of minorities, particularly of the Roma. Democratic rights and the free expression of opinion, as well as the principles of the Aarhus Convention and access to information must be guaranteed, for we have been shocked by the threats made to representatives of environmental NGOs and citizens’ initiatives. My colleague Mrs Harms will have something to say about the environmental problems in connection with the nuclear power stations at Kosloduj and Belene.

Corruption, in its many and varied forms, must be combated with vigour, and everything possible must be done to shed light on the fate of the 14 Bulgarian seafarers who have been missing since the Hera went down in the Black Sea in February 2004.

  Remek (GUE/NGL). – (CS) As a citizen of a new Member State that has already been given the opportunity to join the Community, I should like to express my support for the future accession of Bulgaria and Romania, as outlined in today’s recommendations by our rapporteurs. I believe that both Bulgaria and Romania should be given the same opportunities as us, provided their citizens decide to take advantage of them. The necessary requirements must be met, of course, but these countries should then be given the chance to demonstrate that they have something to contribute to the EU, particularly since there have recently been increasing signs that countries will join the EU in future that are situated rather further away from Europe as such. Waiting at the gates of the EU is a powerful motivation, and evidence of this can be found in the increasing levels of activity in Bulgaria and Romania. What is more, we should not forget that Bulgaria and Romania belong to the Balkans. I believe that there is a far greater chance of peace in this region if the two countries belong to the EU than if they do not.

  Piotrowski (IND/DEM).  – (PL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, at its most recent meeting in Brussels the Committee on Foreign Affairs voted by a clear majority to support the applications by Bulgaria and Romania for membership of the European Union. The members of the Independence and Democracy Group within the Committee on Foreign Affairs were among those who voted to support the applications, as we have no intention of thwarting the ambitions of these two European countries to be integrated with the rest of Europe. We are well aware that Bulgaria and Romania have made huge progress in terms of political and economic reform, yet at the same time we feel it is our duty to warn the citizens of these two countries against being overly optimistic.

Although official Commission documents state that one of the goals of the European Union is to enhance solidarity among its peoples whilst respecting their history, culture and traditions, this is in fact far from the truth. Solidarity is no longer a priority for the European Union, and what really counts is a peculiar brand of competitiveness that has been enshrined in the latest version of the Lisbon Strategy. The new EU Member States have not received enough funding, which means that current policies will result in even greater differences between regions and countries. There is a substantial risk that instead of receiving real development aid, Bulgaria and Romania will merely pay for the upkeep of the European Union’s bureaucratic structure through their contributions to the EU budget.

  Libicki (UEN).  – (PL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I regret to have to say that today’s debate has been dominated by accountants and bureaucrats. It is for this reason that I was delighted to hear Mr Schmit, the Council representative, draw our attention to something that should in fact be obvious, namely that this is a truly historic moment, in particular for Bulgaria and Romania. The accession of these two countries will mean that the divisions created by the Yalta agreement, and that ran counter to European culture, tradition and justice, will at last be totally erased from the map. At the same time, the two countries we are welcoming into the European Union have traditionally belonged to European culture. When they gained independence over 100 years ago, they made great efforts to establish themselves as modern states in order to become part of Western European culture. There can be nobody here today who is not familiar with names such as Brancusi, Eliade and Carmen Sylva, a pseudonym used by the Romanian queen 90 years ago to publish extremely well-known writings.

Similarly, Bulgaria freed itself from Ottoman domination when it gained independence by inviting the Western European Saxe-Coburg-Gotha dynasty to take its throne. A representative of this dynasty, the current Bulgarian Prime Minister, is now successfully leading Bulgaria into the European Union. We should welcome these countries and be glad that they are entering into our family of European nations.

  Martin, Hans-Peter (NI). – (DE) Mr President, during the European election campaign held in Austria less than a year ago, the major parties’ lead candidates, Mr Swoboda and Mrs Stenzel, were asked, by members of the public worried about the 10-country enlargement that was in progress at the time, what the situation was as regards future candidates for enlargement. Their reply was: ‘That is not a live issue right now.’

Just how much this statement deceived the electorate – as it was intended to do – is apparent from these reports, if it was not already. Burying one’s head in the sand has become a matter of consistent policy, for the arguments in favour of stopping these premature additional accessions are growing in number: corruption, administration, the fact that the story of the EU’s Constitution is not yet over. We ourselves are not in a position to take this step.

What we, in this House, are supposed to be adopting tomorrow is, in terms of enabling Europe to function and actually be democratic, irresponsible and will end up being to the detriment of the countries that are now pressing to be admitted to the EU.

  Ferber (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council – I am glad to see you here, even if you are not listening – Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in our role as MEPs, there are two things we have to examine, and the first is whether the enlargement process safeguards our rights as such. As my group’s spokesman in the Committee on Budgets, which yesterday evening unanimously adopted the Dührkop Dührkop report, I can tell you that, as I see it, no account has been taken of the European Parliament’s budgetary rights in connection with this enlargement.

Commissioner, your saying, ‘I will consider a request of the European Parliament’ is not, for me, a binding statement with which we can do anything in legal terms. Nothing is guaranteed. It is clear to me, when I analyse what is going on here, that due heed is not actually being paid to this House’s rights.

Secondly, we have to examine whether or not Bulgaria and Romania comply with the criteria for accession. When, if not at the vote prescribed as mandatory by the Treaty, which is to be held tomorrow, are we meant to make a statement about this? Am I supposed to call to mind what this House has said, year in and year out, in the progress reports, particularly with regard to the situation in Romania? I can find no evidence of progress having been made. If I try to scroll forward to the end of 2006, I cannot envisage the goal being reached. I had proposed that we in this plenary should vote on Bulgaria’s and Romania’s applications for accession only after the next progress report had been presented to us, but that, unfortunately, has not proved possible.

So let me make it abundantly clear – and I can say this also on behalf of a number of Members from my own country – that we cannot, at present, give our approval, particularly where Romania is concerned.

(Applause)

  Swoboda (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, I would like to begin with warm thanks to the rapporteurs for the very careful and comprehensive work that they have done. These reports are very frank, one consequence of which may be that they appear to be more critical than ought to be the case, but it is right that these things should be mentioned.

I would also like to thank the President-in-Office and the Commissioner, for both Mr Schmit and Commissioner Rehn have made a considerable effort to accede to Parliament’s wishes and take on board its ideas. I know that they had many legal obstacles to overcome. Whilst I endorse in principle what Mr Ferber said about Parliament’s rights, it is clear from what the President-in-Office and the Commissioner have said today that it does not appear possible to them that the Council and the Commission should simply disregard any explicitly negative position delivered, in the autumn, by Parliament, which is the representative of Europe’s peoples. It was in fact on the basis of that alone that many of our Members feel able to vote in favour.

There is still much to be done. Contrary to what was said by Mr Lagendijk – for whom, let me add, I have high regard – it is not the case that everything was formerly black or red or in any case bad, while everything is now fine. The former government, too, did a certain amount – too little, I admit – and so we have high hopes of its successor stepping up its efforts.

I was myself in Romania a week ago last Friday and was able to see how seriously the government and the various members of parliament are taking the implementation of reforms. With reference to the combating of cross-border crime, let me add that Romania’s efforts are gaining strength from what is now happening in Ukraine, from which we are for the first time getting a positive response. I would ask the Council and the Commission to take great care that Ukraine helps Romania to win this battle against international crime, and if the fight against corruption in Romania itself is won, it is very likely that the battle will in fact be won. I would, though, ask both of you to take this, and our views, as very seriously as we take your promises.

  Jensen (ALDE). – (DA) Mr President, the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe also wishes to complain in the strongest terms about the lack of respect for Parliament and the violation of the European Parliament’s budgetary powers that we are seeing here in connection with the negotiations concerning the accession of Romania and Bulgaria to the EU. Unfortunately, it is not the first time this has happened. We of course saw the same thing in connection with last year’s enlargement to include the ten new countries. Here, too, the Council acted entirely unilaterally in writing the estimated costs of enlargement into the annex to the Accession Treaties. One would think that what happened afterwards and the subsequent negotiations between Parliament and the Council would have stuck in the Council’s mind. The indications are, however, that the Council has a pretty short memory.

How hard can it be? All we asked was that the Council – as agreed with the Luxembourg Presidency – make a joint declaration emphasising that the three institutions must reach agreement on the financial consequences of accession by Bulgaria and Romania, just as they should do. But no: it does not want to sign such a declaration. This is a clear illustration of an unwillingness to cooperate and comes such a short time before we must get in step as regards an agreement on the financial perspectives for the multiannual budgets for the years following 2006. The lack of a joint approach could have particular consequences, here; that is to say, if agreement on financial perspectives is not reached before the current perspectives expire.

I should like to thank the Commissioner for detailing the status of the financial perspectives and for his support for the presentation of Parliament’s opinion. I should also like to thank Mr Schmidt for his promise that he will once again attempt to get the joint declaration signed by the Council. I wish him the best of luck with this task.

  Harms (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to say something else about Kosloduj. My group’s expectation is that this power station be decommissioned in the manner laid down in the protocol agreed on the subject. We had the impression that, on this point, the Van Orden report could well be clarified, as Mr Van Orden left this very much open. I am very glad of support from Mrs Stenzel and Mr Swoboda, which I trust will be backed up by broad support for this amendment on the part of their groups.

I learned yesterday that the Bulgarian Government has now come to a final decision to build a new power station at Belene, and on this, too, we have submitted an amendment. Bulgaria is a major exporter of electricity. I cannot see that there is any need to continue with building work at Belene, thereby bringing hazards into the country and sending electricity out of it. To my mind, that does not make sense, and nor does the investment of European money in it. My colleague Mr Horáček has made reference to the great difficulties that citizens’ rights activists face at Belene in particular. It is not a good sign when Greenpeace International reports that opponents of nuclear power in Bulgaria face such extreme attacks that they need personal protection.

  Karatzaferis (IND/DEM). – (EL) Mr President, is the question which arises whenever new countries join merely numerical and financial? In other words, is it only a question of cost, deficit, growth and production or is it also a cultural question? Is it perhaps also a social question? Romania and Bulgaria clearly do not have the European rate of growth or social justice. They lost forty-five years, which we signed away when we sent them to the Soviet Union. Roosevelt and Churchill both put their signatures alongside that of Stalin. We therefore owe them forty-five years' backlog in social development and economic growth. We must now therefore give them back what we owe them without grumbling; we must stretch out our hand and pull them into European society. We owe it to the civilisation, to the culture of Europe. Let us not only look at the dry figures. Dry figures are for technocrats. Numbers do not build republics, they build banking institutions, but we here are building the European republic, the European idea. Let us therefore vote in favour, because it is necessary for the breadth of Europe, it is necessary for these new ideas with which we need to endow Europe.

  Tatarella (UEN). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am speaking on behalf of the Union of Europe of the Nations Group and the Italian delegation of Alleanza Nazionale. Tomorrow we shall be voting in favour of the resolution, and we applaud the signature of the Treaty and the subsequent accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union.

Since 1989, all successive Romanian Governments have set as their sole and overriding aim the country’s accession to the European Union. The path has been tortuous and difficult, but there is no doubt that significant progress has been made. Above all, in recent years the Bucharest Government has made great strides. The Commission is aware of this and, in its 1997 report on compliance with the political criteria, acknowledged the huge reform efforts made by that country – the consolidation of democracy, the rule of law and respect for minorities, as well as reforms in the area of public administration. Problems undoubtedly still exist, but we must have confidence.

  Masiel (NI).  – (PL) Mr President, Romania and Bulgaria are European countries. The aftermath of the Second World War was very unfortunate, and the accession of these countries to the European Union will not only be a form of reparation for the catastrophic Yalta Agreement, but will also satisfy the wishes of a great many people, Pope John Paul II included. It is irrelevant whether these countries join the EU on 1 January 2007 or at a later date, as even if we waited 40 years they would still not be ready in economic and social terms. Yet the genuine desire to build a common and just Europe on the basis of a Christian heritage is our key criterion, and I would therefore suggest that Romania and Bulgaria should join the EU on 1 January 2007, and no later. We should not dampen their pro-EU zeal, in fact we should be doing quite the opposite. We should put it to good use to ensure that the last reforms needed before accession are carried out.

  Podestà (PPE-DE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this Parliament’s delegation to the EU-Romania Joint Parliamentary Committee visited Bucharest last week. We held meetings with our parliamentary colleagues, the new Head of State, the Prime Minister and other ministers. Our overall impressions were favourable. Even on the Romanian side there was no attempt to hide the problems which still exist, a fact I view as highly positive as it enables us to assess the efforts made to date.

A short time ago, a fellow Member stated that these countries have not made any progress. That is simply not true. Romania and Bulgaria have made enormous strides. With particular reference to Romania, especially in the last few months following the change of government after the November elections, this progress has responded to recent requests from the European Parliament – for example when this House adopted Commissioner Verheugen’s report last November. I believe the European Union must be consistent: it would be genuinely strange to have to explain to Romanian and Bulgarian public opinion that their countries may become hostages to the inability of the Council and Parliament to find a consensus on issues concerning the budget and financial perspectives.

I believe sincerely that we must take notice of the great commitment made by these countries. There will be no shortcuts; achievement of the standards necessary for accession depends solely on their own efforts. However, we cannot jeopardise a priori the goal which these countries are striving to achieve.

  Hänsch (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, having been in favour of Bulgaria and Romania joining the European Union from the word go, I still support their accession, and will continue to do so. I am delighted at the progress that both countries have made over recent years.

Today, however, Parliament is being asked to vote in favour of Accession Treaties when the negotiations on these treaties have not been brought to a proper close. There are key aspects of the Copenhagen criteria that have not been met, and, by threatening to use the safeguard and postponement clauses, the Commission and the Council have revealed the political bankruptcy of the negotiations. To all intents and purposes, we are being asked to agree to an artificially propped-up accession.

At the same time, however, the Council is pushing for the treaties to be signed in a hurry, and snubbing Parliament by nullifying its budgetary rights. We should not punish Romania and Bulgaria for this, though, and the exchange of letters between Mr Barroso, the President of the Commission, and Mr Borrell, the President of Parliament, has at least made it possible for us to cast our votes in favour, even though we are far from happy at having to do so.

The President-in-Office of the Council and the Commissioner should, however, be aware that we are rapidly losing our faith in the willingness and ability of the Council and the Commission to conduct the forthcoming enlargement negotiations in the necessary fashion, or in other words fairly, responsibly and in the interests of everyone. I would advise you not to rely on this House’s constant forbearance and, above all, would ask you to confirm to the House in November, when you submit your report, that the countries are ready to join, rather than presenting yet another interim assessment.

This House has always looked favourably upon enlargement in the past, but there is nothing to say that this will not change in the future.

  Nicholson of Winterbourne (ALDE). – Mr President, in Helsinki in 1999 the Council, the Commission and Parliament tasked Romania with three key topics she had to address.

I can report most favourably on one topic today: the progress on children’s rights. Since that date, the Commission has dedicated EUR 60 million to the implementation of children’s rights. The Commission, with the Romanian Government, has created family-style care for children in need through the implementation of day-care centres, family-type homes, mother and baby units and centres for special needs children.

Year on year, the Commission has run a major public awareness campaign with the government and has set in hand and implemented large training programmes for professionals on the implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and on the exceptionally powerful new Romanian legislation.

As a result, the number of children in residential care has dropped from 85 000 to 35 000. Conditions in institutions have changed dramatically and 15 000 children are now in foster care. Some 30 000 children have been reintegrated into their own families. Only last year, 1 800 children were adopted domestically and two or three years ago 25 000 special needs children were restored to normal schooling for the very first time.

The Commission has worked powerfully on new legislation for 6.5 million children in Romania. That new law is well in advance of other laws in the region and indeed of some nations in the European Union. It is a very modern law. It supports the family; it is against violence towards children and it forbids the institutionalisation of children between nought and two years old. In European Union Member States, there are many thousands of children in institutions, including between the ages of nought and two years old.

As regards contact between parents and children, the new law is particularly strong and very modern. The Commission set up a special group from Member States, led by a Belgian judge, to assist in the formation of this new legislation.

In conclusion, Romania now has more advanced law and greater reform on children’s rights than many of the Member States, as some Member States announced in a meeting on Friday 8 April in Greece. I congratulate Romania. This is just one success and there are many others. Romania has well earned her place in the European Union and I shall be delighted to vote for her accession.

  Borghezio (IND/DEM). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I send my best wishes to Romania – a country where thousands of Po valley companies are operating – although a few still sensitive issues remain: illegal immigration, human trafficking and the previously-mentioned issue of child foster care.

With regard to Bulgaria, we must take account of a new development, namely yesterday’s revelations in a leading daily newspaper by the ex-director of the East German secret service, who finally revealed the truth that the attack on the Pope was organised, directed and implemented by the Bulgarian secret services. Mr President, Commissioner, let us take advantage of the present situation and request the Bulgarian authorities to reveal the truth! We ask them to open up the files and finally explain to Europe what really happened and who it was that supplied the weapon to Ali Agca, a man trained in Bulgaria. We are asking what happened because there are still people with the blood of that attack on their hands, placing a heavy burden of responsibility on the leaders of that period of history, which is fortunately now behind us since the collapse of the Berlin wall. Let us draw attention to this grave responsibility; let us get to the truth and not turn the page without first establishing clearly and truthfully what really happened.

  Mölzer (NI). – (DE) Mr President, according to the advocates of enlargement, the Balkans would become more stable if Romania and Bulgaria were to join the European Union in a little under two years’ time. There is no doubting their status as members of the European community of nations, and Austria in particular welcomes the prospect of the EU being enlarged to include large swathes of a country that was an integral part of the Austrian family of nations before the First World War. At the same time, however, this does not alter the fact that both countries continue to face serious problems which have not yet been resolved in spite of all the efforts towards reform, and which are not confined to the economic and social spheres. Romania and Bulgaria are also experiencing major problems relating to the export of crime, a far from negligible cause of which is corruption within these countries. What is more, given that 30% of Romanians still live on the poverty line, there is a risk that the EU labour market will come under immense pressure.

In our opinion, the above-mentioned problems are evidence that it may well be too early for Romania and Bulgaria to join the EU. Romania and Bulgaria – that is, the authorities in Sofia and Bucharest – will have to get on top of the fight against crime before they are granted entry into the European Union.

  Gál (PPE-DE). – (HU) Mr President, when I assent tomorrow to the accession of a Romania that is able to comply with and apply European norms and practice, I am doing so while drawing attention to the importance of being able to keep track of how commitments are being honoured.

Romania has undergone a great transformation in the past fifteen years. In a short period of time it has changed from a backward country quite literally shrouded in darkness, and a brutal dictatorship, into a NATO member and a candidate for EU membership. Hopefully, thanks to its new government, the foundations of a system genuinely based on the rule of law will also be laid in the coming months.

Alongside the successes, however, the transition is also hampered by some unresolved issues. As a Hungarian MEP, I must point out particularly the numerous transitional exemptions requested by Romania in the field of environmental protection, some of which have a direct impact on the state of Hungary’s natural environment. Sensitive, unresolved matters include corruption, the independence of the judiciary, restitution of church and community property, the issue of the State Hungarian University, the cultural rights of the Csango people, initiatives by the Hungarian community and the Székely region to achieve autonomy, and provisions in the electoral legislation – also criticised by international organisations – that discriminate against minority organisations.

We cherish hopes of progress in these areas too in the coming months. This moment is a historic one for the citizens of Romania and for the Hungarian community in Transylvania, which is of special importance to me. I believe that accession will strengthen the ability of the one-and-a-half million indigenous Hungarian minority to shape its future and provide a chance of achieving self-government, autonomy and independence. By approving the signing of the Accession Treaty, we are giving Romania an opportunity. This is why I would like to place particular emphasis on strict monitoring during the period between the signing of the Accession Treaty and the actual accession date. The European Parliament must have a role in this process so that everyone’s misgivings can be allayed by the time the actual accession date arrives.

Working in the European Parliament has made it clear to me that the future shape of Romania, including that of the Hungarian community, depends on us in many respects. Let us be decisive in calling Romania to account, even if the delegation of the government in power at any given time is otherwise inclined, because covering up problems would have a demoralising effect on the population of the Member States. This is particularly important for the citizens of Romania, whose only concern must be to emerge as the winner from accession. This is what my yes-vote is about. Let it be a chance for these people.

  Rouček (PSE). – (CS) A year will soon have passed since the historic enlargement, when ten new Member States joined the EU. It is apparent that the results of this enlargement have on the whole been positive, and that this is true not only for the Member States that became part of the European Union a year ago, but also for the old Member States. I am quite sure that the round of enlargement involving Romania and Bulgaria will be equally successful. The mere prospect of accession has proven to be a powerful motivation for both Romania and Bulgaria to reform their political systems and to implement a number of reforms relating to human rights and civil liberties, to the political system and to the building of a stronger economy.

Much remains to be done, of course, and our rapporteurs have given a clear, unambiguous and extremely objective account of this in their reports. I believe that both Romania and Bulgaria will continue to be as successful over coming months as they have been to date, and that they will be able to join the European Union in 2007. I am aware that there has been some controversy over the division of competences between the various European institutions, but we should not lose sight of our main goal, which is the further enlargement of an area of democracy, freedom, stability and prosperity. This area should be enlarged to include South-Eastern Europe, so that not only Hungary and the Czech Republic, but in future also Romania and Bulgaria, can set a strong and positive example to such countries as Serbia, Montenegro or the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

  Varvitsiotis (PPE-DE). – (EL) Mr President, I should like first to congratulate the two rapporteurs on their detailed reports. Last December, the European Council announced the completion of negotiations with the two countries with the assent of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, which was absolutely clear. Today, we have also had statements by both the Council and the Commissioner, Mr Rehn. Everyone has pointed out that these two countries have made remarkable progress within the framework of their efforts to harmonise with the acquis communautaire. However, both these countries still need to do more, mainly on the chapters of corruption, justice and combating organised crime. These shortcomings, in my opinion, can be overcome in the period of over eighteen months remaining. Furthermore, the progress being made will be very closely monitored by the Commission, as Commissioner Rehn has stated. I should also like to point out that the amendment on the basis of which the European Parliament will take full part in the accession procedure of both these countries and in the decision-making process, in the event that safeguard clauses need to be used, is also very important because, to put it one way, it also safeguards control by Parliament. We Greek PPE-DE MEPs strongly support the integration prospects of Romania and Bulgaria, knowing full well that this will strengthen stability and security in the Balkans. We also believe that a negative result would send the wrong political message and would discourage these countries from making all the necessary efforts at a rapid pace.

  Tabajdi (PSE) . – (HU) Mr President, for Hungary, Romania’s accession is a matter of national interest given that, historically, Hungarian-Romanian relations have been fraught with conflict. The EU can provide a framework for resolving these conflicts definitively, but this will not happen automatically. Romania’s one-and-a-half million-strong ethnic Hungarian community has a keen interest in becoming a member of the EU as soon as possible; support for the EU within this group stands at over 90%. In a spirit of political good neighbourliness, Hungary would like to offer its assistance to the Romanian Government to enable the country to comply completely with the requirements set out in detail in the present report, so as to avoid postponement of Romania’s accession and ensure that the safeguard clause does not need to be invoked.

The work still to be done includes important areas such as creating genuine local self-governance and implementing genuine decentralisation. It is important that the European Parliament should remind the Romanian Government to continue improving the situation of the Hungarian minority, to implement special measures, and to emphasise the need for subsidiarity and local self-governance.

Self-governance is synonymous with autonomy, and a minority of one-and-a-half million people is in great need of it. I refer both to the need for personal, individual autonomy for Hungarians scattered throughout the country, and the need for territorial autonomy for areas densely populated by Hungarians. In this regard, Romania’s regions should be constituted on the basis of historical linguistic traditions. Thank you, Mr Moscovici, for your report. It provides great encouragement and considerable help to Romania’s minorities. With the aforementioned provisos, I wholeheartedly support the speedy accession of Romania.

  Beazley (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I too took part in the EU-Romania Joint Parliamentary Committee visit to Bucharest last week and I am very grateful to the President of Parliament, and indeed to our Vice-President Mr Podestà, for making it possible, in extraordinary circumstances, to hold the vote this week.

The main point I would like to report back to Parliament was how impressively open members of the Romanian Government – from the President to the Prime Minister to the ministers – were in recognising the difficulties that they have inherited. There was no attempt to cover them up. Yet in a very short space of time they have produced detailed programmes to deal with these difficulties, which they have also costed. So this was not just a wish list, it was a very practical approach to the difficulties.

We all know the issues involved: the fight against corruption, independence of the judiciary, the protection of the environment. It is very clear that the European Union will have to support Romania in terms of inward investment and cooperation in order to restore civil society. A look back at the history books and the pictures of Bucharest at the beginning of the last century show how prosperous and cultivated Romania was at that point in the society of European countries. It is my belief that Romania will rejoin Europe and deserves to do so.

There are concerns, particularly about the Hungarian minority in Transylvania, which was not treated well in the past; but I believe we received important reassurances on that count.

Therefore I will be voting in favour. It is most important to give the right message not only to the Romanian authorities but also to the Romanian population. This is not the end of the story, of course; after accession we need to continue to work. But I would like to thank our Romanian hosts who welcomed us to Bucharest and also point out that the EU embassies – in other words representatives of the Member States – are working hand-in-hand with the Commission to make sure that this very difficult task is accomplished.

  Leinen (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, this House has always been in favour of Romania and Bulgaria joining the EU. Having repeatedly stated that this accession should take place on 1 January 2007, we would very much welcome a decision to this effect tomorrow.

As a member of the EU-Romania Joint Parliamentary Committee, I have seen for myself what progress this country has made, in spite of all the problems bequeathed by the Ceausescu regime. It cannot be denied, however, that Romania still has a great deal of work to do before its accession, including fighting corruption and securing the independence of the judiciary, to both of which reference has been made on many occasions. I am delighted to see that the new government is working to achieve these goals, and that national action plans have been produced for the period until 2007. Corruption amounts to nothing more than stealing from the national economy and from the people; it is an evil that must be eradicated from society.

Romania must be a functioning state under the rule of law. No matter what problems are encountered with regard to filling senior posts in constitutional bodies, the constitution must be observed, and I would also note that Romania is a member of the European family and is not stepping out of line in any way. The idea of a Washington-London-Bucharest axis is perhaps somewhat presumptuous, but, as we look forward to this country joining us in the EU, I believe that it will cooperate effectively and well with us.

  McGuinness (PPE-DE). – Mr President, firstly, I welcome the progress made by Romania on its path towards membership of the European Union. In a short amount of time a lot has been achieved and I want to congratulate the Romanian authorities on this.

We have heard this afternoon about the areas where more progress is required and our genuine concerns about how it will all be financed. Despite Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne’s very positive report on the improvement in childcare in Romania, the care of children and young adults in state institutions is an issue. I am talking particularly about those children and young adults with disabilities. Less than a year ago, Amnesty International launched a disturbing report on the tragic deaths of a number of patients in a psychiatric hospital in Romania. The report indicated that the deaths were mainly due to malnutrition and hypothermia and were sadly not an exception in the Romanian mental health care system.

I know that the European Union, working with the Romanian authorities, has been involved in very important work to reduce the number of children and young adults in institutionalised care. However, Amnesty International has pointed out that not enough account has been taken of the many young adults who have been inappropriately transferred from the state institutions that were closed down and have ended up in psychiatric hospitals, where they may well languish for the rest of their lives.

I accept that things have greatly improved in Romania. The Commission recently informed me of all its work in this regard, but a lot more remains to be done in this area. It is simply not acceptable that children and young adults in Romania are held in inappropriate care. Indeed, it is not acceptable that this should happen in any EU Member State.

I support the accession of Romania to the European Union, but I would urge the Romanian authorities, the Commission, this Parliament and all relevant bodies not to forget the real people I am talking about: those who do not have a voice. Their situation needs to be carefully monitored and improved in the run-up to accession and thereafter.

  Salinas García (PSE). – (ES) Mr President, the Committee on Agriculture emphasises the political and economic importance of the accession of Romania and Bulgaria to the European Union. Nevertheless, we must acknowledge that we have a serious problem in terms of the financial perspectives.

We cannot deal with the Accession Treaties without taking account of the financial perspectives, particularly with regard to the common agricultural policy. We must take account of the financial cost of the application of the CAP in these two candidate countries. In the case of agriculture, we do not find it sufficient to say that the funding of these two countries will be carried out within the sums agreed by the Council. This agreement referred solely to the spending for the Union of 25 and only included the 10 new countries, and not Romania and Bulgaria.

We in this Parliament want the agreements of the Brussels Summit of October 2002, which offered the assurance that the progressive introduction of new countries would be carried out within the framework of financial stability, to be respected.

In order to include these two new countries, something with which we agree, the sum calculated for that purpose must be increased in order to accommodate Romania and Bulgaria within the common agricultural policy. That is what Parliament wants and we hope that the Council and the Commission will both agree.

  Itälä (PPE-DE). – (FI) Mr President, Romania and Bulgaria must become members of the European Union, but how is it going to happen and when is it going to happen? First of all I would have welcomed more willingness for cooperation on the part of the Council with respect to financing issues. We have heard here today that there is still a very great number of uncertainties, and that is why it would be preferable if we gave further consideration to what could be the common view on these issues.

In particular, we have problems with regard to Romania, and the questions is whether it fulfils all the criteria. If it is not a requirement for Romania to fulfil all the criteria, which all Member States have had to do so far, it will be a bad example to set for future new Member States, such as Turkey. I was pleased to hear Commissioner Rehn’s suggestion that the safeguard clauses must be applied, if the conditions are not adequately met and if Romania is not making sufficient progress. I strongly support this view.

Now it would have been more sensible to wait for the next progress report and only vote on these issues then, not tomorrow. Above all, the question is about public trust in how the institutions follow rules and agreements. A short time ago the Stability and Growth Pact was watered down, because it was considered to be politically important. If membership criteria are now to be watered down, because it is considered politically important, it is difficult to imagine how the public can trust in these institutions.

  Riera Madurell (PSE). – (ES) Mr President, while we support the reports that we are debating, we in the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy wish to emphasise that in the research, energy, industrial policy and telecommunications sectors, both countries need to make additional efforts. They need to change their industrial policy; they need to eliminate the structural obstacles to investment and excessive bureaucracy and they also need to create a stable legislative framework to ensure an effective strategy for small and medium-sized businesses, the true creators of employment and source of technological innovation.

They must also continue working on an energy safety policy. Bulgaria has already adopted measures to achieve a high level of safety at the Kozludy nuclear power station, and we are pleased about that. But energy generation capacities are expected to be considerably reduced, and it is therefore urgent to create new capacities and guarantee security of supply. We call on the Commission to monitor this issue closely and to provide any necessary technical assistance.

In the case of Romania, the abandonment of inefficient thermal power stations and non-viable coal mines are key challenges that require the immediate adoption of social policy measures to deal with the serious difficulties created in terms of employment. For all these reasons, they need our support, Mr President.

  Christensen (PSE). – (DA) Mr President, Romania has had difficulty casting off the yoke of the Soviet empire. Romania was one of the countries that experienced the most violent transition from dictatorship to democracy. The country has therefore had a more difficult journey towards membership. Consequently, the progress made by Romanian society is impressive, although the work is far from complete. Romania still has problems with infringement of the freedom of the press, poor safeguarding of the rights of the child and suppression of the Roma population, and there are also still problems involving corruption. I am therefore satisfied with the action plan on corruption published recently by the Romanian Government. Although Romania still suffers from serious problems, it is important that we approve Romania’s membership tomorrow since we want to encourage the efforts of the Romanian people to meet the conditions for accession on 1 January 2007.

IN THE CHAIR: MR COCILOVO
Vice-President

  Schmit, President-in-Office of the Council. – (FR) Mr President, I will be brief. Your debate has uncovered a number of very useful and very interesting pieces of information. I thought I detected, through all of the interventions, that Parliament is able to give broad support to the accession of these two countries, Bulgaria and Romania.

Stop and think for a moment. If there had not been the prospect of accession for these two countries, where would they be today? Would they have developed in the way that they have? Would democracy have made the progress that it has done in these two countries? The prospect of accession, the prospect of becoming fully-fledged members of the European family, has acted as a powerful catalyst for the reform of these two countries.

Today, then, we should certainly not – as has been said – demoralise or discourage these two countries. That is why the road to accession should now be made tangible.

It is also true that there are areas requiring improvement and action. Some of you mentioned the very serious issue of corruption. We need to urge the governments of the two countries – of one of them in particular – to fight even more effectively against corruption. We should encourage, even oblige, these governments to put in place more independent and more effective judicial systems.

I am sure that the Commission will be more than an observer: it will take effective action; it will monitor developments in these countries; it will not take the easy option, as the Commissioner has plainly said.

Nevertheless, today we must send out an important political signal to Bulgaria and Romania. We must have a degree of confidence in these two countries, while showing them that the way ahead is clear. The commitments must be respected. Moreover, that is why the safeguard measures laid down for these two countries differ slightly from those that were provided for at the last enlargement, and the differences are not purely stylistic. These are practical measures that can be applied. And they will be applied all the more effectively if your Parliament monitors developments in the two countries, as I am sure it will.

I should like to comment on the doubts expressed in particular by Mr Hänsch about the Council’s willingness to listen to Parliament. I think that you made an important point. Parliament has always been a valuable ally in enlargement processes and the Council wishes to keep this ally with a view to future enlargements. Everyone is fully aware of this, and it is not empty words when the Council says clearly that full account will be taken of Parliament’s position if it expresses a view on the possible invoking of the safeguard measures. I therefore believe that you can be more reassured than you appear to be.

I have already commented on the financing. I believe that the Presidency has one regret: not to have resolved the issue of the joint declaration more satisfactorily. But I would also reiterate what I said before: be quite sure that Parliament’s rights will remain intact, because they arise from the treaty, and Parliament’s rights will also remain intact in the context of the interinstitutional agreement.

  Rehn, Member of the Commission. Thank you for a very serious and substantive debate. You raised several concerns as to the two countries’ ability to fight corruption and in general to live up to the commitments made in the field of the environment, reform of the judiciary system or the rights of minorities. I share these concerns. That is why it is so important to sustain a positive momentum, to encourage these countries to stick to their reform agendas to the full.

The Commission will closely monitor progress and keep the European Parliament properly informed. If the Commission should find it necessary to recommend invoking the safeguard clause we will, as I said in my introductory speech, seriously consider the views of Parliament before issuing any such recommendation, in line with the exchange of letters between Presidents Barroso and Borrell.

I should like to comment on the rights of minorities. In the case of Romania, there was reference to the situation of the Hungarian minority. We can note positive developments with regard to this issue, at the level of both the government and the citizens. The Hungarians became part of the governing coalition in 2004 and Prime Minister Tariceanu chose Budapest as his first destination for a state visit abroad. Moreover, since 2000, the Hungarians have gained significant rights in the administration, education and justice. In particular, it is provided by law that they have the right to express themselves in their mother tongue before the courts. Furthermore, in areas where the Hungarian population is above 20% – in more than 1 000 municipalities – the signs are bilingual.

The Hungarian minority also enjoys educational facilities: the private Hungarian university, Sapientia, has more than 1 400 students. We welcome this positive trend and will continue to monitor the improvements in this area in our comprehensive monitoring report this autumn.

Concerning the situation of the Roma, another issue related to the rights of minorities, both Bulgaria and Romania have started to implement the national strategy on the improvement of the situation of the Roma, as set out in the Union’s PHARE Programme. Although the results are still limited, important progress has been made. In particular, the improved access to education and local projects for community development can be counted as successes.

The Roma Inclusion Decade was recently launched in Sofia, covering several current and future Member States and potential candidates. The Commission fully supports this important initiative. Moreover, we are following the situation of the Csango minority in Romania very closely.

Concerning the Kozloduy nuclear power plant, I wish to remind you that the need to ensure a high level of nuclear safety is a priority for the Union as a whole and its Member States. In this context, the need to close down certain nuclear facilities was highlighted in the case of three countries: Lithuania, the Slovak Republic and Bulgaria. The framework negotiated with Bulgaria is clear and it involves firm and unambiguous respect for the commitments regarding closure on agreed dates. The issue is settled; the case is closed; the dates for closure will not be discussed again.

In conclusion, I gather that there is general support for giving assent to the signature of the Accession Treaty with the two countries, in line with the arrangement outlined in President Barroso’s letter to President Borrell. In other words, the European Parliament is fully associated and the Commission is committing itself seriously to considering the views of the European Parliament.

Let me just say how I see the role of the European Parliament in regard to the postponement clause. I would call this an ‘extended assent’ vote, which is not legally binding because the Treaty does not allow that, but is certainly a weighty political statement once it has been made by the European Parliament. There are both quantitative and qualitative reasons for this. In the first place you have to vote more than 20 months before the accession takes place, which is exceptional. In the case of the EU-10, the period was around 12 months and in the case of the enlargement in 1995 it was roughly 6 or 7 months. That is very different from 20 months.

Secondly, numerous criteria, especially in the field of justice and home affairs, as well as competition, state aid and the environment, are included in the Accession Treaty itself. Therefore it is clearly important to monitor this process and ensure that it is democratic. This respects the spirit of the Treaty and European democracy, and it is very important that the European Parliament be fully involved in this decision.

We are on the eve of a historic decision. I am very glad that we have had sound and productive cooperation with the European Parliament. I trust this will be a good omen for future cooperation. Now the final outcome is in the hands of the Romanians and Bulgarians. I hope they succeed and we will support them so that they will be ready to become fully-fledged Member States by January 2007.

  President. The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow at 12 noon.

(The sitting was suspended for 10 minutes and resumed at 5.30 p.m.)

WRITTEN STATEMENT (RULE 142)

  Gurmai (PSE). – The accession of Bulgaria is really important for us, but it is more important for the women living there. This country has done some progress in the issue recently. Most of acquis in the area of equal opportunities have already been transposed, and the principals of non-discrimination and equal opportunities have a good juridical and a progressing institutional background.

But there are still some problems. First of all, although these rules were introduced, their implementing and execution are lagging behind. A lot needs to be done in this issue.

Bulgaria is a country of origin and transit of trafficking in human beings especially of women and children for the purpose of sexual exploitation. This must not be further tolerated.

Women's representation in the political and public life is disappointingly low. They constitute only 25% of the government, 28% of the national parliament and 7% of regional governors.

That's why I call on the European Commission to prioritise these issues just after this debate, and hold a strong control of the country. I am really convinced that the EU-membership of the country will bring progress to these issues. That's why I will vote yes, and I am asking you to do so.

IN THE CHAIR: MR COCILOVO
Vice-President

  President. The next item is the Commission’s communication on the Integrated package: BEPGs and Employment guidelines.

I should like to welcome the Commissioners and now call upon Commissioner Verheugen to address Parliament.

  Verheugen, Vice-President of the Commission. (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is a regrettable fact that, although five years have passed since the European Summit held in Lisbon in 2000, we are still a long way from reaching the goals set for the EU economy at the time. Growth rates have fallen far short of projections, and the number of new jobs created has not been enough to achieve the desired employment rates. Growth and employment are therefore priorities for the Barroso Commission.

Two months ago, we presented our proposal for a revision of the Lisbon Strategy, in favour of which Parliament had voted by an overwhelming majority. The key features of this revised Strategy include a clear definition of priorities and the establishment of a partnership between the Community and the Member States geared towards implementing the planned measures. The European Council approved the Commission’s proposals three weeks ago, which means that the stage is now set for us to implement our goals.

The package we are presenting to the House today is the first phase of our implementation strategy. The proposal for integrated guidelines is a practical means of making the new Lisbon Strategy simpler, more transparent and more manageable in political terms. The guidelines for economic and employment policy, which have now been summarised in one document, are both a roadmap for more growth and employment and a basis for the Member States’ national Lisbon programmes. This is the crucial point; what we are establishing is a Community framework within which the Member States will be able to devise tailor-made national solutions to the problems that we have identified together.

A first set of guidelines urges the Member States to continue pursuing stability-oriented macroeconomic policies. Given nearly all Member States’ experience of the problems associated with an ageing population, budgetary discipline is the only way to achieve long-term sustainability of public finances. We must make sure that public spending is targeted at activities that contribute to long-term growth, in particular in the fields of education, science and research.

The second set of guidelines deals with structural reforms, the aim of which is to facilitate the transition to a more knowledge-based economy and to make Europe a more attractive place to work and invest in. I should like to elaborate on a number of structural guidelines that are of key importance.

The first of these is the internal market. We need an internal market that functions well, and this requires the removal of the remaining barriers to market access and a more rigorous implementation of competition policy.

Secondly, we need better regulation, and there must be a systematic assessment of the economic, social and environmental impact of legislative proposals at both national and EU level. Legislation generates costs for businesses, and these costs can weigh particularly heavily on small businesses. It is for this reason that better regulation is one of the key building blocks of a business-friendly environment and a strong entrepreneurial culture.

The third point I wish to address is innovation. Europe’s future lies in knowledge-intensive and innovative sectors of the economy, and both the public sector and the economy itself must therefore step up investment in research. The guidelines call on the Member States to facilitate innovation by promoting technology transfer and establishing innovation clusters, as well as by encouraging the uptake of new technologies such as information technology. Innovations in the field of environmental technologies are a factor not only in boosting growth and employment, but also, and in particular, in achieving sustainable development.

The guidelines for structural policy are followed by a final set of guidelines for employment policy, which Mr Špidla will discuss shortly. Their aim is to create jobs, boost investment in education and skills, make the workforce and businesses more flexible and modernise social security systems. Particular attention must be paid to improving the situation of young people, since unemployment among this group is twice as high as among the general population.

The full potential of these reforms will only be realised if they are implemented as a package, the individual components of which complement one another. Implementing all these measures will give a significant boost to growth and employment, and so we need a strong and solid partnership based on trust to drive forward these much-needed reforms. This must not and will not be a technocratic process; instead, it must be viewed as a highly political process, which will deliver results only if it is endorsed by European society as a whole.

Your House will play a key role in this process, and it is crucial that we maintain the political momentum generated by the revision of the Lisbon Strategy and by the decisions taken by you and at the Spring Summit in Brussels. The time has come to capitalise on this momentum by taking the first steps towards implementation. The Commission would be most appreciative if Parliament could give particular and timely consideration to the guidelines that have been presented today.

  Almunia, Member of the Commission. (ES) Mr President, following on from the speech the Vice-President of the Commission, Mr Verheugen, has just made, I would like to refer in particular to the content of the broad economic policy guidelines included in this document approved today by the Commission.

Naturally, the broad economic policy guidelines, an instrument enshrined in the Treaty, together with the review of the Lisbon Strategy, have growth and employment as a priority: to grow more and to create more jobs in Europe.

Last week I presented the Spring economic forecasts, which are produced by the Commission’s services and, as you are aware, we believe that there will be a recovery during 2005, a revitalisation of economic growth, which will continue during 2006, and employment will be created, but it will not be sufficient.

Growth must be more intense in order to create the necessary employment to allow us to achieve full employment.

To this end, the macroeconomic chapter of these broad economic policy guidelines, which are integrated into the package approved today by the Commission, reiterate the need to establish stable economic conditions that can create confidence. Because confidence amongst consumers and economic agents is needed in order to increase consumer demand, in order to increase investments and in order to increase internal demand, and that is the basis that should lead us, with sustained recovery, to more growth, more employment opportunities and thereby to greater guarantees that we can preserve and enhance social cohesion and the sustainability of our model of growth and of society.

Naturally, the broad economic policy guidelines for 2005-2008 take account of the review of the Stability and Growth Pact, based on the agreement reached by the Spring European Council, and, in this regard, they recommend avoiding pro-cyclic budgetary policies and maintaining the medium-term budgetary stability objectives throughout the economic cycle, and also taking account of the differing levels of indebtedness and the differing growth potential of each country when establishing those specific medium-term objectives.

For the euro zone, the specific need is stressed for the countries that share the single currency to achieve those mid-term budgetary balance objectives, and those countries are called upon to pay special attention to fiscal discipline and their budgetary situation.

As Vice-President Verheugen has just pointed out, the microeconomic chapter of the guidelines makes particular reference to the need to create the appropriate framework for attracting more investment to the internal market, to enhance innovation and, by means of greater investment, enhancing innovation, research and development and better functioning of the markets and increasing the growth potential of our economies.

Finally, of course, this macroeconomic and microeconomic strategy, integrated into the broad economic policy guidelines, is consistent with the employment guidelines that my colleague, Commissioner Spidla, will explain next.

  Špidla, Commission. (CS) This new set of guidelines for employment policy represents a new beginning for the European Employment Strategy in the framework of the revised Lisbon agenda. The integrated guidelines are based on the premise that if the European Union wishes to create more and better jobs, it needs a range of interrelated measures that will make Europe more attractive and more innovation-friendly. These measures must apply not only to the labour market, but also to the market for goods and services and to the financial market, and structural reforms must be founded on a growth-oriented macroeconomic policy.

No real progress has been made in the area of employment in recent years, something that has mainly been due to sluggish economic growth associated with weak demand and global imbalances. After a period in the late 1990s when employment rose sharply, the number of new jobs has levelled off over the past three years, and the only reason why we have not suffered a drop in employment similar to that of 10 years ago is because the labour market is now more flexible. At the same time, growth in labour productivity has slowed, limited progress has been made towards improving the quality of work and the economic slow-down has exacerbated related problems of social inclusion, in particular among young people. Long-term unemployment rates have started to rise again after several years of decline.

We are facing major problems. On the one hand, Europe must rise to the challenge of accelerated economic restructuring on the basis of increased economic integration, both within the enlarged EU and on a global scale. If Europe wishes to succeed, it must improve its capacity to anticipate, bring about and cope with economic change. On the other hand, Europe needs to tackle the problems of an ageing population. Demographic changes mean that we must modernise our social welfare systems, and that our labour market must change and will have to adapt to an ageing and soon-to-be shrinking workforce.

Europe will only remain prosperous if it achieves faster growth in both employment and productivity. In order to do so, we need a new approach to life-long work and renewed efforts to develop human capital in Europe. The new set of guidelines for employment policy responds to these challenges and acts as a roadmap for the employment policies of the Member States, as well as reiterating the EU’s objectives of full employment, improved quality and productivity of labour and greater social and territorial cohesion. Emphasis is given to a number of key measures, which are targeted at three priorities. The first of these priorities is to ensure that more people enter and stay in employment, the second is making workers and businesses more flexible and the third is boosting investment in human capital. At the same time as implementing the guidelines, Member States must also implement the recommendations on employment policy, and commit themselves to fulfilling the full scope of the European Union’s ambitions and goals. It is also essential to continue putting the open method of coordination to full use in the field of social inclusion and social welfare, as outlined in the Social Agenda, and for the relevant parts of this strategy to be incorporated into the national Lisbon programmes. The European Social Fund must be directly utilised by means of support measures at Member State and regional level.

The preparations that are carried out in the run-up to the presentation of the national programmes in autumn 2005 must be used as an opportunity to win over all parties concerned to the cause of developing and implementing employment policy. The experiences gained with the European Employment Strategy in this regard were extremely positive, as the involvement of all affected parties helps the Member States to be more transparent and to formulate policies, as well as ensuring that policy measures are both legitimate and effective. This is the key feature of the new framework for growth and employment presented in the shape of the relaunched Lisbon Strategy.

The European Parliament will, and indeed already does, play a key role in this process, not least by setting out its position on the guidelines for employment policy that the Commission proposes. I believe that these new guidelines for employment policy, which form part of the integrated package we are presenting on behalf of the Commission, adhere to the basic principles and new objectives of the Lisbon Strategy, namely growth and employment.

  Andersson (PSE). – (SV) Mr President, I agree with a lot of what the Commissioners describe. The integrated package is a good thing. We have not been completely successful in recent years. This is true in relation not only to the young but also to the older work force, people with disabilities and people from other cultures.

I should like to address an issue linked to the second and third parts, namely structural changes. At present, we very often see structural changes as a threat, but I think that they ought to be seen as a challenge. Firstly, it is a question of whether we are to make full use of our human capital, that is to say train the work force. Secondly, it is a question of whether we are to have security in the labour market, because people made to feel secure can also participate in the work designed to produce change. Thirdly, it is a question of involving employees not only when something has happened, but throughout the whole process of change. It is then that there can be talk of influence in the work place. Do you have any comments on this, I wonder?

  Fatuzzo (PPE-DE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to ask the Commission why it is not encouraging employment, and why many young people are not being allowed to find work, by enabling older workers, who wish to retire as soon as possible, to leave their jobs.

Although many workers would agree to retire with a lower pension, leaving jobs available for the young, current employment guidelines oblige older workers to remain at work even longer, thereby denying the young the possibility of a job.

Could you explain the reason for this?

  Van Lancker (PSE). – (NL) I would thank the Commissioners for this communication. I hope that the integration of the guidelines will lead to more cohesion. I have to say, though, that Lisbon was about three different aspects; there was also social cohesion, and as far as I am aware, social cohesion covers more than employment alone. It was also about driving back poverty substantially and about guaranteeing proper pensions. How will we, in the absence of the entire ‘social leg’, be able to prevent any forthcoming debate on pensions from once again becoming a debate on their fundability? That is my first question.

My second question is procedural in nature. I have noticed that the Economic and Financial Affairs Councils will deal only with the economic dimension and the Social Affairs Council with the employment guidelines. This is not, to my mind, a good example of integration. Why do the two Councils not comment on the entire package?

Finally, I would also like to know how exactly you, Commissioners, see Parliament’s role. Does this mean that we are now granted official advisory powers with regard to the economic guidelines as well?

  Kauppi (PPE-DE). – Mr President, the Commission promised us that the new, integrated guidelines take on board the recent decisions on the Stability and Growth Pact. Commissioner, you promised that you do not support procyclical reform in the Member States, the level of public debt that is taken on board and so on. How will you make sure that the Member States do not interpret the changes to the Stability and Growth Pact in a very broad way, or introduce reforms that will actually broaden the concept of what can be calculated as excessive deficits and deficit calculations? There is a serious threat that many Member States will try to avoid making those necessary reforms and will interpret these watered-down Stability and Growth Pact decisions in the wrong way. I would like the Commission to be very tough on this issue.

  Schroedter (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Mr President, my comments follow on from those of Mrs Van Lancker. A closer look reveals quite clearly that this is a pseudo joint paper, or, to put it another way, that it is falling apart at the seams. It is by no means clear whether these will be joint efforts, or in other words whether attempts will in fact be made to improve social policy in all areas. It is also far from clear whether the employment goals that have been set have any relevance at all now, as it is certainly true that the 2000 figures have ceased to apply.

Gender mainstreaming is a key concept that should underpin all policies, yet no mention has been made of it whatsoever. Even though it had a whole pillar to itself in the 1997 employment guidelines, it has since disappeared from your document. It is my belief that this is one aspect of the package that it is essential to revise, as it is well known that we face far greater problems in connection with the employment of women than with that of men, and that women are substantially worse off in terms of wages and social security.

  Goebbels (PSE). – (FR) Mr President, 60 seconds for so many problems! I will have to confine myself to just a few points. As I am the rapporteur for the economic part of these integrated guidelines, I will have another opportunity to tell you all of the good points that I see in the new procedure.

Nevertheless, reading these proposals from the Commission left me rather unsatisfied. Some of the proposals are so general that they are almost verging on the banal. I am well aware that the Commission’s task is a difficult one, because we live in a Europe of 25 Member States, with sometimes very different economic and social situations. In this regard, I should like to know whether the Commission intends to do what the Vice-President, Mr Verheugen, announced, that is to complement this very general programme, this ‘one size fits all’ programme with some tailor-made ones.

On the same subject, I read that the Commission was reserving the right to table a communication identifying the most relevant challenges for each of the Member States. I believe that this is the right approach and I should like to have some more details about this Commission objective.

  President. I am grateful to everyone for their cooperation. I apologise personally to other Members who had asked to speak and were unable to do so owing to a shortage of time.

  Verheugen, Vice-President of the Commission. (DE) Mr President, we have divided up the work between us. I will answer the questions from Mrs Andersson and Mr Goebbels, Mr Špidla will answer Questions Nos 2, 3 and 5 and Mr Almunia will answer the question on the Stability Pact.

I should like to start with a few comments in response to Mrs Andersson’s question on structural change. Needless to say, we also agree that what matters is bringing about the necessary structural changes in Europe, a task it would be futile to try to avoid. After all, the aim of the strategy as a whole is to improve the long-term competitiveness of Europe’s economy so that it can compete successfully on the global market. We will only achieve this goal if we pursue a policy that places Europe at the cutting edge of environmental, economic and technological progress in all fields, and this is the basic idea behind our strategy. Europe cannot join in the race for lower standards, lower wages and poorer quality; it must compete to offer the best products on the market. It is obvious that this will not happen without structural change.

Moving on to Mr Goebbels’ question, I am sure that someone as familiar as he is with the revised Lisbon Strategy will be aware that we are at the start of a new cycle. In essence, this first integrated guidelines package has but a single purpose, namely to provide a Community framework for the drafting of national action plans. The true nature and extent of the package will only be revealed next year, when the national action plans will be on the table for us to evaluate.

  Špidla, Commission. (CS) I shall endeavour to answer the question relating to early retirement. Given that the ageing of the population will result in millions of people dropping out of the workforce, it appears to me to be quite clear that the supply of workers must be increased, and that a greater proportion of the population must participate in the labour market.

Something else that is quite clear, and which is a problem that all employment policies have come up against, is that early retirement has not proved to be a useful weapon in the fight against unemployment. Instead, early retirement has played a major role in the collapse of welfare systems, in particular the pensions system. This would make it extremely difficult for us to guarantee stable living conditions in retirement for future generations, even though there can be no doubt that everyone is entitled to such conditions after a life spent working.

I should like to quote a few figures that make it clear how grave the situation is. The average person is only ready to start work after approximately 22 years, and is unable to work for around 5 years of his working life. He then spends between 20 and 22 years of his life in retirement. The end result of this is that 50 years of our lives are spent out of employment, which is untenable in the long run. This is a further reason why the supply of workers must be increased and it must be made easier for older people to remain in the workforce, in order to ensure the overall stability of our welfare systems.

It was also asked why the integrated package does not deal more explicitly with social policy. The answer to this question is to be found in the overall structure of our legal system, as the Commission is not competent to present a document of the kind the Member wishes. The Treaty sets out the only alternatives open to us with regard to the guidelines, which cover economic policy and, in a separate section, employment policy; this is the legal framework within which we must operate, and there are no other alternative means by which a document on social policy could be presented. Gender mainstreaming is used to address the issue of equal opportunities in all policies and all recommendations on employment policy, including those that seek to make it possible for a greater number of women to work, those that introduce the concept of a new balance between employment and family duties, and those that endeavour to reduce the gender gap in wages. In my opinion, it is quite clear that the principle of mainstreaming is rigorously implemented in these directives and guidelines, or in other words that equal opportunities feature in all EU policies. There is no question that this applies particularly, although not exclusively, to employment policy.

  Almunia, Member of the Commission. (ES) Mr President, in reply to the question from the honourable Member on the Stability and Growth Pact following reform, the document approved today, the broad economic policy guidelines, reflects the true nature of the reform, not some caricature of them.

The reform agreed at the March European Council basically consists of placing more emphasis on anti-cyclic policies at good times in the cycle, of placing more emphasis on multilateral monitoring of the economic policies implemented during good economic times, on paying more attention within budgetary monitoring to the problems and challenges of mid- and long-term sustainability and, as a trade-off, with this greater attention to anti-cyclic policies and policies aimed at improving sustainability and greater flexibility in the application of the instruments in the Treaty, which are still there for the purposes of enhanced budgetary monitoring in the excessive deficit procedures.

The reference values in the Treaty, however, the budgetary limits, the need to maintain budgetary discipline, the role it must play in creating the necessary conditions for the proper functioning of the Economic and Monetary Union, for stability of prices and for creating the conditions for economic growth, are still there. Furthermore, I can tell the honourable Member that it is going to be applied rigorously, but more effectively, because the new Stability and Growth Pact is going to allow for better coordination and more compatibility amongst budgetary monitoring policies and growth policies, as well as the introduction of structural reforms, such as those included in the Lisbon Strategy, in order to improve the growth potential and the sustainability of our growth model and hence its capacity to generate employment and increase social cohesion. That is the true purpose and content of the reform of the Stability Pact. Caricatures are for those who make them. Neither the Commission nor the European Council deserve the caricatures that have been made of the Stability Pact.

I would like to address a final comment to Mrs Van Lancker on the relative roles of the Councils. It is the responsibility of the Council to organise its discussions. But just this morning, I took part in the meeting of the Ecofin Council in Luxembourg, I saw the document which was being discussed simultaneously in the meeting of the College of Commissioners, and I discovered that the ministers of the economy and finance intend to debate all the macroeconomic and microeconomic aspects of the broad economic policy guidelines, and also – by means of the integrated package approved by the Commission – the relationship between economic policies, the situation of the labour market and employment policies. So this Commission proposal now facilitates discussion in the Ecofin Council, the Social Affairs Council and the competitiveness Council, of the specific issues, but taking a coherent global view. That is one of the most important attributes of the Commission’s proposal approved today.

IN THE CHAIR: MRS KAUFMANN
Vice-President

  President. – The debate is closed.

  President. The next item is Question Time (B6-0163/2005), during which we will be taking a number of questions to the Commission.

Part I

  President.

Question No 42 by Enrique Barón Crespo (H-0189/05)

Subject: Investigation into the murder of journalist José Couso, a European citizen in Iraq

On 8 April 2003, as a consequence of attacks by United States forces, José Couso, a Spanish and European citizen working as a cameraman for the Tele 5 station, Taras Protsyuk (Reuters news agency) and Tareq Ayoub (Al Jazeera) died while doing their job of reporting events.

Up to now, the US authorities have not launched any investigation or judicial proceedings. However, the same authorities have agreed to open an investigation, with Italian involvement, in relation to the unjustified attack carried out by the same forces when the Italian and European citizen Giuliana Sgrena was freed on Friday, 4 March 2005.

What steps must be taken to ensure that an investigation is carried out with sufficient guarantees that it will clarify who bears criminal responsibility and who is liable to pay compensation in relation to the murder of the European citizen José Couso, and of his fellow journalists who died while doing their duty of informing the public?