IN THE CHAIR: MRS MORGANTINI
Vice-President

(The sitting was opened at 10 a.m.)

  President – The next item is the report (A6-0358/2008) by Mrs Zdravkova, on behalf of the Committee on Petitions, on the annual report on the European Ombudsman's activities in 2007 (2008/2158(INI)).

  Dushana Zdravkova, rapporteur (BG). − Thank you, Madam President, and thank you for that reminder. During my many years of working as a judge, I have always seen to order in the court. So, Madam President and Mr Diamandouros, ladies and gentlemen, it is a great honour for me to be the rapporteur for the annual Ombudsman’s report. The Ombudsman is a figure in the European institutional system whose purpose is to defend the rights of European citizens and to counter maladministration. For this reason I would like to congratulate the European Ombudsman, Mr Diamandouros, for his dedication and his professionalism, because what he does is very important for ordinary people. As Jean Monnet said, we are building Union among people, not cooperation between States.

Similarly, I have had the pleasure of working on a report that unites, rather than divides the political groups in the European Parliament. As it is clear that we have been elected to this House by the citizens of Europe to protect their interests, it is with this conviction that we also found compromises to accommodate some of the amendments tabled by the other political groups. These proposals and today’s debate are proof that the European Parliament takes this important mechanism for protecting European citizens very seriously. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank my colleagues in the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, the Secretariat and all those who contributed to making this report more complete.

It is my deep conviction that it is through the institution of the European Ombudsman that citizens will be better able to exercise their rights in cases of maladministration, because even if the rules are good, it is important that they are properly applied to provide maximum protection. I believe that, just as the Commission is called the protector of treaties, the European Ombudsman is the champion of the correct implementation of Community legislation, although it is not alone in this role. The European Parliament, as the only democratically elected institution, is also called upon to uphold citizens’ rights, which makes it all the more important that Parliament and the Ombudsman work hand in hand.

The report is also important because analysing the situation as it is in the course of the year will above all help us to learn lessons and take the right decisions for the future. We should not forget that behind every complaint, behind each number in the statistics, is a human being who is expecting the right help and a solution to his or her problem. While I was working on the report, I realised that a key aspect is information. The report shows that many citizens do not yet know how to stand up for the rights given to them by the European Union when faced with maladministration. An example of this is the number of ineligible complaints – 84%. This clearly shows that the Ombudsman and the European institutions must continue in this direction together, and inform European citizens so that they can exercise their rights to the full. That is why the report also proposes a common website for lodging complaints to all the institutions, something along the lines of the interactive manual designed by the Ombudsman, where citizens who have entered the requisite data are directed to the relevant institution, to which they can then directly lodge their complaint. This will help to reduce the number of inadmissible complaints.

Apart from that, I also focussed on what guarantees there are that citizens and those permanently resident in the EU know and make use of their rights, and whether the assistance they are given is easily accessible, fair, impartial and effective. I would like to point out that there is nothing the Ombudsman can do in over 30% of cases. In my view, the Ombudsman should always explain why no action can be taken on a particular complaint, thereby making it more useful to citizens.

I would also like to point out that the Ombudsmen at national, regional and local level play a key role, and their activities should be developed.

In conclusion, I call upon you to vote for this report, because it supports constructive cooperation between the Ombudsman and the institutions and bodies of the European Union, and confirms the Ombudsman’s role as an external control mechanism and a source of constant improvement for European administration.

Thank you.

  Nikiforos Diamandouros, Ombudsman. − Madam President, thank you for this opportunity to address Parliament on the annual report of the European Ombudsman for 2007. I also wish to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Zdravkova, and the Committee on Petitions for their excellent and constructive report.

My report records progress in handling complaints, promoting good administration and providing knowledge about the Ombudsman’s role. The number of admissible complaints increased, in both absolute and relative terms, from 449 (12% of the total) in 2006 to 518 (16% of the total) in 2007. We therefore met both of the objectives which Parliament has consistently emphasised: increasing the number of admissible complaints and reducing the number of inadmissible complaints.

The main types of maladministration alleged in admissible complaints were: lack of transparency, including refusal of information; unfairness or abuse of power; unsatisfactory procedures; avoidable delay; discrimination; negligence; legal error; and failure to ensure fulfilment of obligations. Three hundred and forty-eight decisions closing inquiries were made. That represents a 40% increase compared to 2006. In 95 cases, the inquiry revealed no maladministration. Such a finding is not always negative for the complainant, who at least has the benefit of a full explanation from the institution concerned. Even when maladministration is not found, I may identify opportunities to improve the quality of administration provided by institutions. If so, I point them out in a further remark.

Many of my inquiries result in a positive sum outcome that satisfies both the complainant and the institution complained against. One hundred and twenty-nine cases were settled by the institution concerned to the satisfaction of the complainant. That is double the number of cases settled in this way in 2006, and reflects a growing willingness on the part of institutions and bodies to regard complaints made to the Ombudsman as an opportunity to recognise and put right mistakes that have occurred.

When I find maladministration, I try to achieve a friendly solution. In some cases, this can be achieved by the institution or body concerned by offering compensation to the complainant. Any such offer is made ex gratia, or in other words without admission of legal liability and without creating a legal precedent. When a friendly solution is not possible I close the case with a critical remark. A critical remark is also appropriate if it is no longer possible for the instance of maladministration to be eliminated. It confirms that the complaint is justified and indicates to the institution or body concerned what it is has done wrong. Such a criticism is intended to be constructive, so as to help avoid similar maladministration in the future.

It is important for institutions and bodies to follow up critical remarks and to take prompt action to resolve outstanding problems. To better monitor the impact of my criticism, I launched a study of the follow-up to all critical remarks, and to the cases involving a further remark, made in 2006. The results of that study, published on my website and sent to all the bodies concerned, should provide encouragement to the European public service to improve practices and further develop a culture of service to citizens.

In cases where it is still possible to eliminate the instance of maladministration, I normally make a draft recommendation to the institution or body. If it fails to respond satisfactorily, I may send a special report to Parliament. I submitted one such report to you criticising the Commission for not dealing with an infringement complaint concerning the European Working Time Directive. I welcome Parliament’s support, as expressed in your resolution of 3 September 2008, based on Mr De Rossa’s report.

This year, I have again included star cases in my annual report. These are cases where I consider that institutions or bodies involved responded to my inquiries in an exemplary fashion. Seven such star cases are highlighted. Four of these concerned the Commission, one concerned the Council, one the European Central Bank and one the European Aviation Safety Agency. I have continued to make every effort to ensure that EU institutions and bodies adopt a citizen-centred approach in all their activities, by seeking every opportunity to achieve friendly solutions and by launching more own-initiative inquiries in order to identify problems and encourage best practice.

I would now like to mention some other activities undertaken with a view to ensuring the best possible service to citizens. I have continued my efforts to improve the quality of information concerning rights under EU law, provided especially through the European Network of Ombudsmen. That network, which includes the Petitions Committee, cooperates in case handling and in sharing experiences and best practice. One of the purposes of the network is to facilitate the rapid transfer of complaints which are admissible for me to a competent ombudsman or similar body. When possible, I transfer cases directly or give suitable advice to the complainant. During 2007 I was able to help 867 complainants in this manner.

A further important initiative which should come to fruition within the next quarter of the year is that my office is developing an interactive guide to help citizens find the most appropriate avenue of redress for their grievances. This guide should enable an even greater proportion of complainants to address directly the body best equipped to deal with the complaint. Complaints which are inadmissible for me will therefore be resolved more promptly and effectively. My institution will then be better able to fulfil its core role – to help citizens who are unhappy with the way they are being treated by EU institutions and bodies.

The Ombudsman cannot work alone. Ensuring a top-class administration is a task that must be fulfilled proactively in cooperation with EU institutions and bodies. The increased settlement of cases and friendly solutions is a source of encouragement and serves as an indication of our mutual efforts to contribute to building citizens’ trust, vis-à-vis the Union, at a point in time where that is greatly needed. I am also deeply grateful for Parliament’s support and guidance, both in terms of the budgetary resources you provide my institution with and in terms of the positive relationship I enjoy with the Petitions Committee. With your continued support, I will endeavour to build on the achievements of this past year.

Finally, as this is the last occasion during this parliamentary term that I have the honour of presenting my annual report to this House, I would like to put on record my deep appreciation for the close cooperation and good advice that I have received from Parliament and individual Members during the past four and a half years.

(Applause)

  President. – You are absolutely right. This Parliament has shown confidence in the Ombudsman.

  Andris Piebalgs, Member of the Commission. − Madam President, on behalf of the Commission and of my colleague, Vice-President Wallström, let me thank the rapporteur Mrs Zdravkova for her excellent work. We welcome the Committee on Petitions’ report about the Ombudsman’s annual report on his activities in 2007.

As you know, this Commission has made a strong commitment to improving its administration, and we are improving. We can see that, both from the Ombudsman’s Annual Report and from the Committee on Petitions report.

In 2007 the number of cases in which an institution or a body actually put an end to maladministration practices as a result of a complaint lodged with the Ombudsman doubled. This reflects the willingness of institutions – including, definitely, the Commission – and bodies to regard complaints as an opportunity to correct errors and cooperate with the Ombudsman in the public interest.

Also, the number of cases in which no maladministration practice was established increased. The Commission is happy about this, since we are the institution that receives most of these complaints.

I also want to underline the fact that the Ombudsman has been proposing an increasing number of friendly solutions in order to settle disputes and that, overall, the Commission has been cooperative and appreciative of this type of proposal, wherever possible. In 2007, only one special report concerning the Commission was submitted to Parliament by the Ombudsman, and the Ombudsman mentioned this.

But I would like to remind you that this special report concerns the Working Time Directive, and it was only last month that you had a discussion on that with my colleague Vladimir Špidla.

Let me conclude with three specific points which are touched upon in your report as well as the Ombudsman’s Annual Report. First, on infringements. As you are aware, the Commission has reorganised its decision-taking on infringements, with a view to facilitating the progress of cases. This was presented in the 2007 communication ‘A Europe of results – applying Community law’. We are following up cases more actively and organising the work more effectively for citizens. Also, an EU pilot project has been launched. More solutions to problems should be found more quickly.

Second, on the call for EU institutions and bodies to adopt a common approach towards a European code of good administrative behaviour. I want to draw your attention to the fact that the Commission has its own code of good administrative behaviour, adopted in 2000. This code still constitutes a modern and very effective instrument. Its implementation is well established. I do not want to prejudge the future, but for the time being we want to keep things that way.

Third, regarding the communication policy. The idea of launching an information campaign for European citizens to help them find out more about the duties and competences of the European Ombudsman is definitely welcomed by the Commission.

Each institution, including the European Commission, also has its own website, where complaints and petitions may be lodged. The Europa website is common to all EU institutions and has links to all other EU institutions, including the Ombudsman’s website. In this way, citizens are easily and smoothly directed to the bodies able to settle their grievances and complaints. The idea of an interactive manual designed to assist citizens in identifying the most suitable forum for resolving their problems is well worth studying much more closely.

Because in all this, we should never lose sight of who comes first and who we do all this for: the European citizens.

  Andreas Schwab, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (DE) Madam President, Mr Diamandouros, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, firstly, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur Mrs Zdravkova on her report, which I believe is her first. It forms an excellent foundation for the debate and the discussion on the results of your work over the past year, Mr Diamandouros.

This report follows on, to a certain extent, from the report which I produced for the European Parliament at the same point two years ago. At that time, you had just launched the network of national ombudsmen and committees on petitions and it seems clear from the report that this network has been extremely well received by the citizens of Europe who are the main focus of your work. In addition, your education campaign, which has resulted in more admissible complaints being received, is a successful example of the fact that efforts to educate citizens about their rights and their opportunities for obtaining help are well worthwhile.

I also strongly welcome the fact that the report, in a similar way to the report produced by Mr Mavrommatis a few years ago, highlights the success of the informal procedures which you want to concentrate on more closely. This success is due to the fact that the time spent on formalities can be reduced. It is good for you to continue with this citizen-centred approach.

Some examples of your work over the past year demonstrate your ability to act, but also your sensitivity towards the general public in Europe, both in relation to the European Working Time Directive and the internal organisation of the European Parliament. Of course, it is not always easy for you to find the right words. However, weak points must be exposed by the Ombudsman with a certain amount of advance notice and appropriate restraint. In the end, it is all about us working together to serve the citizens of Europe. You have made a very positive contribution towards this over the past year, Mr Diamandouros.

  Proinsias De Rossa, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (GA) Madam President, first of all I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Zdravkova, for her work on this report. The office of the Ombudsman is clearly improving. We have long complained that there are too many complaints being made to that office which do not relate to its function. Last year, for the very first time, that number has reduced and I congratulate him for that work.

The Ombudsman’s interactive handbook is a creative solution that assists citizens in finding the proper institution for their complaint and I think it could be used more widely. If we are to demonstrate to the citizens of the European Community that this Union is working on their behalf, we must ensure that they get answers and solutions to their problems.

  Marian Harkin, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Madam President, I wish to begin by congratulating the rapporteur on a very comprehensive report and also the Ombudsman and his staff on the many positive steps that they took in 2007.

What I find most encouraging is that the Ombudsman works at so many different levels: it is not just about processing complaints, which is central to his work, but also about how resolutions or solutions are arrived at. There is an increasing number of friendly solutions, more informal procedures, where relations with the institutions are such that a growing number of cases are solved rapidly. That is real progress and must be built on. Citizen-friendly solutions are where we want to go.

I am also pleased to see that better communication at all levels is central to the agenda of the Ombudsman. The adoption of the European Network of Ombudsmen statement and increased cooperation in this area are vital, and we look forward to the launch of the new website, which will include an interactive guide to assist citizens.

However, this brings me to my final comment, which concerns citizens, and refers to the proposed oral amendment on paragraph 23. That paragraph reads: ‘Proposes that the Ombudsman take measures to reduce the number of complaints (a total of 1 021) in relation to which no steps have been taken by him at all’. The oral amendment seeks to change that final phrase – ‘in relation to which no steps have been taken by him at all’ – to the statement ‘in such cases where no action is possible’.

From the perspective of the Ombudsman, no action is possible; but from the perspective of the citizen, no action is taken – and those are two very different perspectives.

So I have a question: is it made clear to the 1 021 citizens that no action is possible by the Ombudsman, with a clear explanation given with further advice where possible, or is it the case that simply no action is taken? If the former is true and citizens are given reasons, I have no problem and, indeed, I am very pleased. But if the latter is true and no action is taken, then citizens will be frustrated and angry. So I would like clarification on that point, please.

  Margrete Auken, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DA) Madam President, I should like to thank the rapporteur for her splendid report. It is a fine piece of work, and we were particularly delighted with the considerable willingness there was to cooperate. I also wish to thank the Ombudsman for his brilliant annual report. The institution of the Ombudsman is, of course, incredibly important for the EU. Its work shows that the EU is closer to Europeans than it is reputed to be, listening as it does to criticism. Happily, it is on the right lines. Far more complaints than last year were resolved to the complainants’ satisfaction through the EU institution itself making proper allowance for them. It shows that the EU system is coming to understand the need to serve people as best as possible. Unfortunately, there are institutions that do not comply with the recommendations. In such circumstances, all that the Ombudsman can do is place the matter before Parliament - an option he can hardly be accused of misusing, since only one case was presented last year to the Committee on Petitions.

When a case comes before us in Parliament, we are clearly obliged to say that we are willing, at least in principle, to go to the European Court of Justice if the institution concerned does not comply with the Ombudsman’s decision. In that way, we can give the Ombudsman the necessary clout and authority in the system. On behalf of the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, I have tabled a couple of amendments, the sole purpose of which is to clarify the concept of maladministration. It should be possible to identify those cases in which the Ombudsman can observe that an institution or other EU body has not complied with the rules and principles applicable to it. However, there is no maladministration in cases in which the Ombudsman merely notes that there is room for improvement in the way in which the institution handles matters. It is that distinction that my amendments are aimed at clarifying.

Finally, I have a similar question to that raised by Mrs Harkin, concerning when cases are rejected. We should like to know why they are rejected. The reason should ideally be given in the answers to the complaints, and I want to ask if that is in fact the case, as otherwise matters would be very frustrating, as has already been pointed out.

  Marcin Libicki, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (PL) Madam President, Ombudsman, Commissioner, I should like to begin by commending Mrs Zdarvkova on her very good report. The report states that the Ombudsman is doing a fine job. It also highlights the excellent cooperation between the Ombudsman and the European Parliament and the Committee on Petitions. In a sense, the latter acts on behalf of the European Parliament regarding contact with the Ombudsman.

The report was adopted unanimously, without any abstentions. This indicates that the House shares Mrs Zdravkova’s opinion on the high quality of the Ombudsman’s work. The Ombudsman often attends meetings of the Committee on Petitions and always provides detailed information on his work. Committee meetings are always attended by a representative of the Ombudsman who is present here today, and I would like to thank him for that as it demonstrates that we are following each other’s work.

The number of complaints deemed admissible points to certain conclusions. One is that society within the European Union is following your work, Ombudsman, and thus forming a better idea of which complaints should be addressed to you. You certainly have not changed your policy on what is admissible and what is not. You remain objective, and your work is such that people appreciate it and are coming to understand it better. The Committee on Petitions is working alongside the Court of Justice and your department, Ombudsman, to bring the European Union and its institutions closer to the people. Therein lies your success, Ombudsman. We would like to thank you very much for your efforts. Thanks are also due to Mrs Zdravkova for her report.

  Dimitrios Papadimoulis, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (EL) Madam President, the report on the European Ombudsman's activities affords us an opportunity to ascertain how citizens view the workings of the institutions of the European Union and gives us practical ideas and examples as to how the institutions of the European Union can improve how they operate and how they serve the citizens.

I in turn should like to thank the European Ombudsman, Mr Diamandouros, for his exceptional work, and our rapporteur, Mrs Zdravkova, on her very interesting report and take this opportunity to underline certain points:

Firstly, the fact that the number of complaints received by the Ombudsman is increasing is a very good thing, but it contradicts the Commission's self-satisfaction in terms of constant improvements to its administration and greater transparency. I would advise the Commission to be more honest and more modest.

It is also a good thing that the number of complaints admitted and the efficacy of the interventions of the European Ombudsman have increased. However, the large majority of complaints still concern matters which do not come directly within his jurisdiction. There is a large proportion of citizens within the European Union who want greater transparency and sound management both from the European institutions and in the application of Community legislation in general and, unfortunately, they do not always find it. That is why the European Parliament has repeatedly called for all the institutions and organisations of the European Union to be given the financial and human resources needed to ensure that citizens receive immediate and in-depth replies to their complaints, questions and referrals.

We also need cooperation between the European Ombudsman and the ombudsmen in similar organisations at national, regional and local level in the Member States. We also need to give a broader, more expansive interpretation to the term ‘maladministration’, so that it also includes cases in which the administrative authorities demonstrate sloppiness and negligence or a lack of transparency in the performance of their duties towards the citizens. This will result in more material interventions on the part of the Ombudsman, which is in the citizens' interests. It is also extremely important for the Ombudsman to be able to take up cases relating to all the institutions of the European Union, including those which operate under the third pillar.

Finally, I should like to reiterate once again the call to all the institutions and organisations of the European Union to adopt a common approach towards a European code of good administrative behaviour. It is not enough for us to speak highly of the European Ombudsman....

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Nils Lundgren, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – (SV) Madam President, together with Volvo and IKEA, the institution known as the Ombudsman is Sweden’s best-known contribution to the global community. It is a very important institutional innovation for democracy in general and the EU institutions in particular. Why? Well, because an Ombudsman is there to ensure that people can demand their rights in political and bureaucratic structures that are becoming ever more complex and, thus, non-transparent. Nowhere in the democratic world is complexity and non-transparency more dominant than in the byzantine power structure that the EU has established and that it is constantly extending further.

It is rare for me to feel any enthusiasm for the reports presented here in the European Parliament. Whenever I do so, the reports concerned are those relating to the internal market or an environmental issue of some kind. Mrs Zdravkova’s report is another exception to my rule, in which we see a picture emerge of the Ombudsman working pretty effectively to fortify individuals against the byzantine hegemony that is unfolding. I am thinking of information provided to the general public via a properly updated website, information sheets, networks of national and regional ombudsmen, conferences and, especially, meetings and other contacts with the system’s eurocrats, designed to make the latter see that they are there for the benefit of Europeans, rather than Europeans being there for the benefit of them.

At the same time, it is regrettable that Europe’s powerful elite pursues a European project associated by most people with impenetrable and byzantine bureaucracy. In anticipation of a grassroots reaction against this development, we in the European Parliament should strengthen the institution of the Ombudsman. We should therefore vote in favour of Mrs Zdravkova’s report and, especially, welcome the demand that the Ombudsman have full access to EU documents in the course of his investigations.

  Hans-Peter Martin (NI). – (DE) Madam President, the Ombudsman's work is undoubtedly fundamentally good. However, you have a blind spot, which is the administration of the European Parliament. For example, in April 2007 Mr Eduardo Bugalho, one of the Secretaries-General here, made a firm promise of a position to an employee, Martin Ehrenhauser. Then the relatively new Secretary-General Harald Rømer intervened and suddenly the position no longer existed and things were continually put off. This has had an effect on me.

I am probably the only Member of this Parliament who has no member of parliamentary staff available to him at all. Instead of taking up this issue, you have turned a blind eye. However, you yourself talk about trust in the institutions of the European Union. I was elected by 14% of all the citizens of Austria and I am unable to work in the same way as almost all my fellow Members. So you should not be surprised that the level of criticism is growing and that, in Austria in particular, the criticism of the EU as it currently stands – not of Europe – is reaching epidemic proportions.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE-DE). - Madam President, rather than dealing with the history I will congratulate the rapporteur on an excellent report and the Ombudsman for his presentation today and his cooperation with us, and indeed the Commission statement. Could I ask, in particular, for consistency in how the Commission deals with citizens? I am concerned that in some cases when an individual brings a case to the Commission the needs and rights of the individual are overtaken by the involvement of the Member State, almost like a victim in a court case being ignored by the prosecution. I shall give you an example.

A constituent of mine complained about the Irish planning laws as they apply in rural areas. The action of the Commission in handling that case was exemplary in their dealings with the citizen in meeting and engaging. However, as the case moved on, I am afraid that declined – I believe, in favour of the Member State to the absolute frustration of the citizen. I know this person and they were very pleased initially and are now very frustrated. In other words, the citizen who brings forward the information, who provides the impetus for action is forgotten about in the ongoing process.

I think, Commissioner, when you asked the question ‘Who comes first?’, you said it was the EU citizens. I am not so sure.

  Alexandra Dobolyi (PSE). - Madam President, I am extremely satisfied with the work of the Ombudsman as explained in his annual report and in his speech. The European Ombudsman is a vital part of the democratic structure and functioning of the Union.

The largest proportion of the Ombudsman’s inquiries concern lack of transparency and refusal to provide information. This is an area of our activities that we must improve if we are to become more credible in the eyes of citizens. It is important that we support the work of the Ombudsman and that of the Committee on Petitions. Both deal with the handling of complaints and petitions on EU matters from citizens that help us to find out what is not working at European level and to take corrective measures.

Cases being brought to the Ombudsman and to the Committee on Petitions are of increasing complexity and therefore require greater investment of resources by the institutions in order that citizens’ concerns are properly addressed. If these concerns are properly addressed, then we will be making some progress towards improving the credibility of, and confidence in, the Union as a whole.

  Metin Kazak (ALDE). - (BG) Ladies and gentlemen, the European Ombudsman’s report for 2007 demonstrates how beneficial its activities are as a champion of citizens’s rights when these have been infringed, or the European institutions threaten to do so. I welcome the fact that the number of admissible complaints has increased, as this proves that Europe’s citizens are becoming increasingly aware of the real power of the Ombudsman. I believe that this institution must have the necessary financial and human resources to enable it to effectively and fully carry out its mission. The Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European code of good administrative behaviour are and must continue to be a model and a basis for the activities of the public protector of the principles of good administration such as transparency, accountability, legality and fairness on the part of the European institutions.

In this respect, we need to increase information campaigns among citizens by the Ombudsman to raise awareness of their rights and the Ombudsman’s powers to stand up for them, and its cooperation with national Ombudsmen in exchanging good practice. The introduction of an internet manual is a helpful initiative, but setting up a public on-line register for complaints would increase transparency and help increase the trust of citizens.

  Czarnecki, Ryszard (UEN). – (PL) Madam President, certain European Union citizens seem to treat the European Ombudsman as if he were a God, requesting him to resolve issues and deal with matters that are clearly outside his competence. This is underlined by the fact that, for procedural reasons, the Ombudsman can only consider one in six of the complaints he receives. We must conclude that there is a total lack of knowledge as to what the European Ombudsman’s function and remit are, and how far the scope of his action extends. The citizens of the Member States are not to blame for this situation. The blame lies with the Union’s institutions, which have not succeeded in informing public opinion in the Member States about the scope of the Ombudsman’s remit. Unless something is done about this, citizens of the Member States will continue to write to the Ombudsman and then be surprised that he cannot intervene. The fact that more than one thousand of the complaints addressed to the Ombudsman were not considered and no action was taken on them is also cause for concern, as was mentioned in the report.

  Frank Vanhecke (NI). - (NL) Madam President, the report by the Committee on Petitions is, in essence, very constructive and very positive about the work of the European Ombudsman, and I can personally endorse this view to a large extent. I would, however, take the opportunity that is being given to me to draw the Ombudsman’s attention to the systematic way in which the European Parliament itself, and, in fact, the Commission to an even greater extent, are ignoring and infringing a number of very clear legal rules, and, in a number of matters, indulge in hidden and therefore, if you think about it, undemocratic decision-making.

More specifically, in my view, the European Ombudsman should in next year’s report, and I would ask him to do this, focus on the way in which the rejection of the Treaty of Lisbon as a result of a democratic referendum in Ireland, rendering this Treaty legally null and void, is deliberately and repeatedly ignored in documents and in decision-making by all European institutions. I hope that the Ombudsman is prepared to take on this task and as such ...

  Manolis Mavrommatis (PPE-DE). - (EL) Madam President, Commissioner, the Ombudsman is an independent institution and a mechanism for controlling the administration of the European Union. The fact that the number of admissible complaints received by the Ombudsman increased in 2007, while the number of inadmissible complaints fell in 2007, compared with 2006, is proof of the fact that European citizens have started to understand the remit of this institution.

Furthermore, I in turn welcome the efforts made by Mr Diamandouros to improve the standard of information provided to citizens in connection with their rights under Community law during his time in this position. Mrs Zdravkova also deserves hearty congratulations on having achieved unanimous decisions and cooperation in her first report for our committee. The European Network of Ombudsmen, to which the Committee on Petitions of the European Parliament also belongs, has approximately 90 offices in 31 countries. Consequently, even at this level, the cooperation of both the network and of the European Ombudsman are valuable in achieving the objective of transmitting complaints to the competent Ombudsman or agency as quickly as possible.

Finally, the European Parliament and the Committee on Petitions should help the Ombudsman to achieve his twin objective of promoting sound administration by the institutions and improving communication with the citizens. Thank you.

  Michael Cashman (PSE). - Madam President, I should like to say to the Ombudsman that it has been a really interesting debate: sniped at by Hans-Peter Martin, lauded as a god by another. I think it shows that he has probably – just about – got it right.

Ombudsman, Parliament does not always place you in a very comfortable position when you are called upon especially to rule on decisions that we take and the actions of this House. I see that I have excited Hans-Peter Martin – how wonderful! But let me just tell you, Ombudsman, that you always carry out your work in a constructive way and absolutely within your competences. Probably the reason why we have seen an increase in your workload is because you have been so effective in promoting your work and your office, and I congratulate you on that.

It leaves me nothing more than to say that it is an excellent report. I look forward to contributions from other colleagues, but also I enjoy working with you, not the least in relation to access to documents, but also as Vice-Chair of the Committee on Petitions.

(Applause)

  Anneli Jäätteenmäki (ALDE). - (FI) Madam President, my thanks go to the Ombudsman and his entire office for the valuable work they have done to deliver excellent administration and transparency.

It is very important for our citizens that when there is a grievance, they can lodge a complaint about it and can be sure that the matter will be dealt with properly and satisfactorily, and that is what happens. I also wish to thank the Ombudsman for having shown the strength to fight, almost in vain one might say, for greater transparency in the administration of the European Union. We know that there is really a lot to do with regard to this. Progress is slow, but let us be glad about each small step and let us keep banging our heads...

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Simon Busuttil (PPE-DE). - (MT) Thank you Madam President. I also wish to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Zdravkova, as well as the Ombudsman for all his hard work. I believe that what unites us in this debate is simple: it is the defence of our citizens, the fact that we can all agree that we must stand guard over our citizens’ rights; that we act as their shield, and that when they find themselves having to deal with unfair authorities and unjust bureaucratic procedures, they should not be made to feel abandoned. On the contrary, they should have every faith that we stand behind them. Therefore, since these are the common factors that bring us together, let us go on working together. In times like these, when our citizens are feeling rather detached from the European Union, it is essential that the Ombudsman, the Commission and the Committee on Petitions work towards building up the consumer’s trust towards the European Union, brick by brick. Let us go on working together to prove that we are indeed worthy of that trust.

  Maria Matsouka (PSE). - (EL) Madam President, Ombudsman, I have noted the rapporteur's phrase expressing her support for the role of the Ombudsman as a valuable source of constant improvement to the European administration.

The more citizens who know about the institution of the Ombudsman, the better Europe will be; it will be a Europe which is not frightened to address and rectify its weaknesses. That is why it is particularly important for the code of good administrative behaviour to be applied by all the institutions and organisations. That is why a broad interpretation of the concept of maladministration is particularly useful. If we speak of active citizenship, we cannot at the same time, when citizens take recourse to the institutions of the European Union in order to enforce their rights, be unable to give a basic response to their concerns or, even worse, be unable to safeguard the fundamental values of the European Union.

  Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg (PSE). – (PL) Madam President, despite the overall increase in the number of admissible complaints received by the Ombudsman in 2007, he handled 17% more than in the previous year. In this connection, it should be emphasised that the number of inadmissible complaints has decreased dramatically in comparison to 2006, which suggests that complainants are better informed about the Ombudsman’s competences.

It emerges from the report that last year the Ombudsman carried out his duties in an active and balanced manner. This is true of his consideration of petitions, of his work maintaining constructive relations with the European Union’s bodies and institutions and also of his efforts to encourage citizens to exercise their rights. Nonetheless, there is still a lot of work to be done to ensure that the citizens receive swift and accurate responses to their questions, complaints and petitions. Above all, the causes of the complaints must be addressed. That involves substantial improvement as regards increasing the transparency of decision-making processes and the functioning of the European Union’s administration. Those are the areas generating the majority of the citizens’ complaints.

  Inés Ayala Sender (PSE). – (ES) Madam President, I too want to congratulate Mrs Zdravkova on her excellent report. I would also congratulate all of us, including the Ombudsman, Mr Diamandouros, of course, on the progress and improvements that have been made in his work.

Among the ‘star cases’, I should like to highlight those connected with European transport, specifically the improvement of information on passenger rights and the replacement by the European Aviation Safety Agency of a contested decision.

The own-initiative investigations are, I feel, very positive as they have focused on the issue of Commission payments and also on non-discrimination of people with disabilities.

We should like this collection of know-how, ‘star cases’ and good administrative behaviour to be specifically included in the campaign supported by Parliament.

To end, I must also mention in particular the sixth seminar of the European Network of Ombudsmen which introduced, for the first time, the participation of ombudsmen from the regions. I must also mention the excellent statement made by the European Network of Ombudsmen which both the Ombudsman, Mr Diamandouros, and we ourselves would be advised to use.

  Dumitru Oprea (PPE-DE). - (RO) The European Ombudsman is an institution which is something special, a bit of a novelty for citizens from those countries admitted into the European Union in the last two waves. However, it needs to be promoted more actively, with a very clear indication as to what the European Ombudsman can and cannot do. We also think that the number of own-initiative inquiries should be somewhat higher. If the organisation does not have enough staff of its own, we recommend calling for volunteers in an effort to promote the European Ombudsman institution, especially volunteers from the countries from the last wave or two of enlargement, including Members of the European Parliament.

  Reinhard Rack (PPE-DE). – (DE) Madam President, the gap between the European Union and the citizens of Europe should not be as large as it has become. We must ensure that this gap is reduced.

The Ombudsman has a very important role to play in this respect, in particular in areas where and at times when he does his job well. The most important thing is that we can count on the Ombudsman's commitment and sense of proportion. We must not raise excessive expectations which no one can meet.

On the other hand, it is also about ensuring that abuses which occur in the administration of European bodies are actually dealt with and, where possible, that sensible solutions are sought which will satisfy the citizens and ensure their security.

Until now the Ombudsman has shown that he takes this task seriously and performs it well. We can only hope that this will continue to be the case and thank him and the rapporteur for this report.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (PSE). - (RO) I would like to congratulate the rapporteur and to emphasise the importance of the European Ombudsman. I would like to mention in particular the positive consequences of his recommendations concerning the use of the languages of the new Member States in the recruitment and selection process organised by EPSO. I would also like to stress the importance for the internal market of the recommendation made by the Ombudsman which requested the Commission to avoid, in the future, unjustified restrictions with regard to the official languages which can be used to submit bids based on invitations to tender.

Bearing in mind the importance of protecting personal data, I would like to welcome the cooperation between the European Data Protection Supervisor and the European Ombudsman. I would just mention, on this point, the Community regulations on the passenger register as part of international flights. This type of cooperation will become even more important in the future. I also welcome the resolution of the SOLVIT case where a Bulgarian doctor has been given a certificate of conformity, which allows him to practise his profession in France and ...

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Alessandro Battilocchio (PSE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, my compliments to the rapporteur. As a member of the Committee on Petitions, on the basis of the information contained in the report as well as my own personal experience, I would like both to extend my thanks and to make a request. My thanks being for the clear progress made compared to the previous year: the number of admissible complaints rose from 449 to 518, that is from 12% to 15% of the total, and there was also an increase in inquiries carried out. I therefore believe that we are on the right track.

However, and here I come to my request, we still need to up our efforts in terms of communication. Let us examine together effective strategies, perhaps starting with our schools, to guarantee quality information for citizens on the person, role and powers of the European Ombudsman. There are promising projects of this kind, to begin this year, which must be implemented and supported. Then we will undoubtedly see a further improvement in today’s already impressive figures.

  Nikiforos Diamandouros, Ombudsman. − Madam President, we are under great pressure because you have to vote in about six or seven minutes, so I will offer my excuses to all the people who spoke. I would like to thank all the Members of Parliament who have been gracious enough to comment favourably on my report, and I will only try to address very specific cases, if I may.

Let me very briefly thank Mrs Jäätteenmäki and Mr Schwab for what I take to be their particular support and their plea for the Ombudsman’s efforts to increase transparency. This is something to which I remain committed, and I pledge to redouble my efforts to do that, with the support of this body. I need your support to do that, and I ask you for it.

Mr Martin, I would be very happy to meet you personally so that I might be able to have a chance to listen to the case and be able to respond to it. I would like to thank Mr Cashman and Mr Busuttil for their comments and encouragement. I would also like to thank the Members who have spoken very favourably about the actions of the Ombudsman concerning strengthening the activities and the rights of citizens in the new Member States, who are in fact in greater need of becoming more familiar with the practices of the Ombudsman and the Union.

Let me now address directly the questions from Ms Harkin, Ms Auken and Mr Czarnecki, concerning the cases that have not been addressed. To avoid any misunderstanding, let me make very clear that every single case we have received has, in fact, been addressed. There has not been a case that has not received a response. There has never been a case in which we have not written back to the complainant. We wrote and we informed the complainant why the European Ombudsman could not deal with the complaint. The 1 021 cases listed as ‘no action possible’ are cases where we could not help the complainant by opening an in-depth inquiry, by transferring the case or by offering useful advice. After this came in I checked and I have some reports. In one third of all these cases the complainant had already contacted the authority that was competent to deal with the complaint, such as a national original Ombudsman or the Committee on Petitions of the European Parliament. In 20% of the cases they received, the case had already been handled by the court and I could not handle it. In 17% of the cases there was no competent body in existence that could possibly handle it. In 13% of the cases the only appropriate advice would have been to contact a lawyer, but the complainant had already done so.

Therefore I have tried to cover all the cases. I would like to assure you that there has never been any case in which the Ombudsman has not written, explained and provided written information. I hope this addresses the questions that you raised.

  Andris Piebalgs, Member of the Commission. − Madam President, I would just like to reiterate my support for Mrs Zdravkova’s report and to thank the Ombudsman for his cooperation. Regarding those concrete cases mentioned, we will provide additional information. It is true that, when we address a complaint, the complainants are not always completely satisfied with the solution proposed. However, the Commission always tries to deal with each and every case in a very constructive spirit, and we will continue to do so.

  Dushana Zdravkova, rapporteur. − (BG) I would just like to take this opportunity to once again thank all speakers for their kind words about my report, my work and for the work of Mr Diamandouros. This has been a useful, and, above all. a positive discussion, and I am sure that it will encourage Mr Diamandouros to make even greater efforts towards closer cooperation with the institutions, and above all encourage better communication with our European citizens. I can see that there are many visitors in the hall, and I hope that this discussion has been useful and, above all, of interest to them.

  Hans-Peter Martin (NI). – (DE) Madam President, I should like to start by thanking the Ombudsman for the opportunity to speak. I am happy to accept.

I have, in fact, asked to speak because Mr Cashman has made attacks and insinuations which I would like to reject out of hand. They simply indicate how nervous people become when there is a question of increasing transparency.

However, you, Mr Diamandouros, are in favour of more transparency. I can only encourage you to keep to your convictions with regard to travel expenses and other similar matters, where the majority of Parliament gets you into trouble. I believe that you are on the right track, Mr Diamandouros.

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place today at 11 a.m.

(The sitting was suspended at 11.05 a.m. and resumed at 11.10 a.m.)

IN THE CHAIR: MR PÖTTERING
President

  President. − Ladies and gentlemen, Twenty years ago in 1988, the European Parliament instituted the Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought, which has been awarded every year since then.

Over the course of the last twenty years, we have honoured outstanding organisations or figures who have dedicated their lives to defending human rights and fundamental freedoms and who have fought against intolerance, fanaticism and oppression in their own countries and throughout the world. The first person to be awarded the prize was Nelson Mandela, whom I will be meeting next week in Johannesburg as part of an invitation to speak before the Pan-African Parliament.

This year the Conference of Presidents has decided to award the Sakharov Prize 2008 to Hu Jia ‘on behalf of the silenced voices of China and Tibet’ as it states in the proposal for a decision from the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

(Applause)

Hu Jia was born on 25 July 1973 in Beijing and is one of the most passionate defenders of human rights in the People's Republic of China. This dedicated activist is subject to accusations because of his commitment to the environment, his fight against the dangers of HIV and AIDS and his efforts to ensure that human rights are respected.

On 27 December 2007, Hu Jia was placed under house arrest on charges of inciting subversion. On 3 April 2008, he was sentenced to three-and-a-half years in prison.

In his solitary prison cell, Hu Jia is now fighting his illness. He suffers from cirrhosis of the liver, but as far as we know he is being denied regular medical care.

The arbitrary arrest and conviction of Hu Jia has caused outrage throughout the world. By awarding the Sakharov prize to Hu Jia, the European Parliament is demonstrating forcefully and with determination its recognition of the daily fight for freedom carried on by all defenders of human rights in China.

(Applause)

Ladies and gentlemen, I have another brief statement to make. Tomorrow, on 24 October, we will be celebrating the 63rd anniversary of the United Nations. On this occasion, I would like to highlight the extent, the commitment and the success of the collaboration between the European Union, the European Parliament and the various programmes and institutions of the United Nations.

Not long ago a publication entitled ‘Improving Lives’, of which you have all received a copy, presented a summary of the collaboration over the years. In recent weeks, we have seen the start of a difficult period throughout the world, in particular in relation to the financial crisis and its drastic effects on the world economy.

In this context in particular, the European Union's fundamental values of multilateral understanding and solidarity are of great importance. This also applies to our commitment to and responsibility for the developing countries. The international conference on development financing which will be held in November will also play a decisive role in this respect. Despite the fact that we are faced with considerable challenges, we must not lose sight of the interests of the developing countries.

  President. − The next item is voting time.

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

– Before the vote

  Jutta Haug, rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, the explanation process is the same as it is every year. Before the vote I need to inform Parliament about some technical adjustments. I know that this is not very interesting for my fellow Members, but we need to record it in the Minutes.

Firstly, as already indicated in the voting list, the vote on amendment 783 to budget line 22 02 04 02 only concerns payment appropriations.

Secondly, the explanations concerning the global energy assessment do not belong on budget line 08 03 01, where they have mistakenly been included, but on line 08 05 01. Therefore the vote on amendment 936 to line 08 03 01 must be made without the comments on the global energy assessment. These will be included instead in amendment 938 to line 08 05 01.

I know how enthusiastic everyone is about this.

Thirdly, the reinstatement of resources in the Preliminary Draft Budget for the decentralised agencies with their titles in lines 1 and 2 also includes, of course, the reinstatement of their establishment plans. This applies to the European Medicines Agency, the European Chemicals Agency, the European Aviation Safety Agency, the European Maritime Safety Agency, the European Railway Agency, the European Environment Agency, the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training, the European Food Safety Authority, the Community Fisheries Control Agency and the Community Plant Variety Office, whose establishment plans are not specifically included in the documents accompanying the amendments.

Fourthly, as the result of a comment from the Legal Services an explanation included on several budget lines must be slightly modified. This concerns the sentence which begins ‘The Commission may’ up to ‘and to transfer to the internal auditor of the Commission’ in the following amendments: Amendment 994 to line 19 04 01, amendment 1011 to line 21 02 01, amendment 1015 to line 21 03 01, amendment 1016 to line 21 04 01, amendment 1026 to line 23 02 01 and amendment 785 to line 23 02 02. The correct version of the explanation is detailed in the voting list.

Fifthly and finally, the budget line 19 06 06 with the title ‘Consular cooperation’ is not included in the amendments, although it was adopted as part of the amending letter No 1/2009. This new budget line will therefore be included using a token entry (p.m.).

If none of my fellow members have any objections to all of this, the sittings service will include it all as we have decided.

  President. – Mrs Haug, as we have great confidence in you, we can now vote on this.

(Parliament approved the rapporteur's proposal)

– Before the vote on Amendment 111

  Catherine Guy-Quint (PSE). – (FR) Mr President, I do not believe we have voted on the second part of 106. Please could you check?

  President. - Yes we have, Mrs Guy-Quint. Mr Dunstan has just told me that the first part has lapsed and we have already voted on the second part.

– Before the vote on Block 8

  Janusz Lewandowski, rapporteur. − Mr President, there are no technical adjustments this time, so we can vote.

(Applause)

  President. − Then we can only congratulate the rapporteur.

  President. − Ladies and gentlemen, it is a great pleasure for me to welcome the members of the delegation from the parliament of the Republic of Moldova, who are here in Strasbourg on the occasion of the 11th meeting of the EU-Moldova Parliamentary Cooperation Committee which took place yesterday and today.

Ladies and gentlemen, the fact that you are with us in the European Parliament demonstrates that parliamentary dialogue is the best way of strengthening our relationship and finding solutions for the issues which concern the European Union's eastern neighbours.

We wish you all every success in the elections next year and in your current and future activities. A very warm welcome to you all.

(Applause)

  President. − We will now continue with voting time.

– On paragraph 4 part 2

  Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) . – (ES) Mr President, I refer to the first part of paragraph 4 in the split voting. I should like the vote on the first part of the original paragraph to be repeated.

  President. − I can see that the House agrees. We will vote on this again.

– Before the vote

  Manfred Weber, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (DE) Mr President, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group I would like to introduce a motion. In Parliament, we quite clearly agree on two points. On the one hand, we want to be involved in the procedure for these new technical variants and this cannot be decided without Parliament. I would like to thank Commissioner Tajani, who has ensured that this is the case.

Secondly, it is clear to all of us that this new technical measure must be considered with a great deal of sensitivity. We have a number of concerns about it. The criteria for the possible application must be carefully controlled and everyone in the House agrees on this. I would like to move on behalf of the PPE-DE Group that we give ourselves an extra four weeks and postpone the vote until November, because Commissioner Tajani has stated that there will be a major hearing on the subject in November. The PPE-DE Group is of the opinion that we should hear all the facts before we come to a decision. I hope that we will have a majority in favour of this. This is why we are moving that the vote be adjourned until November.

  Martin Schulz, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to oppose this motion for the following reason. It is true that Mr Tajani's hearing will give us the opportunity to acquire additional information and to define our position. However, what we are doing with this decision is to tell the Council, which has already reached a resolution during the last Council of Ministers of Justice and Home Affairs, that in our view, and this applies at least to my group, security and security measures are absolutely essential. However, the use of scanners or display devices which show people completely naked is totally unacceptable. This is a violation of human dignity and it is not accompanied by any increase in security.

(Applause from the left and from the centre)

This is the perfect example of the mania for security which is going on here. With our decision we want to send a clear signal that we are opposed to measures of this kind, which are also extremely controversial on medical grounds. We therefore ask you to reject Mr Weber's motion.

(Applause)

  President. − Thank you very much. The ALDE group has requested a roll-call vote on this motion.

(Parliament rejected the motion to adjourn the vote)

– On paragraph 22

  Doris Pack, draftsman. – (DE) Mr President, I have an oral amendment to paragraph 22, which I have agreed with other fellow Members. We must correct the text because it does not exactly represent the truth. After the Missing Persons Institute and following the semi-colon, we should change the sentence. I will read the change out in English now:

– ‘urges the corresponding urgencies at the entity level to support the work of the state-level bodies by forwarding to them all the relevant information they gather;’.

  President. - (DE) That is paragraph 22. I do not see any opposition, so we will vote on it.

(The oral amendment was accepted)

– Before the vote on amendment 5

  Dushana Zdravkova, rapporteur. − Mr President, as has been discussed, my oral amendment is as follows (paragraph 23): ‘Proposes that the Ombudsman take measures to reduce the number of complaints in such cases where no action is possible;’. The end of the paragraph has been changed.

(The oral amendment was accepted)

– Before the vote on amendment 7

  Dushana Zdravkova, rapporteur. − Mr President, it is just to delete the words ‘by the first European Ombudsman’ from the first part of the amendment.

  President. - (The oral amendment was accepted)

That concludes voting time.

IN THE CHAIR: RODI KRATSA-TSAGAROPOULOU
Vice-President

Explanations of vote

Draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2009

  Hannu Takkula (ALDE). - (FI) Madam President, first of all let me say that I am pleased that the budget package was voted on and got through. Of course, as Vice-Chairman of the Committee on Culture and Education, I followed matters relating to this area in particular, and I am glad that one important project, the European Youth Olympic Festival in Tampere, was voted through.

It is important to ensure that we use the budget to press ahead with projects that are close to the public. Then people can see and experience how the Union is working in their region. The budget is a strong one, but it has to be said that under one Heading, which mentions the European Union as a global partner, that is, point 134, I suspect that I voted wrongly, because I was following the group list and I do not agree with it in all respects. It is perhaps worth pointing this out, but in other respects I can say that I am satisfied with this draft budget and I am happy that it went through.

  Avril Doyle (PPE-DE). - Madam President, I abstained on vote 134 of the draft general budget for 2009, as the intellectual dishonesty and cynicism of the movers of this amendment are preying on the genuine concerns and fears of many of our citizens by trying to imply that, at present – and in the past – EU development funds have been given to governments and organisations for programmes that include, I quote: ‘coercive abortion, forced sterilisation and infanticide’, all of which we would condemn outright. That should not even need to be said. So they justify the wording of this emotive amendment, the text of which is already being used with one eye on next June’s European election. The amendment is being portrayed as, I quote: ‘an attempt to exclude such projects from receiving EU funds in the 2009 EU budget’. As EU funds have never been used in such a way, but always according to the Cairo ICPD, and as there is no such proposal in this year’s budget to do so, the political mischief of the movers has to be acknowledged by all fair-minded and intellectually honest commentators.

− Report: Jutta Haug (A6-0398/2008)

  Marusya Ivanova Lyubcheva (PSE) - (BG) I supported the 2009 budget as well as the proposal to increase it compared to what had been proposed by the Commission. Although it is not enough to meet the huge demands of all Member States, or to fully implement all priority policies, I believe that it lives up to the fundamental principle of the EU, which is solidarity.

By directing funds towards the more poorly developed countries and regions, the financial instrument has established itself as an important factor in achieving balanced development. In this regard, the Cohesion Fund plays an important role, as it is aimed at those Member States which need to close the gap between the levels of economic and social development through this fund. It is particularly important for the new Member States, which really do need the financial resources of the Community. I do not believe that these resources should be subject to conditions which are any stricter than the approved rules and procedures of the European Union.

They are of great importance in helping Bulgaria catch up in its development and to reach the European Union’s average standard of living. The vote against the proposal to put Cohesion Fund resources into a reserve is a good decision. The proposal was tied to vague criteria, particularly regarding the reimbursement of withheld funds. In my view, the European Commission and Parliament have sufficient control mechanisms at their disposal to ensure that the funds are spent effectively.

  Frank Vanhecke (NI). - (NL) Madam President, I have voted against the draft budget for 2009, and the Commission’s budget in particular, for the very reason that I should like to make a political statement by not in any way approving of the Commission’s actions.

In general, I consider the Commission to be an institution which, by definition, as far as its principles are concerned, works in an undemocratic way, since it is made up of a board of purely politically appointed high officials, whose behaviour, despite this, is reminiscent of some sort of European mandarins who barely tolerate supervision and who, in effect, cannot be penalised either.

Politically, as far as the 2009 budget is concerned, I am, for starters, opposed to the Commission’s incessant efforts to continue, by hook or by crook, on the damned path of accession of the Islamic and non-European Turkey to the European Union. I do not intend to endorse this policy.

Draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2009

  Colm Burke (PPE-DE). - Madam President, we voted to support the thrust of Mrs Sinnott’s Amendment 134, on preventing Community assistance being given to any government, organisation or programme which supports or participates in the management of a programme involving human rights abuses such as coercive abortion, involuntary sterilisation or infanticide.

However, we feel it important to question Mrs Sinnott’s justification for proposing such an amendment. In her press statement this week, she cited such countries as China and Vietnam, where she claims that EU funding, channelled through the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), is presently being used for coercive abortions, involuntary sterilisation and infanticide. I spoke to the Director of the UNFPA office in Brussels this morning, who said that the UNFPA, the United Nations population programme, does not support coercion or abortion. It follows the mandate of the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development, which clearly states that reproductive health-care programmes should provide the widest range of services without any form of coercion. In addition, the global community has decided that abortion should never have been promoted as a method of family planning. China’s citizens have benefited from the presence of the UNFPA and the initiatives that it has brought to the nation. In the parts of China – and other nations – where the UNFPA works, women are given more options for their reproductive health decisions, and more information about reproductive health care is available to them, as is the freedom of access to it.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE-DE). - Madam President, this was a complex vote and a complex budget. I regret that Amendment 133 did not succeed, as it would have given more focus to the needs of children with disabilities who are in institutional care. Our concern was the deinstitutionalisation of those children. However, this issue has not gone away and we will continue to fight for their rights. I hope that the President of the Commission responds to my letter in this regard.

− Report: Janusz Lewandowski (A6-0397/2008)

  Astrid Lulling (PPE-DE). – (FR) Madam President, I voted against the resolution on the draft general budget of the European Union because of a last-minute attempt once again, via an amendment tabled by the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, which the majority of my fellow Members have not even seen and of which they have not assessed the scope, to interpret the famous Cox package concerning the future status of MEPs in a manner that would render their voluntary pension fund meaningless.

This amendment does not reflect what is expressly agreed on in the Cox package. It is therefore out of the question to deprive almost all of the Members of new rights. This amendment cannot possibly have the slightest effect on the implementing provisions to be laid down in this regard.

We are going to make sure that this situation is redressed, because the vote has taken place without the Members’ knowledge, and they are all coming to see me now, stunned by the true scope of this amendment. As vice-chairman of the pension fund, I will make sure it is redressed.

  Frank Vanhecke (NI). - (NL) Madam President, in the final vote, I voted against the draft general budget for 2009 for the different European institutions, including Parliament obviously. I did so first of all because I am not convinced that all these European institutions, without exception, handle the huge pile of tax money economically and responsibly. Quite frankly, I think the reverse is true.

The image which our voters have of the European institutions, and we should be well aware of this, is one of a gravy train where overpaid and undertaxed apparatchiks and MEPs form a kind of Soviet-styled nomenclature, where decisions are often taken over the heads of the public, and certainly against the will and the interest of the citizens.

This is an image that we have, which certainly does not apply to everybody and everything, but in which, I fear, there is some truth for a considerable number of European institutions.

In my opinion, we will need to put our own house in order for some time to come before we can send out a more positive image of our Europe.

− Recommendation: Ulrich Stockmann (A6-0375/2008)

  Oldřich Vlasák (PPE-DE). – (CS) Allow me to explain why I voted for Mr Stockmann’s report on air travel fees. On the one hand, I welcomed the obligation to state combined costs to travellers on airline tickets and in offers, inclusive of airport fees, as this will lead to greater transparency in the decision making of passengers and will encourage economic competition. Most of all, however, I welcome the limit which unifies airport fees for the main national and larger airports, allowing the smaller airports to offer lower prices and thereby to compete in a market which is currently very much lacking in transparency. This creates an opportunity for regional airports to develop and for the range of air travel services on offer to the public to expand.

− Motion for a resolution: (B6-0537/2008)

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI). – (FR) Madam President, I should like to say that, in view of the growing threat of sea piracy off the Horn of Africa, the draft motion for a resolution on piracy supports the will of the Member States to undertake a coordinated naval campaign. Unfortunately, the amendments, for the most part, are pious hopes or merely point out the obvious, such as the collapse into anarchy of Somalia, events from which the full consequences must necessarily be drawn.

It will certainly not be possible to combat piracy effectively if the pirates’ bases are not destroyed. It is regrettable, also, that this text does not point out the main cause of this resurgence of piracy, which represents the decline of Europe’s civilising influence in this part of the world.

Lastly, I believe that it is rather odd to want to demand that the Member States’ naval forces separate, as it were, the action of combating piracy from the actions being carried out – it is not too clear why – within the context of Operation Enduring Freedom, as if Bin Laden were escaping in some way from Afghanistan via Pakistan, in a dugout canoe, to make his way to New Zealand. I understand that there is a desire to introduce this distinction, but ships in the area will naturally have to carry out both missions.

− Motion for a resolution: (B6-0544/2008)

  Peter Skinner (PSE). - Madam President, accounting standards are the key element of the language of financial services. For investors, the moves to converge the national standards of accounting to the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) are a great step forward. It means that companies will be able to publish accounts in one basic form, which should be accepted in the major economies around the world. Canada, China, Japan, the USA – and now, it seems, India as well – are in agreement in the wish to converge their standards towards IFRS.

Although I welcome this, as the rapporteur for the transparency directive, I recognise that work to achieve actual convergence still has to be done. This is why I and my fellow rapporteur, Margarita Starkevičiūtė, have approved the amendments to monitor the progress of this convergence process. I trust that the Commission, in their discussions with various national authorities, can keep the momentum moving. With regard to the USA, I am keen that a new administration can be trusted and relied upon to make the substantial progress that it is needed. The Commission should keep pressure on this.

On accounting standards themselves, it is vitally important to keep the underlying approach, as agreed within the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). The integrity of these rules will be tested by attempts to dilute them for national reasons. This should be resisted strongly, and fair value accounting must be supported in the face of such pressure.

− Motion for a resolution: (B6-0562/2008)

  Philip Claeys (NI). - (NL) Madam President, I abstained on the motion for a resolution on aircraft safety and body scanners, not because I object to the reservations it expresses with regard to the right of privacy for travellers, quite the reverse. I too believe that body scanners cannot be commissioned without a clear scientific and medical evaluation of the possible effects of the use of the technology in question on the health of the users.

I can only bemoan the fact that the proposal to postpone the vote and to invite Commissioner Tajani in this connection to present a study which may enable us make a more informed decision regarding the use of body scanners has been rejected.

This is a very serious matter, involving, as it does, the safety of the citizens and the use of pioneering new technology. This is why I find it very regrettable that we in our Parliament treat this issue so shoddily.

− Motion for a resolution: (RC-B6-0571/2008)

  Zita Pleštinská, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (SK) Madam President, as one of the co-authors of the motion for a resolution of the European Parliament on the commemoration of the Holodor, theartificial famine of 1932-1933 in Ukraine, allow me, as a member of the PPE-DE Group, to begin by expressing my thanks to all of my parliamentary colleagues who voted in favour of the motion for a resolution.

Under the leadership of the PPE-DE Group, a compromise was reached under which the word ‘genocide’ was removed at the request of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament. Following the discussion in your presence yesterday, however, filled as it was with high emotion and with the powerful words of Commissioner Tajani, nobody could be in any doubt as to what name to give this appalling act which destroyed ten million people. It is now up to the historians, on the basis of fact and as long as there are survivors still living, to bring to an end the silence and the concealment of these events. There must be books in our libraries bearing genuine witness to the famine in Ukraine.

By voting in favour of the motion for a resolution on branding the Ukrainian famine of 1932 – 1933 as a horrific crime against the Ukrainian people and against humanity, we have today pasted back into the annals of European history a page ripped out by Stalin.

  Tunne Kelam (PPE-DE). - Madam President, I voted for the resolution on Holodomor, the great Ukrainian famine. The resolution rightly calls it an appalling crime against the Ukrainian people and, indeed, against humanity. However, due to the position taken by certain factions, the resolution has avoided the term ‘genocide’, which would be fair and appropriate to be used in this case.

The Ukrainian Parliament and 26 states have defined this crime, which caused the death of at least four million people, as genocide. Moreover, recital B of the resolution quotes the UN Convention on the crime of genocide of 1948, which unequivocally covers the Ukrainian case. So I very much hope that the European Parliament will soon join the position taken by these states.

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI). – (FR) Madam President, we have commemorated the Holodomor, the methodical destruction of Ukraine’s farming community by famine, and our Parliament has recognised, as did our fellow Member a moment ago, that it was a genocide.

I should just like to stress the fact that the perpetrators of this genocide sat among the judges of civilisation at Nuremberg, a fact that should make it possible, today, to debate the composition, procedure and conclusions of the Nuremberg Trial. However, intellectuals, who are holding this debate today in Europe, are being arrested, detained, hunted down, ruined, pursued and thrown into prison. Worse, their lawyers, who are also presenting the same conclusions, are being hunted down in the same way.

In Mr Pöttering’s country, for example, they are being hunted down and arrested in line with procedures that resemble Stalinist trials. We awarded the Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought to a Chinese dissident; we could just as well have awarded it to certain Europeans such as, for example, the courageous German lawyer, Sylvia Stolz.

− Report: Doris Pack (A6-0378/2008)

  Bernd Posselt (PPE-DE). – (DE) Madam President, Doris Pack has, as always, submitted an excellent text, because she is not only an expert on Southern Europe, but also on education.

I welcome the fact that education is a particular area of emphasis in relation to the stabilisation agreement. However, we must extend our approaches, firstly by focusing more closely on accelerating the visa liberalisation process and giving young people in Bosnia and Herzegovina the chance to find out more about Europe by studying and travelling here.

The second decisive factor is the establishment of a European multi-faith university in Sarajevo, which is supported by all three religious communities in the country and which will act as a European centre of tolerance and mutual understanding, not on the basis of indifference, but on the basis of people's roots in each religion. With our strong support for the European university, this will not only represent major progress for people in Bosnia and Herzegovina, but may also allow Bosnia and Herzegovina to send a signal to the whole European continent.

- Report: Dushana Zdravkova (A6-0358/2008)

  Frank Vanhecke (NI). - (NL) Madam President, the report that is before us by the Committee on Petitions on the European Ombudsman’s report for 2007 was very positive on the whole, and I can certainly support this view for once. I have therefore endorsed the report.

Nevertheless, I should like to note once again in this explanation of vote that it is remarkable that Parliament should congratulate the European Ombudsman on his conduct to ensure the correct and full application of rules and regulations, while law infringements and violations of the rules are occurring before our very eyes in this Parliament, so to speak, without Parliament intervening or even with Parliament’s cooperation on a daily basis and on a very large scale.

For example, the way in which the Commission and Parliament continue to build on the Treaty of Lisbon, which has died a political and legal death since the referendum in Ireland, makes a mockery of all legal rules. I think it is high time we started to put our own house in order.

Written explanations of vote

− Draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2009 − Report: Jutta Haug (A6-0398/2008)

  Hélène Goudin and Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM), in writing. - (SV) The June List believes that the EU budget should be limited to 1% of the Member States’ average GNI. We have therefore chosen to vote against all the increases proposed by the European Parliament, at the same time as the June List has welcomed the few savings proposed in the form of amendments by either the Committee on Budgets or individual Members.

There are a number of unfortunate budget headings. The June List particularly regrets the large amount of subsidy for the EU’s agricultural policy, the Cohesion Fund, fisheries and the budget headings containing support for various types of information campaign.

The June List also believes that something needs to be done about the European Parliament’s constant shuttling between Strasbourg and Brussels and that the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions should be disbanded.

  Jean-Claude Martinez (NI), in writing. – (FR) For twenty-seven countries to have a European budget in the region of EUR 130 billion – that is to say, the equivalent of Spain’s budget, and that alone – is, under normal circumstances, already rather strange.

Nevertheless, it is thus that, in a Europe that lacks high-speed rail links between Finland and Spain, and between France and Poland, as well as equipment and staff for the universities, research centres and retirement homes of a continent submerged by the geriatric tsunami, the worldwide crisis of interbank liquidity, of the real estate shock on several economies and of the decline in confidence of entrepreneurs and workers, a budget effort is required that is far removed from the usual European budget.

We therefore require exceptional budget programming for a major infrastructure plan, approved via a major ‘European financial referendum’. By this I mean a European loan, of an amount equivalent to EUR 1 700 billion, raised by the banking sector.

  Jan Andersson, Göran Färm, Inger Segelström and Åsa Westlund (PSE), in writing. − (SV) We Swedish Social Democrats regret that the EU should be funding tobacco producers, at the same time as investing large amounts of money in public health campaigns and anti-smoking measures in the EU.

We also consider it a scandal that the EU budget should be used to support bullfighting, which is a tradition we do not consider to be compatible with modern values and animal rights.

We also regret that all those types of export subsidy, together with milk quotas, should take up a portion of the EU’s budget.

We voted against all these proposals.

We also wish to clarify why we voted against the proposal for a pilot project in favour of children and children’s rights. It was because this proposal was not contained in the compromise between the political groups involved in pilot projects. Because we did not wish to jeopardise this sensitive compromise, we were not, unfortunately, able to support the proposal, with whose content we fully sympathise (amendment 133).

Finally, we wish to express our great disappointment about the fact that the amendments aimed at strengthening union cooperation and consultation between trade and industry and union organisations were not adopted in plenary.

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report by Mrs Haug on the draft general budget of the European Union for 2009 and amending letter 1/2009 to the preliminary draft general budget (PDB) of the European Union. Like many of my fellow Members, I deplore the fact that the Council has further reduced an already meagre budget: the commitment appropriations of the draft budget represent a total amount of EUR 134 billion, that is to say, a shortfall of EUR 469 million with regard to the PDB, even though the payments stand at EUR 115 billion, this being a decrease of EUR 1.8 billion. The payments are thus limited to 0.89% of GNI, that is to say, an unprecedented level that is drastically widening the gap between commitments and payments and this is something that goes against budgetary discipline. With regard to agriculture, I support the creation of three new funds – the fund for restructuring in the dairy sector, Eco-Aid to maintain sheep and goat farming in the EU, and the ad-hoc financial instrument for the adaptation of the fishing fleet to the economic consequences of the rise in fuel prices.

  Bastiaan Belder (IND/DEM), in writing. − (NL) The Haug report cannot count on my support, because the European Parliament is asking to spend more. I do, however, support the new priorities in the areas of climate change and energy. Many amendments aim to raise the profile of these priorities in the budget, which I welcome. This also means, though, that we need to indicate the areas in which we want to cut costs. Parliament’s position does not make any mention of this.

Furthermore, I should like to declare myself openly in favour of balanced support to the governments in the Middle East. The issue of the Palestinian Authority requires our continued attention. It is appropriate for us to provide aid, given that it now looks like Prime Minister Fayad is setting a course that deserves our support.

Finally, it is justified that the European Union should wish to give extra food aid to poor countries due to food prices soaring. I agree with the rapporteur that this should not be funded from the budget for European agriculture, but rather from the budget for external policy.

  Charlotte Cederschiöld, Christofer Fjellner, Gunnar Hökmark and Anna Ibrisagic (PPE-DE), in writing. − (SV) We support the basic principles behind the EU budget for 2009 and wish to emphasise that it needs to give people good value for money. The budget’s framework should be respected, and we therefore welcome the fact that the budget will be kept well within this framework.

We want drastically to cut back on agricultural and regional aid and reduce the total budget. We want to put more of our shared resources into research and development, growth, infrastructure and security.

  Brigitte Douay (PSE), in writing. – (FR) On Thursday 23 October, the European Parliament adopted at first reading the European Union’s budget for 2009.

This budget falls within the particular context of the narrow 2007-2013 financial perspective – which the French socialists, moreover, refused to vote in favour of in 2006 – of the financial crisis and of the preparations for the European elections of June 2009.

A budget is policy expressed in figures. Parliament has succeeded in restoring a satisfactory payment level, in spite of the Council’s desire to make bleak cuts in lines that nonetheless appear to be a priority for MEPs, such as the fight against climate change, aid for SMEs, growth and competitiveness, and citizenship schemes.

In this connection, I am delighted that we have re-established a satisfactory level of appropriations for communication initiatives concerning citizens and the media. In order to prepare for the forthcoming elections and to make citizens want to take part in the vote, it is vital that they are made aware of European issues. All initiatives undertaken by the Commission and by Parliament for the purposes of explaining Europe and its added value in terms of everyday life and of preparing for the future must be encouraged and provided with sufficient resources.

  Proinsias De Rossa (PSE), in writing. − I voted against amendment 134 because to vote for or to abstain would be to lend credibility to false allegations by Kathy Sinnott to the effect that the EU funds coercive abortion, involuntary sterilization, and, infanticide.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) As in previous budgetary procedures when we had many reasons to immediately reject them at first reading, we can say that, with regard to the draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2009, we have even more reasons to reject it.

The Council clearly views the next budget in exactly the same light as it did the previous ones. In other words, it plans to use this instrument to continue supporting the EU’s neoliberal policy. We should not really expect anything else.

This budgetary procedure, once again, provides clear evidence of the EU’s intended response to the worsening capitalist crisis, triggered by the financial crisis at the very heart of the system, in other words in the US. Neither the Commission, nor the EP, nor the Council have put forward any measures in the EU budget which will effectively respond to the needs and growing difficulties of workers and the general population, micro-, small- and medium-sized enterprises and a large part of the productive sector.

At the precise moment when the structural crisis in the European Union is getting worse, the Council has reduced payments to an ‘unprecedentedly low level’, by nearly EUR 9 billion compared to the forecast in the Multiannual Financial Framework.

This is why we have voted against.

  Anna Hedh (PSE), in writing. − (SV) I abstained from voting because large parts of the outcome are a disappointment. For example, it is mad for the EU to be funding tobacco producers, at the same time as investing large amounts of money in public health campaigns and anti-smoking measures in the EU.

It is also a scandal that the EU budget should be used to support bullfighting, which is a tradition I do not consider to be compatible with modern values and animal rights.

I also regret that all those types of export subsidy are still to take up a portion of the EU budget and that the amendments aimed at strengthening union cooperation and consultation between trade and industry and union organisations were not adopted by Parliament.

  Bairbre de Brún and Mary Lou McDonald (GUE/NGL), in writing. − We would strongly oppose coercive abortion, forced sterilisation and infanticide, and concur that these are human rights abuses.

We have abstained on the amendment as EU funds have never been used in this way and the amendment fails to clarify the importance of the international development work of credible organisations in supporting women in fertility management, specifically reproductive education, reproductive health-care services and family planning, and campaigning for women’s right to health care.

While we are voting in favour of Amendments 612, 131, 132 and 133 because of the importance of the issue, we feel it would be more appropriate to create a separate budget line on children’s rights, which would include the issues dealt with in these amendments.

  Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (NL) Budget item 05020812 and Amendment 169 have given sudden and unexpected importance to the topic of school fruit on account of proposals to spend more money on it in future. There is currently a purchase agreement for which money has been set aside for years with a view to supporting the fruit growers. This gives the bought fruit a useful purpose. There are proposals in the pipeline which, from 2010, could increase the budget for ‘market regulation’ by EUR 90 million or more per annum. Parliament can only have an advisory role in this. It is the Council that makes the decisions, and the subsidiarity test does not apply, because this power has, pursuant to Articles 36 and 37 of the Treaty, been with the EU for a long time.

Our party, the Socialist Party in the Netherlands, considers this to be a bizarre state of affairs. A school fruit arrangement may be useful in preventing children from becoming ever more obese and unhealthy. The question is why the EU should get involved in this, rather than the municipalities that run education. Payments are currently made from the EU fund to the Member States, which are obliged to add a sum to it, and it is then up to the municipalities to implement the scheme. If nothing else, this way of working leads to a great deal of unnecessary administration and time-consuming red tape.

  Luca Romagnoli (NI), in writing. – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I have voted in favour of the draft general budget of the European Union for 2009, drawn up by Mrs Haug. I am pleased to note the increase in resources for overall spending on transport in the preliminary draft budget for the next financial year, and the creation of a new budget line on Support Activities to European Transport Policy and Passenger Rights. I must nonetheless express my disappointment over the reduction, although not excessive, of payments relating to this item.

Finally, I would like to draw attention to the opinion of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, of which I am a member, and say that I share Mrs Dührkop Dührkop’s satisfaction that the increased budget provided for the current year for Title 18, Area of freedom, security and justice, has been retained for 2009. This reflects the great importance given to issues associated with security and safeguarding liberties, the management of migration flows and the external borders of the Union, which are becoming ever more critical, not least in the eyes of European citizens.

  Olle Schmidt (ALDE), in writing. − (SV) As always when one votes on a budget the size of the EU’s, there are details about which one has reservations. In the case of the EU, of course, it is mainly agricultural policy that sticks in the craw. It may therefore appear strange to be voting in favour of a budget in which the dominant budget heading is one that we should have liked to have been one of the smaller ones – if it existed at all. At the same time, there is a need to consider the whole picture, and the good news is the ever-increasing awareness that significantly larger resources need to be invested in what really is joint expenditure – in this case, on climate. My vote needs therefore to be interpreted in the light of the fact that the annual draft budget involves something of a shift forward, not that I uncritically support the total content. Two corrections to the voting protocol, for example concerning tobacco subsidies, have been introduced.

  Catherine Stihler (PSE), in writing. − Amendment 602 was supported by Parliament. Again this is disappointing, as it continues subsidising tobacco producers in the EU. Tobacco is the cause of death of half a million EU citizens each year. It is a disgrace that there is still a subsidy available to grow a product which kills so many.

  Andrzej Jan Szejna (PSE), in writing. − (EL) The vote in favour of the EU budget for 2009 by the centre right and centre left forces of the European Parliament, with the participation of the Greek MEPs from the New Democracy, PASOK and LAOS parties, signals the intensity of the anti-grassroots policy against the workers.

Within the framework of the Lisbon Strategy and at a time of crisis in the capitalist system, the European Union is using the budget to make workers pay for this latest crisis, to speed up capitalist restructurings, to promote harsh anti-labour measures which undermine collective agreements, to generalise the application of flexible forms of employment and to privatise state social services and insurance systems.

The European Commission and the European Parliament are pushing ahead with the imperialist action of the EU and making more money available for the militarisation of the EU, in order to pave the way for the European monopolies to penetrate third countries.

They are using the political power of the stick and carrot to try and misdirect the labour movement and are strengthening their repressive mechanisms in order to strike at the labour grassroots struggle. At the same time, they are using social dialogue to try and wheedle the consent of the workers to the rationale of the European way forward.

The parliamentary group of the Communist Party of Greece voted against this deeply class-based budget and the imperialist plans of capital and of the EU.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (PSE), in writing. − (RO) As part of the vote on the report approving the 2009 Budget Section III – Commission, I voted for paragraphs 14 and 38 of the report, which support the development of institutional skills for the Nabucco project.

I also voted for amendment 542, which provides for an increase of EUR 5 million in budget item 06 03 04 (Financial support for projects of common interest in the Trans-European energy network). Although this sum is tiny in comparison with the size of the budgets required to implement energy projects, I believe that it is important for us to develop the institutional skills required to implement this project. The supplementary sum is earmarked for the development of the administrative skills of the Nabucco project coordinator.

Europe needs to diversify its sources for providing energy. In this sense, the Nabucco project is a strategic project for the European Union. The majority with which these amendments were passed is recognition of the importance attached by the European Parliament to the Nabucco project. Furthermore, we are expecting specific action to be taken, which will materialise in launching the construction of the Nabucco project.

  Gary Titley (PSE), in writing. − British Labour MEPs have long supported the reform of the CAP, especially reforms which save money, and thus do not support measures which increase costs unnecessarily. In particular, the EPLP does not support subsidising the production of tobacco; bullfighting; new funds for dairy, sheep and goats and funds for publicising the CAP.

British Labour MEPs welcome any opportunity to help small and medium enterprises, as they are the backbone of our economy, providing the majority of jobs in the EU. Consolidating funding under one budget heading will help draw attention to the needs of SMEs.

− Report: Janusz Lewandowski (A6-0397/2008)

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the resolution on the sections of the EU budget, excluding the European Commission’s budget, on the basis of the report by Mr Lewandowski. Although none of the budgets covered by this report appear to present any major problems, I remain convinced that the European Parliament is not equipped with the resources to match the political responsibilities it has acquired by virtue of the development of the Treaties and the work of its Members, and, moreover, by virtue of its role in reducing the gap that has set in between European integration and the people, a gap that has been confirmed again and again by the various recent referendums. Like the great majority of my fellow Members, I support the proposal to strengthen the European Court of Auditors’ audit capacity with the creation of 20 posts. The costs associated with funding the extension of the Court building must be kept as low as possible for taxpayers, and it is a good idea to fund this expenditure directly from the budget over four years, rather than to conceal the significantly higher costs that would result from a 25-year rental-purchase option.

  Hélène Goudin and Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM), in writing. − (SV) The report’s starting point is increased interinstitutional cooperation by means of a general increase in services within the EU's institutions. The rapporteur believes that efficiency will be increased in this way. For example, it is proposed that personnel resources for the political groups should increase by 53 services. Moreover, a further two higher services are to be set up, in addition to the new services included in the draft budget.

The June List is very well disposed towards making the EU system more efficient, but does not believe that this is automatically achieved by means of more services. In principle, we are opposed to an increase, both in the EU budget and in the number of services, because we believe that this would involve increased bureaucracy and less national self-determination. When it comes to more services in the political groups, we maintain that this would be of most benefit to the large groups – a development that would make it harder work for other groups to conduct their own policies.

Moreover, the European Parliament has already in the past taken steps to introduce EU contributions to special ‘EU parties’ and party-political foundations linked to these. We believe that, in this way, more than sufficient advantage has been accorded, at taxpayers’ expense, to the big well-established political parties and their groups in the European Parliament. The June List has therefore chosen to vote against the report.

  Luca Romagnoli (NI), in writing. – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of the 2009 draft general budget presented in Mr Lewandowski’s report. Indeed, I believe that the European Union should adhere strictly to the financial regime in order to send out a strong message in this time of great uncertainty on the markets. I would point out that there is still room for improvement; ample work remains to be done in building stronger interinstitutional cooperation.

Lastly, I feel I have a duty to express my opposition to those amendments providing substantial cuts to European funds for the regions of southern Italy: this is not the way to achieve European integration, even if fund management in these areas could be better. If a tap is leaking, the answer is not to turn it off, but to repair the pipe. The concept is the same, with due proportion.

  Hannes Swoboda (PSE), in writing. − (DE) With regard to amendment 4 to the Lewandowski report, I would like to state that the PSE Group has not signed this amendment due to an error, but has fully supported it and continues to do so.

  Gary Titley (PSE), in writing. − British Labour MEPs support the principle that the European Parliament should be knowledge based, but decided to abstain on the decision to increase the number of Group staff due to the current financial conditions and the need to save money as a result.

− Recommendation: Ulrich Stockmann (A6-0375/2008)

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) As we have highlighted throughout this process, the aim is to amalgamate and deliberately confuse ‘competition’ with ‘transparency’.

Obviously it is necessary to determine the relevant criteria for airport charges and what these charges actually represent.

However, this should not occur within a policy aimed at liberalising and privatising a strategic public service such as air transport, particularly by creating a ‘truly competitive airport market’, applying the ‘user pays’ principle and requiring profitability in a public service. Indeed, as we have previously highlighted, the aim even seems to be to remove the ‘supervisory role’ from public control, by transferring this to ‘independent’ supervisory authorities or bodies.

We would reiterate that previous privatisation in this sector has not resulted in added value in the services provided, but has helped to destroy jobs and reduce workers’ rights and, in some cases, caused technical and operational problems.

Despite the outermost regions not having been explicitly excluded from the scope of the directive (by recognising the permanent natural and geographical disadvantages and constraints affecting these regions and by establishing adequate derogations from compliance with universal public service obligations), as we proposed, we welcome the fact that the directive’s scope has been limited to airports with more than 5 million passengers per year.

  Timothy Kirkhope (PPE-DE), in writing. − Whilst British Conservatives recognise that the charges airports levy on their users should be subject to scrutiny on occasion, Conservatives abstained in the vote on the amendments at second reading on the draft airport charges directive. This was because they still have concerns that the regulation of some regional airports is unnecessary and may affect their ability to operate competitively. Conservatives were keen for the EU to adopt a percentage threshold at first reading. The current threshold is arbitrary and does not take into account the competitive growth of the sector.

  Jörg Leichtfried (PSE), in writing. − (DE) I will vote in favour of the directive on airport charges presented by Mr Stockmann.

The report will make abuse more difficult and reduce the distortion of competition. This will prevent airports from abusing their dominant market position and imposing excessive charges on the airlines.

I believe it is right that there will be greater differences in charge levels in future and that the new system will therefore also benefit the customer. It is important for airport users to know in every case how and on what basis charges are calculated.

It is also important that the directive includes standardised regulations on the mutual obligation to provide information, the transparency requirements and the method of calculating the charges.

  Astrid Lulling (PPE-DE), in writing. − (DE) I have not voted in favour of the directive on airport charges at the second reading, just as at the first reading, because what is being proposed here will lead to unacceptable discrimination against Luxembourg airport. This is no way to treat a small country. Applying the directive to Luxembourg airport, which has 1.6 million passengers per year, and the failure to apply it to direct competitors Frankfurt-Hahn or Brussels-Charleroi, which transport more than 3 million passengers, represents unacceptable discrimination in the internal market, simply because there is a national border in between.

It is not national borders which should be the decisive factor in this case, but objective criteria, if the directive aims to prevent possible abuse on the part of airports with a dominant market position.

In the case of a smaller airport, in particular when it is the only one in the country, there is no risk of abuse of this kind, even though the competitive airports, which are also home to low-cost airlines, are only a short distance away. Luxembourg is so small that you can reach three neighbouring countries in only 30 minutes on the motorway.

This is a blatant violation of the principle of proportionality. For this reason, once again, at second reading. I am voting under protest against this text, which is intended to be a compromise.

  Seán Ó Neachtain (UEN), in writing. − (GA) The rapporteur and the Committee on Transport and Tourism have done Trojan work on this report. The lack of amendments show that Parliament has taken a strong and unified position on this matter and that its Members recognise that it is important to progress the Directive on airport costs.

I am happy with the adoption at first reading of the provision of the Directive changing airport capacity from 1 million to 5 million passengers per year. It is also commendable that environment provisions have been included in the common position.

However, I felt that specific elements were missing from the common position, but the rapporteur succeeds in rectifying this at second reading. I therefore pledge my full support.

  Andrzej Jan Szejna (PSE), in writing. − (PL) The directive on airport charges will put an end to the long-standing conflict and debate between airports and airlines concerning the cost and quality of services. The new provisions will also protect passengers against unduly high airport charges and will restrict the practice by large airports of imposing artificially inflated prices. To date, the airport use costs imposed on airlines have been passed on to consumers.

The directive aims to increase transparency and the principles of collecting airport charges. It also introduces more specific provisions on the quality standards of the services to be provided. In addition, it establishes independent supervisory bodies Thanks to the new directive, airport charges will at last be linked to the real costs and discrimination between specific airlines will cease.

The directive in question will apply to the 67 largest European airports, handling over five million passengers per year. Warsaw’s Okęcie airport is one of these. The directive will also apply to the largest airport in a particular Member State of the Union. Ten more airports will be covered by the directive by 2010.

  Lars Wohlin (PPE-DE), in writing. − (SV) I have been opposed to the proposal ever since it was put before Parliament because I believe that the Chicago Convention, which at present regulates the basic provisions governing airport charges, should have the same significance for the Member States in the future too. There is no reason to change rules that are generally accepted and thus can be regulated only by the Member States.

New EU legislation means that, in the event of a dispute, pricing can ultimately be interpreted by the European Court of Justice, and this was obviously one of the reasons why the proposal was put forward. I nevertheless think that there is reason to be sceptical when the European Court of Justice has to interpret binding Community legislation. I am worried by the reluctance to take account of national provisions where certain issues are concerned. I think that, in the future too, there must be reasons to question the role of the European Court of Justice, especially on this issue.

− Report: Doris Pack (A6-0378/2008)

  Alessandro Battilocchio (PSE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of Mrs Pack’s report on the conclusion of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and Bosnia and Herzegovina, of the other part, because I am convinced that this step will help to establish a contractual relationship between the two parties that will facilitate Bosnia and Herzegovina’s transition to a fully functioning state.

This will cause the country’s economy to accelerate, enabling its legislation and regulations to draw gradually closer to the acquis communautaire of the European Union, which will strengthen the Stabilisation and Association Agreement (SAA), given that greater efforts are needed to overcome ethnic divisions and to move towards real reconciliation between the parties. I also agree in particular that these efforts need to be focused on the young generations, through common educational programmes in the two entities and through a common understanding of the recent tragic events that took place there.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The European Parliament ‘gives its assent to the conclusion of the agreement’ …

Behind these nine words are 65 pages of an ‘agreement’ which, among many other negative aspects, is ruled by the euphemistically termed ‘principles of free market economy’.

In addition to some worrying political aspects, the primary objective of the agreement is the integration of Bosnia and Herzegovina within the European internal market, as a way of ensuring that the EU’s major transnationals have control over its economy.

The agreement is littered with the terms ‘free trade’, ‘free movement of capital’, ‘liberalising the establishment and supply of services’ and ‘liberalisation of transport’ (air, maritime, inland waterways and land). Its aim is to ensure that, within six years, Bosnia and Herzegovina has ‘properly implemented and enforced’ the Community acquis on free competition in the internal market and also ‘other trade-related areas’.

Obviously, we support the further development of friendly relations with other countries, but this must be in response to their real needs. These relations must be mutually beneficial and contribute to reciprocal development and the principle of non-interference and respect for national sovereignty must be observed.

However, this agreement is contrary to this principle.

− Motion for a resolution: (B6-0537/2008)

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE-DE), in writing. − (RO) Sea piracy is an issue which is as topical nowadays as it has been for a couple of hundred years. However, it is far from being the romantic, noble ‘profession’ depicted in adventure novels or in the ‘Pirates of the Caribbean’ series of films.

Piracy causes victims and generates huge revenues for the practitioners of this ‘profession’. According to some statistics, last year alone, pirates attacked more than 60 ships, capturing 14 of them and taking hundreds of sailors as hostages. Acts of piracy in the Gulf of Aden have cost ship-owners between USD 18 million and USD 30 million, in the form of ransom fees paid to recover the ships and their crews.

Furthermore, piracy can lead to complicated situations, like the one when a Ukrainian vessel transporting more than 30 missiles fell into the hands of Somali pirates. These weapons could have very well ended up with Islamic militants in Somalia or in other conflict zones on the African continent. It is difficult to explain how, in the year 2008, we still have piracy just like in the Middle Ages. The international community in general and the European Union in particular have a duty to examine this historical anomaly and to develop mechanisms which will put an end to this for the benefit of the entire region.

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. − I fully support the resolution on sea piracy. Currently two attacks a day are taking place around the Horn of Africa and pirates are disrupting trade flows and preventing international aid reaching Somalia. This resolution calls for coordinated action between the EU, the UN and the African Union to isolate pirates in the region and ensure aid reaches this troubled region. I support these recommendations.

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. – (PT) One of the most significant aspects of the EU NAVCO mission is the fact that this is the EU’s first naval mission. However, it should also be noted that the EU, in taking action against this piracy, is clearly aware that it is defending its direct interests. This awareness is undoubtedly bound up with the consequences of globalisation. As the world gets closer and as the European economy becomes increasingly global, it is clear that our interests lie well beyond our borders and that their defence will also require resources that go beyond the geographical limits of Europe.

At the same, we should stress that these interests and their defence are, as a rule, common to Europe and its allies. That is why the role played by NATO, among others, in the fight against piracy is vital and must be noted and included in our analysis of this changing situation.

  Luca Romagnoli (NI), in writing. – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of the motion for a resolution on piracy at sea. The unhindered passage of vessels is an absolute precondition for the development of international commerce: the European Union cannot tolerate acts of piracy taking place against Community fishing boats off the coast of Somalia, a rich hunting ground for thieves operating at sea.

I welcome the call on the Somali Transitional Government, in collaboration with the United Nations and the African Union, to treat piracy and armed robbery committed from the Somali coast against vessels carrying humanitarian aid as criminal acts to be pursued by arresting the perpetrators under existing international law. Finally, I applaud the joint action promoted by the Council, namely to extend the right of sea and air pursuit of these pirates to the territorial waters of the coastal states, provided that the countries concerned agree, as well as to develop a mechanism for coordinated assistance against cases of maritime piracy.

  Brian Simpson (PSE), in writing. − I shall be voting for this resolution and I congratulate my colleagues on the Transport Committee for taking this initiative at this time.

Sea Piracy is a criminal act that not only threatens seafarers’ lives but also disrupts legitimate trade and even humanitarian aid.

Modern day pirates have no romance; they are not Johnny Depp type characters swinging through the rigging. They are desperate, dangerous criminals who need to be brought to book.

Piracy is a problem all over the world and especially off the coast of Somalia, where it has risen to epidemic proportions. Now it is time for concerted international action to bring this type of activity to a standstill. This resolution is timely, and I hope it will help our governments to work together as a part of that international effort.

  Georgios Toussas (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The motion for a resolution, which was passed by the large coalition of centre right and centre left political forces in the European Parliament, uses piracy as a pretext to promote new imperialist interventions by the EU in the area of Somalia and the Horn of Africa. It exploits the cases of piracy in an area in which the imperialist aspirations of the ΕU, the USA, Russia and other forces clash to impose and safeguard the presence of EU military forces which, with a fistful of weapons, will promote its imperialist plans to gain geostrategic control.

The European Parliament welcomes the decision by the EU Council to set up and send a euro-unifying naval force, which is basically a strike force for the European monopoly business groups seeking greater penetration and redistribution of the markets for their own benefit. This new imperialist operation will mean even greater plundering of the wealth-producing resources in the area, more exploitation of the people in order to safeguard monopoly profits and new dangers of opportunist wars on the battleground of the competing imperialists.

The people can repel these new imperialist plans and impose their inalienable right to determine their own future and fate on the basis of their own interests against these imperialist plans and ambitions.

  Geoffrey Van Orden (PPE-DE), in writing. − The British Conservative Delegation supports strong international naval action against piracy, but we do not believe this is an area where the EU can, or indeed should, be involved. We therefore abstained on the Resolution. A NATO Naval Maritime Group is already being deployed against piracy in the seas off the Horn of Africa. The EU Member States that would have to contribute warships to the ‘EU naval force’ are already contributing to the NATO response. The EU has no additional assets. It brings no added value, only complexity, confusion and duplication, when the situation demands coherence, an unambiguous chain of command and political control, and robust rules of engagement. This is a job for NATO. We also object to references to ‘EU fishing vessels’, ‘EU fishermen’ ‘Community fishing, merchant and passenger vessels’. The EU possesses no ships and none are flagged EU.

  Bernard Wojciechowski (IND/DEM), in writing. − (PL) The number of acts of piracy recorded across the world between the years 2000 and 2006 was 2 400. This figure does not include the incidents transport undertakings fail to declare for fear that their insurance premiums will be increased. The Australian Government has calculated that the real number of acts of piracy is two thousand per cent higher. Piracy leads to losses of the order of USD 13-16 billion each year, and this figure is likely to increase significantly over the next few years.

Somalia is only the tip of the iceberg. From 2000 onwards, the most dangerous waters in the world have been those along the coast of south-east Asia, along with the waters around Malaysia, Indonesia, Nigeria, Iraq and Tanzania.

Acts of sea piracy represent a serious threat not only for human beings, but also for maritime safety. The European Union should make every effort to counter this threat.

– Motion for a resolution (B6-0544/2008) – Equivalence of accounting standards

  Bernard Wojciechowski (IND/DEM), in writing. − (PL) The International Financial Accounting Standards (IFRS) are a sound basis on which to unify accounting standards across the world. Generalised use of globally accepted accounting standards will improve the transparency and comparability of financial reports. The benefits will be felt by enterprises and investors alike. The United States only recognises financial reports prepared on the basis of the IFRS in the version issued by the International Accounting Standards Board (IAS). The United States has, however, indicated that, for a transitional period, it is prepared to accept financial reports prepared on the basis of the IFRS in the version adopted in the framework of Regulation EC No. 1606/2002 without requiring them to be adjusted.

− Motion for a resolution: (B6-0562/2008)

  Alessandro Battilocchio (PSE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the European Parliament motion for a resolution on the impact of aviation security measures and body scanners, that is, machines producing scanned images of persons as if they were naked, equivalent to a virtual strip search, on human rights, privacy, personal dignity and data protection, because I agree with the rapporteurs that this control measure, far from being merely technical, has a serious impact on the right to privacy, the right to data protection and the right to personal dignity. For this reason, I believe that it should be accompanied by strong and adequate safeguards.

Since conditions for a decision have not yet been met, given that essential information is still lacking, I would like to emphasise the need to ask the Commission, before the expiry of the three-month deadline, to carry out a fundamental rights impact assessment and to urgently draw up an opinion on body scanners by the beginning of November 2008.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE-DE), in writing. – (PT) I support the European Parliament motion for a resolution on the impact of aviation security measures and body scanners on human rights, privacy, personal dignity and data protection.

I am concerned about the proposed regulation which provides for the use of body scanners among the permitted methods for screening passengers at EU airports. These machines produce scanned images of persons as if they were naked, which is equivalent to a virtual strip search. This measure, far from being merely technical, has a serious impact on the right to privacy, data protection and personal dignity.

I consider that the conditions for a decision have not yet been met, that the European Parliament is still missing essential information and that the European Commission must carry out a fundamental rights impact assessment, consult the independent data protection authorities and carry out a scientific and medical assessment of the possible health impact of such technologies.

Taking a decision without doing all this will show a rashness that European citizens will not understand and will represent yet another step in the escalation of security in total disregard for fundamental freedoms and personal dignity.

  Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE-DE), in writing. − (RO) I abstained from the vote on this motion for a resolution because the European Union needs to have a much more mature reflection on the balance between security and freedom. It goes without saying that both are core values for the citizens in the Member States and need to be protected in equal measure. However, we need to be aware that the technology used by criminal gangs or terrorists is, in very many cases, more advanced than that which our law enforcement agencies have available. The EU has no excuse for not using the most advanced technical resources available, if using them can mean avoiding the loss of human life.

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. – (PT) In recent years, stricter security requirements in air transport have increasingly led to questions about their compatibility with individual rights. This need to harmonise interests traditionally arises in the area of freedom and privacy in particular. These concerns have arisen once again in this case and demand an appropriate response which we believe can be given. If we take into account, on the one hand, the level of invasion of current methods and, on the other hand, the answers provided by solutions which involve the recording of images and ensure a physical distance between the security person and the passenger being checked, it seems that some of these questions have been overcome or at least could be overcome.

There is, however, another question which I believe has not been sufficiently covered and which raises major concerns. The health implications of this technology have not yet been adequately studied. The value put at risk in this case, namely the health of citizens, demands that care be taken. This will be difficult to ensure if measures are adopted without the conditions proposed by the original version of the text put to the vote. I therefore voted against the amendment which aimed to remove these conditions.

  Carl Schlyter (Verts/ALE), in writing. − (SV) I am voting in favour of this motion for a resolution, demanding that the problems associated with body scanning be investigated before a decision is taken. The resolution could have gone further, however. I am opposed in principle to the use of body scanning, which involves too great an infringement of privacy and is disproportionate to what it is desired to achieve. The current system is already on the verge of being an invasion of privacy and is sufficiently secure.

  Georgios Toussas (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The unacceptable EU motion for a resolution on the use of body scanners at airports has nothing to do with the security of aviation; it forms part of the reactionary policy of the EU and is a grossly flagrant breach of the personal rights and freedom of workers, with painful consequences for their health and safety.

The demagogic references, reservations and objections to the lack of guarantees relating to body scanners contained in the joint motion for a resolution in question by the European Parliament pave the way for the application of this unacceptable and highly dangerous system.

The proposed measure, which is a vulgar insult to the dignity of man and his very personality and, at the same time, puts his health at serious risk, reveals yet again the real, repulsive face of the EU of capital. The people must again draw their own conclusions. Electronically undressing citizens, with or without ‘guarantees’, is totally unacceptable and it needs to be roundly and decisively condemned straight away. Resistance, disobedience and insubordination in the face of the policy and measures of the EU are the only way for the people to safeguard their fundamental dignity.

− Motion for a resolution: (B6-0541/2008)

  Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (NL) The large majority of all nations in the former Yugoslavia wish to join the EU. This wish has been expressed not only by the Albanians and Macedonians in Macedonia, who only recently found a solution to their differences of opinion regarding the government of that country, but also by the Serbs, Montenegrins and Albanian Kosovars, who recently bade farewell to a common state, along with the Serbs, Croats and Bosnians in Bosnia-Herzegovina. The EU would do well not to overestimate the significance of this. The fact that they wish to work together within the EU says nothing at all about the state structure where they live. This is in the hands of the people themselves, not the EU. If they have to choose between regional self-governance and a transfer of powers to a central government, because that is what the EU wants, then they will opt for the former. The war in Bosnia between 1992 and 1995 came about because the majority of residents did not want a central government, but a loose partnership at most. Yesterday’s debate clearly demonstrated that a large majority of this Parliament would opt for more central government in Bosnia-Herzegovina rather than decentralisation. Since this goal is unattainable, the EU condemns itself to an indefinite presence in that country. This is why I will be voting against.

− Motion for a resolution: (RC-B6-0571/2008)

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This motion for a resolution forms part of the crude campaign to falsify history by equating communism with fascism, in the process disgracefully whitewashing the latter and placing those whose aim was to enslave humanity on a par with those who heroically fought for freedom.

As we have previously highlighted, this is a profoundly anti-communist campaign which aims to divide democratic forces by denying and falsifying the communist contribution to the anti-fascist fight and to the development of our civilisation. It must not be forgotten that anti-communism was the ideological cement of several fascist dictatorships and a factor used by them to divide democratic forces.

This motion for a resolution also forms part of the attempts to hide the fact that it is capitalism which is sowing the seeds of misery and hunger in the world. Just listen to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations which recently reported that tens of millions of people will fall victim to hunger, a situation that already affects around a billion human beings in the world.

This motion for a resolution must be viewed in the context of the rise of nationalist forces in Ukraine, the attempts to whitewash the collaboration of Ukrainian pro-fascist groups with the Nazis, the pressure to enlarge NATO and the current anti-Russia campaign.

  Richard Howitt (PSE), in writing. − Labour Euro MPs wish to state our strong support for the belief that the Famine of 1932-33 was an appalling, man-made human tragedy, and we believe it is important to promote remembrance and public awareness of the artificial famine, together with its importance in Ukraine’s history.

Britain’s Prime Minister Gordon Brown made a Joint Statement with the President of the Ukraine on 15 May 2008 in which Britain pledged cooperation in international institutions to promote remembrance of the Holodomor. Although we do not officially recognise the events of 1932-33 as falling within the definition of the 1948 UN Convention on Genocide, we recognise that some academic opinion supports this view and are committed to following the debate and studying any emerging evidence closely.

  Carl Lang and Fernand Le Rachinel (NI), in writing. – (FR) Our Parliament is at last recognising the horror of the extermination by famine – the Holomodor – instigated in the Ukraine by the Soviet regime. It is regrettable, however, that it has not taken the Ukrainian Parliament’s lead and described this mass crime as a genocide.

Indeed, the famine, which killed millions of Ukrainians between 1932 and 1933, did not result exclusively from the economic and social absurdity of communism; it was the fruit of an extermination plan fitting the definition of a genocide, that is to say: ‘the intention to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such’, and also ‘deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part’.

At a time when, in France, in particular, a certain middle-class communist left extreme is benefiting from media support, recognition of a genocide such as this would make it possible to remember the horrors of Marxism-Leninism, which has been responsible for the deaths of 200 million human beings since the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 and which is today still oppressing over one and a half billion people, in Cuba, in North Korea, in Vietnam and, above all, in China, where the most uncontrolled form of capitalism combines very well with communist totalitarianism.

  Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (NL) My group has not signed this motion for a resolution and the majority have voted against, the reason being that they believe that the emergence of the Soviet Union in what was then a backward Russia was a step forward and enabled many badly trained, badly paid and rightless people to have a better life. I share this belief, but this cannot justify all the means that were used then. Some in favour of modernisation, not least their leader Stalin, considered the individual right to life of people who hold different views completely insignificant. This stance fitted into the framework of a long Russian tradition of oppression and violence. All the bad means from the past were dusted down, this time to break any opposition to progress. The original ideal of democracy and equal rights for all people was placed second to this. The good that was pursued became the justification for the bad that was being done, based on the idea that history always judges in favour of the victors. We are now 75 years down the line, and it is only right and proper that much attention should be devoted to what went wrong then and the many victims in this. This is why I will be voting in favour of this motion for a resolution.

− Report: Dushana Zdravkova (A6-0358/2008)

  Robert Atkins (PPE-DE), in writing. − I and my British Conservative colleagues support the work of the European Ombudsman and believe that many of the proposals for improving the operation of the role in this report are worthy of support.

With regard to recital B, I wish to make clear that the British Conservative MEP Delegation opposes the Treaty of Lisbon and the incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights into that Treaty. We believe that the ratification procedure on this Treaty should end following the decisive ‘no’ vote in Ireland.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) In this report, the Committee on Petitions encourages the Ombudsman to continue the dual aim that he announced in his 2006 Annual Report, namely working with the institutions to promote good administration and increasing communication efforts so that all citizens who might need to make use of his services are properly informed of how to do so. The increase in the number of complaints lodged confirms the importance of this information.

It should be remembered that the Ombudsman now has more powers, following changes adopted by the European Parliament at his request. The total number of inquiries dealt with by the Ombudsman in 2007 rose to 641. Of these, 64% concerned the European Commission, 14% EPSO (European Personnel Selection Office), 9% the European Parliament and 1% the Council of the European Union. The main types of alleged maladministration were lack of transparency, including refusal of information, unfairness and abuse of powers, unsatisfactory procedures, avoidable delay, discrimination, negligence, legal errors and failure to ensure fulfilment of obligations. In some instances, the cases were settled.

  Bernard Wojciechowski (IND/DEM), in writing. − (PL) On 19 May 2008 the European Ombudsman, Mr Diamandouros, submitted his report to the Committee on Petitions. In it, he presented a detailed account of his activities together with data expressed in terms of figures and percentages. According to the report, the number of admissible complaints addressed to the Ombudsman has risen. It increased from 449 in 2006 to 518 in 2007. Compared to 2006, the number of inadmissible complaints fell last year. The reasons for lodging complaints were various. They included lack of transparency, unsatisfactory procedures, avoidable delays, discrimination, failure to ensure fulfilment of obligations and legal errors. Most of the complaints, as much as 65% of the total, concerned the European Commission. Only 9% of the complaints lodged with the Ombudsman concerned the European Parliament. The European Ombudsman also mentioned errors on the part of the European institutions. Mr Diamandouros criticised the European Commission for failing to comply with the legal requirement to publish in 2006 the 2005 annual report on access to documents of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission.

(The sitting was suspended at 12.35 p.m. and resumed at 3 p.m.)

IN THE CHAIR: MR ONESTA
Vice-President

  President. - The next item is the debate on three motions for resolutions on Venezuela⁽¹⁾.

  José Ribeiro e Castro, author. – (PT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Venezuela is a great country and the Venezuelan people have deep-rooted democratic traditions and sentiments. However, they have unfortunately been living for some years in a terrible situation, which is getting worse, in which their fundamental rights are being violated. That is why we are once again discussing this issue in this House and why we must condemn this situation.

We condemn the abuse of personal data in lists used for political persecution along totalitarian guidelines, such as the ‘Tascón list’, ‘Maisanta list’ and ‘Russián list’. The actions taken to disqualify dozens of citizens from standing in the regional and local elections to be held in Venezuela are unacceptable. The expulsion of human rights organisations, such as representatives of the NGO Human Rights Watch, simply for having made pertinent observations, is unacceptable. It is also shocking that the violence and intolerance being fuelled by the authorities has even produced young victims.

We therefore condemn and regret the assassination of a young student leader who died a victim of this climate of violence which is being fuelled by the authorities. We demand the truth and that those responsible are prosecuted.

We Europeans have to be more active. Just imagine if this were happening in our countries. Would we accept, in our countries, the disqualification of citizens from standing in elections, as is happening in Venezuela? If not, then how can we close our eyes to this? How can we close our eyes and pretend that nothing is happening?

How can we accept, for example, the attitude of the Portuguese Government – my country, unfortunately, for which I am ashamed – which is bowing down before the Venezuelan Government, which has a boot-licking policy and which has recently become the European receiving room for the tyrants? This is truly unacceptable.

It is vital that the Commission and the Council become firmer and clearer in their condemnation of these human rights’ violations.

  Ewa Tomaszewska, author. − (PL) Mr President, a detailed explanation of the circumstances surrounding the death of Mr Julio Soto in Maracaibo must be provided. I would like to convey my condolences to his family. We call for the perpetrators of this crime to be properly tried and punished. The observations and comments made by Human Rights Watch merit our attention, especially as this is an independent organisation that does not receive subsidies from any quarter. We wish to protest against the ban on the activities of this organisation. We call for full respect for freedom of expression in the media and freedom of association. We call for full implementation of the legislation to protect women against violence. We call for the November elections to be run in such a way as to ensure that there can be no reservations about the conduct of the election campaign or about the election process itself. Venezuela should be a democratic country where people enjoy the same degree of freedom as they do in each of the Member States of the European Union.

  Renate Weber, author. − Mr President, for several years the situation of the Opposition in Venezuela has been very difficult, and questioning Venezuelan democracy has been legitimate.

But what is happening at the moment is proof that Venezuela’s democracy and the rule of law are a mockery. To use an administrative measure in order to ban people for 15 years from holding or running for official positions is unacceptable. Only the courts should be allowed to take such decisions, and only after convicting perpetrators of serious crimes.

The perversity of this measure can be easily noticed when it is realised that the vast majority of those banned are from the political Opposition, a practice that most likely will not be used only for the elections this November but may continue for the elections which will follow.

It is not surprising that this political disqualification is happening at a time when human rights advocates who criticise the current government are being expelled from Venezuela and when very suspicious accidents, resulting in the deaths of people who expressed criticisms, are not properly investigated.

The European Parliament must send a firm message to public opinion in Venezuela that political disqualification is an undemocratic practice and is contrary to the very foundation of the rule of law. We must strongly reject the allegations of the Venezuelan Vice-Minister for Europe that the European Parliament refused to vote on this resolution in September because it was seen as a vote against the anti-corruption fight. Such a manoeuvre to manipulate Venezuelan public opinion is undignified for a minister for Europe. We also strongly reject his accusation that what we are doing here constitutes an attack against a sovereign country.

This resolution is the expression of our concern regarding democratic evolution and respect for human rights in a country whose people we highly admire and respect.

  Bernd Posselt, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (DE) Mr President, the brutal murder of Julio Soto represents a provisional climax in the dramatic collapse of democracy and the rule of law in Venezuela, a country which for a while played a positive role in Latin America.

However, under the current regime it is not only the case that fundamental human rights are being totally disregarded, but also that a megalomaniac dictator is attempting to export his inhuman system of terror to the entire continent and even to Europe, if you take into account his links with Belarus. For this reason, it is essential that we put a stop to his plans quickly, for the sake of his own population, but also for the sake of populations of other nations which he is attempting to buy or blackmail with his oil wealth, in order to impose his ideology on them.

If he should raise the argument of national sovereignty, I can only say that there is something which is far more important than any national sovereignty and that is fundamental and universal human rights.

  Marios Matsakis, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, there is no doubt that Venezuela has had a traumatic history in recent, as well as more distant, times, and endogenous causes are not the only ones to blame. Indeed, exogenous factors are perhaps far more significant in this respect. However, whatever, or whoever, is to blame, it has been mainly the innocent civilian population that has suffered.

The present government, headed by Mr Chávez, obviously has an axe to grind with the USA and its supporters and allies, but that must not lead to such gross violations of the Venezuelan people’s rights as the institution of so-called ‘administrative disqualification’ from elections or the persecution and murder of opposition activists. Mr Chávez must realise that if he wants his country to progress to prosperity, then he must make sure that his government functions strictly within the limits of democracy and respect for human rights. Using violence and persecution against his own people can only lead his country to more national trauma and suffering, and this we must not allow to happen.

  Leopold Józef Rutowicz, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (PL) Mr President, the resolution on violation of human rights in Venezuela is based on facts and is an action worthy of support. Unfortunately, for many years Venezuelan society has been experiencing polarisation of political forces. I refer, for example, to the coup by part of the army, intolerance, stratification of society in terms of property, or racial differences. President Chavez’s team is the most active in all this because pursuant to the presidential system he can exercise control over the administration and the armed forces. As a result of this struggle over decisions taken, the structure of Venezuelan society is becoming similar to that of Cuba, namely socialism with historical and nationalistic features. This could lead to changing the country’s flag and the national anthem.

The present changes have not had a significant impact on the standard of living, as Venezuela is immensely rich in natural resources. The latter cushion the impact of the changes and make it possible to engage in populist action. The situation is so serious that the resolution alone will not halt the process of further limitation of citizens’ rights in Venezuela. The practical support of all the countries in the region is called for.

  Pedro Guerreiro, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (PT) Once again we are faced with an unacceptable and deplorable attempt by the European Parliament to interfere, which just happens to have occurred before the regional and local elections in Venezuela. At heart, the inclusion of this debate on the agenda and the motion for a resolution are simply intended to respond to those who support and encourage an already long-standing and worrying attempt to interfere with and destabilise a democratic and sovereign state.

The aim is to blatantly promote interference in Venezuela’s internal affairs, by trying to meddle and exert pressure from outside in order to impose decisions that only the Venezuelan people have the sovereign right to take. Instead of distorting the facts and trying to give Venezuela lessons on democracy, the European Parliament should have included on the agenda a debate about the EU’s attempt to impose a proposed European Treaty, which has already been rejected, in total disregard for the democratic decisions sovereignly taken by the French, Dutch and Irish people, and also bearing in mind the refusal to allow other people to give their opinion through referendums. Instead of meddling in something which only the Venezuelan people can decide, the European Parliament should have rejected the inhumane return directive which disregards and violates the human rights of immigrants, many of whom are from Latin America.

What really bothers the sponsors of this initiative is the fact that the Venezuelan people have set an example which is causing problems for the major financial and economic interests that control the European Union. They have set an example of how to affirm national sovereignty and independence, how to build a patriotic project of emancipation, progress and development, and how to develop anti-imperialist solidarity. They have shown that it is worthwhile for a people to fight and that it is possible to have a fairer, more democratic and more peaceful country and world. Reality shows that the best response to this attempted interference by the European Parliament is the enormous prestige and importance that the Bolivarian process has for the people of Latin America and the world. As a result, they should stop claiming that they can preach to the rest of the world.

  Urszula Krupa, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – (PL) We are today debating breaches of human rights in Venezuela due to failure to respect the civil and political rights contained in the Venezuelan constitution, and denying these rights to opponents of the present government. It is impossible for members of the opposition to stand in elections, there is no freedom of expression, and observers from international organisations are being expelled. This debate is therefore a good opportunity for us to express our opposition to the democratic deficit in Venezuela and beyond.

The debate is also an opportunity to call for the truth in public and political life. The President of Venezuela has succumbed to the temptation to seek absolute power. So too have the leaders of many other countries and empires seeking to subjugate people who think differently or who are poorer. Mr Chávez’s new Left-Wing doctrine is known as Christian Socialism but it has little in common with the social teachings of the Church. That is why representatives of the Venezuelan bishops have criticised the lack of democracy. The Gospel story about the mote and the log often comes to mind in this context.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE-DE). - (LT) Ten years have passed since Hugo Chavez became President of Venezuela. The 1999 Constitution of Venezuela was a perfect opportunity to strengthen the rule of law and guarantee human rights in this country. Today however, we have to admit that this historical opportunity has been missed. We know that in Venezuela, the Venezuela ruled by President Chavez, discrimination of political opponents and critics is tolerated, even encouraged. In the Venezuela ruled by him the judiciary is no longer independent, and we also know about the situation facing unions and the press in this country. Our resolution today is one more reminder to President Chavez that the constitution is not just a piece of paper; its rules must be enforced in real life.

  Zdzisław Zbigniew Podkański (UEN). – (PL) The House is about to debate the very dramatic and tragic situation in Congo, where the victims are counted in hundreds, or even in thousands. In comparison, the situation in Venezuela appears far less serious. It concerns violations of electoral rights and expulsions from the country. The first murder has taken place, though. A student leader has been killed.

Even at this stage, however, it is very important to raise the issue, because we must bear in mind that every such process begins with the violation of democratic rights. The first stage is always abuse of power for want of arguments, and this subsequently leads to murder. The resolution makes sense, therefore. It serves as a signal, or as a reminder that this dangerous process has been noted when we still have the chance to monitor it and prevent genocide.

  Georgios Toussas (GUE/NGL). - (EL) Mr President, it is obvious that, on the eve of the elections in Venezuela, a manifestly unacceptable attempt is being made to interfere in domestic developments in this country in the obvious aim of influencing the outcome of the elections.

The situation in Venezuela is a major and important victory for workers in Europe and in the world in general, because positive steps have been taken during recent developments in this country and workers' problems are being resolved, despite the difficulties and the obstacles and despite the interventions of American imperialism.

The attempt being made is unacceptable and we wish to take this opportunity to condemn the action by the political forces intervening in the internal affairs of Venezuela with this resolution.

I should like to close by saying that it is unthinkable for seven parliamentarians to take the political responsibility during a sitting of the European Parliament of condemning a nation fighting for its freedom and to meet its current needs. The right of a people to determine their own future is non-negotiable and we should all respect that.

  Kathy Sinnott (IND/DEM). - Mr President, when one thinks of democracy, one thinks of human rights. The importance of a voice and a vote at all levels of government is very understandable. For years this has not been the case in Venezuela, a country rife with corruption and currently led by Mr Chávez. Under his government, there is a history of intimidation of Opposition members, cases of Opposition party members being brutally murdered, and defenders of human rights and members of NGOs having been forcibly removed. Additionally, Venezuela presently uses so-called screening lists not only to keep citizens from holding public office, but also depriving them from the right to vote freely for their preferred representatives. What we, as a democratic body, should be seeking from Venezuela is compliance with international standards of democracy, allowing Venezuelan citizens to take advantage of the fundamentals, the freedom to freely and openly criticise those in power and the ability to change the government via election without fear.

  Gerard Batten (IND/DEM). - Mr President, President Chávez has been something of a darling of the Left in Europe. Most notably, in my constituency, he was championed by the former Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone. This allowed his unsavoury image to be somewhat airbrushed with a veneer of spurious respectability. President Chávez has, of course, presided over a diminution of the rights and freedoms of the Venezuelan people. He has undermined political freedom, the rule of law, the independence of the courts, and the freedom of the media and organised labour. Politicians like Mr Livingstone who endorse leaders like President Chávez undermine genuine democracy and reveal a great deal about themselves.

  Andris Piebalgs, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, the Commission is following the situation in Venezuela with great interest. The country is in the process of preparing for the regional and local elections which will take place on 23 November.

It is worth noting that in the last few years several democratic electoral processes have taken place in Venezuela. Some of them have been monitored by European Observation Missions which concluded that, in general, they complied with international standards and national legislation. Others have not, as was the case with the last referendum, since we were not invited.

The Commission is aware of the concerns expressed by some of you and also many sectors of Venezuelan society about the constitutionality of the ‘disqualifications’. These are believed by some to be intended to obstruct the full participation of the opposition in the November elections.

The Commission has taken note of the explanation provided on several occasions by the Venezuelan authorities, in relation to the constitutionality of these ‘administrative sanctions’ imposed by the State Controller on a number of civil servants.

We stress the importance of guaranteeing the rights of all citizens who want to participate in the elections, in accordance with the Constitution and the rule of law. We hope that the upcoming elections will strengthen democracy in Venezuela and that the results will reflect the views of the whole of Venezuelan society.

We encourage all actors to engage in the electoral process in a spirit of tolerance, civic-mindedness and respect for pluralism of opinions.

The Commission is also aware of the expulsion of the representatives of Human Rights Watch from Venezuela. We have heard the voices which have condemned this decision as a measure which adversely affects the right to freedom of expression and an act demonstrating an intolerant attitude towards criticism. In this context, we stress the importance that the EU attaches to freedom of expression and opinion. Freedom of expression is one of the fundamental human rights, and constitutes the cornerstone of democracy and the rule of law.

I wish to assure Parliament that the Commission will continue to follow closely the developments in Venezuela. The Commission’s commitments to supporting development of democracy and the promotion of human rights will continue to be reflected in our cooperation policies and relations with Venezuela.

  President. - The debate is closed.

The vote will take place at the end of this afternoon’s debates.

  President. - The next item is the debate on six motions for resolutions on the Democratic Republic of Congo: clashes in the eastern border areas⁽¹⁾.

  Renate Weber, author. − Mr President, the conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) is profoundly traumatising for Congolese society.

Amongst other atrocities, rape has been used for many years as a weapon of war and tens of thousands of women and girls are suffering. Our empathy is not enough. Without any doubt, there is an ongoing genocide against women in Congo, and we can no longer afford to turn a blind eye to this dreadful situation. Words are not enough to describe the horrors these women have to endure. Undoubtedly, the clashes of the rebels in the eastern provinces will bring more and more violence, including sexual violence.

How many women and girls have to die, be gang-raped, butchered, enslaved, contaminated with HIV, rejected by their communities, until we decide at am international level to engage seriously and with a long-term view on this subject? There should be no tolerance for the sexual violence against girls and women. The impunity of the perpetrators must come to an end and the rule of law has to be restored in the eastern provinces of the DRC.

We all have to acknowledge that this situation demands a multifaceted approach. Peace needs to be achieved, the rule of law established and society saved from the poverty trap in the eastern provinces of the Democratic Republic of Congo. This implies that the exploitation of Congolese natural resources must follow the rule of law as well.

  Giovanna Corda, author. − (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, firstly, please accept the apologies of my colleague, Mr Hutchinson, who could not be with us today.

5 400 000 people – that is the number of victims of the conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo since 1998. Every day, 1 500 people die. These people are women who do not survive the mutilations inflicted upon them; they are rebels or soldiers from the Congolese regular army; they are also child soldiers, snatched from their parents; they are little girls whose short time on Earth will have been a nightmare.

The violence of the words I use is nothing compared to the violence that has been taking place in the Democratic Republic of Congo for too long, violence that has increased and spread over the past few weeks, and all this amid the total indifference of the international community. The reports we have gathered are, however, damning: damning for the soldiers, in various rebel factions on the ground; damning, too, for the government forces which, instead of protecting the population, represent a threat to them; damning, even, for the UN, which is incapable of guaranteeing the protection of civilians.

It follows that the resolution that we are debating is designed to alert international public opinion to what is going on and puts forward a series of very practical demands along the lines of ensuring a swift and lasting resolution to this conflict.

Among these demands, the Socialist Group in the European Parliament lays particular emphasis on several points: firstly, strengthening the UN mission with European personnel capable of communicating with the population; and secondly, we are calling on Congo’s highest political and military authorities to do their utmost to ensure that soldiers from the Congolese army put a stop to their atrocities once and for all.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda, author. – (ES) Mr President, I should like to emphasise some of the aspects already mentioned in relation to the situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

The first is obvious. The conflict that we are talking about has many causes. We are talking about a problem that concerns access to resources. We are also talking about the impunity with which these resources are exploited, the impunity with which certain people ‘wander’ around the region committing atrocities without being prosecuted either by local authorities or by international forces and, thirdly, the impunity resulting in the constant presence of international arms which keep arriving in the region.

I feel that these three elements, and the link between them, are fundamental because they firstly highlight the need for an in-depth review of the United Nations’ presence in the region.

Secondly, we must very closely study the issue of violence perpetrated against women, particularly sexual violence. This is an issue that we have discussed before in this House. We should take this opportunity to again insist that both the United Nations and the European Union demand that rape and in particular recourse to the torture and abuse of women as a sexual weapon are regarded as war crimes. We have been calling for this in all the appropriate arenas for a long time.

There is also a third aspect that I feel should be highlighted: this whole problem stems from one of the greatest sources of wealth in the world, namely diamonds. The consistent and precise application of monitoring mechanisms such as the Kimberley process is absolutely fundamental to this basic issue.

Please allow me to remind you that, next week in the United Nations, a debate will begin on the adoption of an international treaty on arms exports. I believe that this is a golden opportunity to stress that this is absolutely vital in contexts such as the Democratic Republic of Congo.

  Erik Meijer, author. − (NL) Mr President, it is becoming increasingly important for the residents in Congo to find a way to survive, even if it remains impossible to create a central government. We should, as a matter of urgency, try to prevent all circumstances that expose them to violence and exploitation, forced displacement or famines.

Why is Congo the sum total of everything that can go wrong in Africa? Congo started out as a colonial mining project in the poorly accessible interior of Africa. There was no Congolese people with shared interests and prospects, only a multitude of peoples in isolated areas.

When Congo gained its independence nearly 50 years ago, the then warring politicians became household names the world over. Tshombe and Kalonji, closely connected with mining interests, sought to split their south-eastern region, with considerable natural resources, from the rest of the country. The only visionary who took pride in giving the country as a whole a serious future, Patrice Lumumba, was promptly silenced.

After this, the military dictator Mobutu ran the country like a private company, one that was completely subject to his whims, for a long time. The hope that the death of Mobutu would finally herald the beginning of progress in Congo has been dashed.

The second President since Mobutu, Mr Kabila, has failed to inspire or control large parts of the country. Congo’s present options are determined by failed elections, whose outcomes have been controversial from the word go and have certainly not been universally accepted, by mass migration from the eastern neighbouring countries, regional rulers with mining interests and rebel armies. It remains to be seen whether a unified solution for an undivided Congo is still on the cards.

  Ewa Tomaszewska, author. − (PL) Mr President, some Polish clergymen are currently in Congo, along with clergy from other countries. In their missions, they are working to protect the civilian population, mainly women and children, against violence. The Polish armed forces have also been involved in the peace missions. I therefore feel personally affected by the dramatic events in Congo.

Particular concern has been expressed about the situation in North Kivu and about peacekeeping in the Ituri region. For many years now, horrific massacres, the rape of women and girls, plus conscription of children into the army have all been everyday occurences in this country. We call upon the governments of the Democratic Republic of Congo and of Rwanda to engage in constructive dialogue that will enable Congo to emerge from this humanitarian disaster.

I would like to make a very important point. The real reason why this conflict stalled was that South African workers refused to unload Chinese weapons. We call upon governments in the Great Lakes region to engage in a dialogue to halt the violence in Congo. I appeal to the European Commission to step up medical assistance to the civilian population in Congo. In particular, aid is needed for women and children infected as a result of rape.

  Bernd Posselt, on behalf of the draftsman. – (DE) Mr President, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) is currently in the same situation as Europe after the Thirty Years War, when the rule of law collapsed. However, Congo is suffering to a far greater extent. Bands of uniformed men are roaming the country, some of which refer to themselves as the ‘official army’ and others the ‘private army’. In reality they are all bands of criminals who are plundering the country and murdering, raping and robbing the civilian population. Peace will not return to Congo until at least a semblance of the rule of law is re-established at a regional and national level.

For this reason, our task in the European Union is firstly to provide humanitarian aid, but secondly to ensure that the country has a minimum level of national security. We are far from being able to do this and the intervention which took place in Congo, and we do need to be self-critical at this point, was obviously not as successful as we would have liked.

For this reason, it is essential that we begin to plan straight away how we can bring stability back to this country at the heart of Africa with all the peaceful and, if necessary, military means at our disposal, or even using peacekeeping troops. We have not reached this point yet, but we must discuss it. When you look at Congo, and I have had several opportunities to fly over the country, you realise that Congo touches all areas of Africa in a way which is not the case with any other African country.

We cannot have a stable African continent without a stable Congo and therefore we have very strong obligations in this respect.

  Tunne Kelam, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – Mr President, in fact we are extremely concerned about the resurgence of violence in the eastern provinces of Congo. We therefore call on all participants to return immediately to the peace process to which they committed themselves in January.

I would like to make three points. First, the Congolese Government has to take special responsibility to put an end to the widespread sexual violence against women and girls used as a weapon in this internal warfare. Second, international pressure should be put on the governments of both the DRC and Rwanda to make them restart a constructive dialogue. Third, we call on all EU governments to provide special assistance immediately to the population of eastern Congo.

  Katrin Saks, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (ET) Ladies and gentlemen, today we are discussing a very complicated region, and it seems to me that we are discussing it mainly in order to emphasise how bad the situation is, and not because we have a clear idea of how to resolve the situation. I would, however, like to make a few comments, although I will be repeating what previous speakers, including Mr Kelam, have said.

The most important thing is to support the government of the Democratic Republic of Congo in order to find a solution to this crisis. Violence only engenders new violence, and I would not like to say that men’s lives are somehow less important or that violence against men is permissible, but the situation of women and children in Congo is truly awful, and special attention should be devoted to them. I appeal to the international community, to the UN Security Council for improved assistance, to the Council and Commission for the provision of medical aid – above all to the greatest risk group – and also specific assistance from the Member States is definitely important.

  Marios Matsakis, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, the eastern region of the Democratic Republic of Congo has in recent years been the site of massacres, as well as a variety of immensely cruel and sadistic crimes against human beings, mainly involving innocent civilians, including many women and children.

The African Union, the EU and the UN have proven themselves to be shamefully incapable of making a determined effort to establish peace in that region. This has been mainly due to the lack of provision of the resources necessary to be effective in protecting the local population and in providing it with much-needed special assistance, and in truly helping to bring about an eventual political solution to the prevailing conflicts. Let us hope that this resolution will help to beef up peace assistance to Congo and, not least, perhaps to deter those evil-minded governments around the world which continue to provide armaments to the warring factions in Congo from continuing so to do.

  Zdzisław Zbigniew Podkański, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (PL) Mr President, the peace agreement reached in Goma on 28 January 2008 did not resolve the problems nor did it bring about peace in the eastern territories of the Democratic Republic of Congo. The raping of women and even small girls continued, as did looting and the forced conscription of civilians and children into the armed forces. All sides in the conflict committed atrocities. I could mention the rebel groups, the fighters of the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda, and the Congolese army. The clashes resumed, proving that the war which began over four years ago is continuing and intensifying. Worrying information has recently emerged from North Kivu, concerning hundreds of dead bodies dumped in rivers and around one hundred thousand displaced people.

Not only is the war causing fatalities, but it is also resulting in devastation, more acute hunger and widespread demoralisation. The Congolese authorities and army will not be able to resolve the region’s problems on their own. International assistance is required, including assistance from the European Union. Material aid in the form of food and medical aid is also urgently needed. The Union for Europe of the Nations Group fully supports this resolution before the House. The well-being of every individual and his or her right to life and peace must triumph.

  Gerard Batten (IND/DEM). - Mr President, the atrocities endured in the Congo are unimaginable to those of us who live in peaceful civilised societies. How can we offer practical help to people such as the Congolese? Direct military intervention and humanitarian aid must only come from international effort under the auspices of the United Nations, but time and time again we see the leaders of these types of failed states being allowed to plunder their countries and enjoy their wealth in the Western world. The stable and peaceful countries of the world should unite to ensure that vast amounts of wealth cannot be stolen and then deposited in western banks with impunity.

International agreements should be reached to ensure that leaders of such states cannot live off their ill-gotten gains. This would be at least one small element of an overall solution to help develop stability in countries such as the Congo.

  Kathy Sinnott (IND/DEM). - Mr President, renewed combat in the eastern part of the Congo is making a mockery of human rights and is silencing democracy. Despite the signing of the Goma peace accord in January of this year, the abuse of the most fundamental of human rights has continued: women of all ages being raped, massacres committed and child soldiers being gathered up. A situation of such fragility cannot be ignored. We must use our position as one of the strongest voices in the international community to call for peace, cooperation and stability in the region.

We can also use this voice to condemn the recent statements of Laurent Nkunda, who called for the overthrow of the elected and legitimate government of the Congo. The Congolese army alone does not have the human, technical or financial resources to carry out its tasks in eastern Congo. But a global statement, like the signing of the Child Soldier Accountability Act this month in America, reminds us all that help can be offered to such countries and authorities in bringing violators of human rights to justice.

  Andris Piebalgs, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, the Commission shares the concerns about the degraded situation in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, which is causing further stress to an already seriously affected population. It is also particularly worried about the widespread human rights violations in the region, including violence against women and the continuous mobilisation of child soldiers in the conflict.

The Commission restates its conviction that the current crisis involving Kinshasa and the Congolese rebel groups has no military solution. Hence, we encourage all parties to this conflict to rapidly resume dialogue and promote courageous political compromises, taking into consideration the commitments agreed upon in January 2008, the so-called Actes d’engagement de Goma.

In this context, it is extremely important to restore acceptable confidence levels amongst all Congolese stakeholders directly involved. As a preliminary step, all parties without exception should abide without delay by an effective ceasefire with a view to implementing the military disengagement plan provided by the United Nations.

In addition, it must be borne in mind that the underlying root causes of the conflict also include the dramatic problems posed by foreign armed groups in Democratic Republic of Congo territory, in particular the Rwandan FDLR, an issue where most of the DRC commitments taken in the Nairobi communiqué have still to be put into action.

Given the multiple challenges which still lie ahead in the Democratic Republic of Congo, the Commission strongly advocates that the UN’s peacekeeping mission mandate should be renewed and, where possible, strengthened in order to ensure effective protection for the population and support to the Congolese army in tackling the foreign armed groups.

In addition to the relentless efforts of the EU facilitation team, it is important to ensure the broader participation of African diplomacy (including the African Union) in the resolution of the eastern DRC conflicts, especially in areas where a sustainable solution would be greatly facilitated by close cooperation between neighbouring countries, in particular the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda.

As regards our support to the population in conflict-affected areas, the Commission will continue to provide support via both our humanitarian and development cooperation.

More specifically, regarding health services (an issue raised by all the resolutions), it is important to stress that the Commission has been active since 1994 in the health sector in the Democratic Republic of Congo, which is today one of the focal sectors of our cooperation.

In addition to humanitarian aid, we are currently providing strategic and financial support to the Congolese authorities to improve the quality of medical services and the qualifications of medical staff.

  President. - The debate is closed.

The vote will take place at the end of this afternoon’s debates.

  President. - The next item is the debate on six motions for resolutions on Burma⁽¹⁾.

  Zdzisław Zbigniew Podkański, author. − (PL) Mr President, the Burmese military junta has not succeeded in keeping the promises it made to the international community after the so-called sapphire revolution. It has not succeeded either in improving the situation for its society, which is rebelling and claiming its legitimate rights. Democracy and development will not be crushed by the brutal repression of widespread protests in September of this year, or by mass imprisonments.

Burma must move towards complying with democratic principles, and ensuring freedom of expression, freedom of association and meeting, a multi-party system and release of political prisoners. It must also develop an independent judiciary and discourage ethnic cleansing. Burma needs assistance. More involvement is therefore needed on the part of the United Nations, its Secretary-General, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the European Commission, and the governments of countries with influence on the Burmese authorities. In the name of the Union for Europe of the Nations Group, on whose behalf I have taken the floor, and on behalf of the authors, I would like to express support for this resolution, which I commend to Members of the House.

  Marios Matsakis, author. − Mr President, this is the sixth European Parliament resolution on Burma in the last two years, but the monstrous Burmese military junta seems to have taken no notice at all of what the EU thinks or says. Meanwhile, the ordinary citizens of Burma continue to suffer oppression, persecution and poverty, all of which are the result of the brutal, anachronistic and shameful stance taken by the brainless military regime controlling that country. The dictators, of course, continue to get richer and to lead a lavish life at the expense of their citizens’ suffering.

It seems that resolutions have little effect on these military criminals and, in my view, the most significant reason for this is the fact that countries like China, India and Russia continue to support Burma economically and politically. It seems to me that our attention should now be directed not at Burma itself, but at those three countries. It should be made clear to them that they must stop aiding the heartless and mindless military generals of Burma or their relationship with the EU will suffer severely and irreversibly.

  Józef Pinior, author. − (PL) Mr President, Burma has become almost a permanent subject of debate in this House. We return to the situation in Burma at every session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The forthcoming ASEM summit is an opportunity for the European Union, represented by the French Presidency, to raise certain fundamental issues with the Burmese authorities. The first is the release of political prisoners. According to Amnesty International, there are currently some 2 100 political prisoners in Burma. The second is an end to the torture of those held in prison. There is a constant risk of suffering torture in Burma. Thirdly, the Burmese army must behave professionally. It must respect human rights during military action against ethnic minorities, notably against the Karen people at this time. The European Union cannot tolerate violence and crimes against humanity.

Finally, the European Union’s policy has to produce tangible effects. We need to consider whether sanctions impact most on Burma’s leaders or on its people. Our policy needs to be a wise one. The European Union must reconsider its policy on sanctions against Burma. On the one hand, therefore, we must insist on respect for human rights and democratic freedoms. On the other, the international community must adopt an effective policy towards Burma.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda, author. – (ES) Mr President, tomorrow’s Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) in Beijing affords an excellent opportunity for the attending Heads of State or Government of the European Union to once again raise the worrying situation of human rights in Burma.

As already requested in a letter from Amnesty International, it would be absolutely appropriate for the President-in-Office of the Council, Nicolas Sarkozy, as joint chair of the ASEM, to express Europe’s very great concern about the more than 2 100 political prisoners and also to demand their immediate release.

Another source of concern is the current military offensive against the Karen populations in the east of the country, where the biggest military operation in a decade has taken place. The operation’s direct target is the civilian population and has led to the internal displacement of 150 000 people. In June 2006, Amnesty International proved that this type of practice did in fact constitute a crime against humanity.

Furthermore, as requested by Burma Campaign Spain and Burma Campaign International among others, the fundamental political problems will be discussed for the first time during the planned visit in December of the Secretary-General of the United Nations. The Secretary-General has already recently visited the country on two occasions, following cyclone ‘Nargis’ earlier this year.

We have certainly never before had such a seemingly broad consensus among Europeans and Asians on combining forces and putting pressure on the regime to release all political prisoners. That is why the meeting which will begin tomorrow is so vitally important.

It is regrettable that the United Nations has for so long ignored, and sometimes even believed, the lies of the regime, as proven by the fact that, following 37 visits made by the UN Envoy, no significant progress has been observed.

That is why I must add my voice to those calling on both the European Heads of State or Government – obviously including the Spanish Prime Minister, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero – and the United Nations to show that they truly support a change in Burma. It is therefore vital that they call for the immediate release of those detained.

The opportunity available as from tomorrow must not therefore be lost and the Heads of State or Government must respond in line with expectations.

I trust that these Heads of State or Government, in particular President Sarkozy, will be able to rise to the occasion, that they will be particularly aware of the gravity of the situation and that they will act accordingly. If the European Union truly wants to be a credible political player, with a foreign policy based on the defence and promotion of human rights, and if it does not want to appear, as so often happens, to simply be serving the economic interests of major companies such as Total and Chevron, then this is the moment to prove it. It is in situations such as these that we can gain this credibility.

Many lives are depending on these actions.

  Colm Burke, author. − Mr President, tomorrow marks the 13th anniversary of the unjust incarceration of Aung San Suu Kyi, Burma’s most revered political prisoner. This timely Parliament resolution condemns her continued detention and insists upon her immediate release.

Aung San Suu Kyi’s latest five-year term of house arrest was extended in May for a further year. Article 10b of the Burmese state protection law 1975 stipulates that a person judged to be a threat to the sovereignty and security of the state and the peace of the people can only be detained for up to five years. Therefore this prolonged detention is illegal. Suu Kyi has spent more than 13 years of the past 19 years confined to her Rangoon home.

I also deplore the fact that the number of political prisoners in Burma has increased from 1 300 to over 2 100 since the Saffron Revolution of September 2007. The military junta has clearly failed to deliver on promises made to the international community in this regard.

Whereas the release of veteran journalist and National League for Democracy (NLD) secretary U Win Tin and six other leaders last month was a step in the right direction, further moves must be made to free Burmese political dissidents.

I call on the Secretary-General of the United Nations to press ahead with a second visit to Burma in December irrespective of the prevailing conditions in order to make an urgent personal appeal for the release of all political prisoners and the full inclusion of the National League for Democracy in preparations for the 2010 elections.

Finally, I call on leaders at the ASEM summit beginning tomorrow in China on the 13th anniversary of Suu Kyi’s detention to understand their responsibilities regarding ongoing oppression in one of their neighbouring countries and to take decisive action accordingly to condemn the Burmese military junta for their continued suppression of political dissidents.

  Esko Seppänen, author. − (FI) Mr President, Commissioner, Burma has no respect for human rights or civil freedoms. As many here have said, it is not for the first time that we are adopting a position on a the lack of freedom of expression, suppression of information, a ban on freedom of assembly, a violation of very basic principles of the rule of law, and a ban on opposition.

The Burmese nation’s worst enemy is its own country’s leadership, which, with the support of the army, by force of arms and through violence, forces its people to be controlled by its state monopoly. The junta’s prisons hold more political prisoners than ever. The junta also works against its own people, by preventing international emergency aid from reaching areas where natural disaster has struck. The international community is powerless as it witnesses the Burmese people perish because of their leaders, who are repressive but do nothing at the same time.

In our statement we appeal to the ASEM Summit, so that the other countries in the region might exert pressure on the junta to work towards the release of political prisoners. We are being a little sanctimonious in insisting on this, of course, as we know that Burma is not the only country in the region where human rights are being trampled into the mud. Our group supports the joint resolution.

  Filip Kaczmarek, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (PL) Mr President, Commissioner, one year after the brutal crushing of the protests by Buddhist monks, the international community remains divided on the issue of how to act towards one of the most repressive regimes on earth. The United States and Europe are imposing stricter sanctions and loudly proclaiming their outrage at violations of human rights, as indeed we are doing today in this Chamber. On the other hand, Burma’s neighbours in the region, namely the ASEAN countries, along with China, India and Russia are refraining from open criticism of the Burmese regime on the pretext of not interfering in that country’s internal affairs. That is why I wish to endorse what Mr Matsakis said earlier. The European Commission should be bolder and raise this question more openly in discussions with China, Russia and the ASEAN countries.

A further difficulty relates to action at the level of the United Nations, which has proved totally ineffective. Prior to the last General Assembly, a breakthrough on Burma was forecast. No such breakthrough has taken place. The European Commission and the Member States should take determined action to ensure that more is done at international level on the issue of Burma.

  Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (PL) Mr President, less than four months have gone by since the last European Parliament resolution on the dramatic situation inside Burma. The military regime in power has not kept any of the promises it made to the international community following the uprising last year. If the situation in Burma does not improve, there is a danger that the Secretary-General of the United Nations will call off his visit in December. The number of political prisoners has risen to two thousand. They are still being held in inhuman conditions and deprived of access to medical care. Mrs Aung San Suu Kyi, has been under arrest for 17 years. She is both a Nobel and a Sakharov laureate. The Burmese regime is still restricting fundamental human rights and freedoms, including access to independent sources of information. The Karen minority is being persecuted by the authorities and has sought refuge in Thailand where it is living on the verge of poverty. The same is true of people affected by the hurricane. The regime did not allow humanitarian aid to reach them, thus putting thousands of its own citizens at risk of death from starvation.

We should require the Burmese authorities to lift all restrictions on the provision of humanitarian aid, and to restore fundamental freedoms in the country. Strong efforts must be made to ensure that the UN Secretary-General’s visit to Burma goes ahead, and that the National League for Democracy is involved in the process of preparing for the 2010 elections. China and India should exert political and economic pressure on the Burmese regime by refusing to assist the Burmese army. The international community should impose economic sanctions, and also freeze the assets of government members and persons connected with them.

  Kathy Sinnott, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – Mr President, Burma is a country which is steeped in corruption. With 2 000 political prisoners under arrest, access to free media impeded by the authorities and widespread slavery in industry, the people of this country need serious help.

However, in spite of more than 37 visits by UN envoys in the past 20 years and six resolutions in this House, there has been not a single reform made by the military junta. I would agree with Mr Matsakis that it is not good enough to point to Burma: we must point to Burma’s supporters and main supporter, especially China, its most powerful economic and military ally. Yet a smiling Mr Sarkozy represented the European Council at this summer’s Olympic Games. Did he press China’s top officials, who stood with him, about the Burmese, about the Sudanese, about the people of Tibet and about China’s own persecuted people?

I particularly also want to mention the misuse of aid funds that go into Burma, because we still try to reach the ordinary people of Burma and, yet, these goods are often given to favourites of the Burmese Government to resell at high value.

  Paulo Casaca (PSE). – (PT) Mr President, Commissioner, tomorrow marks the 13th anniversary of the unjust incarceration of the Burmese leader, Aung San Suu Kyi. This is therefore a good time for the European Union and the President-in-Office of the Council, who are in Beijing at the Asia-Europe Meeting, to very formally declare that the situation in Burma is unacceptable, to exert the necessary pressure, particularly on China, as has already been suggested by several Members, to follow the example set in particular by the US in 2003, and to refuse to keep importing clothing made under conditions of abject slavery. In addition, sanctions which are absolutely clear and consistent must be imposed. If this could be done, I believe we would finally start to see changes in the Burmese situation.

  Peter Skinner (PSE). - Mr President, I should like to thank the Commissioner for listening to us. Along with colleagues such as Glenys Kinnock, I have long looked forward to the day when resolutions on human rights in Burma and elsewhere do not have to be considered in this Parliament, but we continually have to return to this.

I can only agree with colleagues around the House that, when we look at the attempts, time and again, to make changes in Burma, we see nothing but failure instead. We need to expose those countries that aid and bail out this corrupt regime with trade. We have announced the names of some of those countries and should do more at European level to make sure their exposure leads to real change. We need to see changes in Burma leading to freedom of assembly and association, the release of prisoners of conscience and a full transition to a multi-party democracy. We have seen off juntas in Europe. We need the world to see off the junta in Burma.

  Zbigniew Zaleski (PPE-DE). – (PL) Mr President, if only a single individual voices opposition to the authorities, that voice will barely be audible. If all the Members of this House raise their voices, however, and are joined by those in other countries, then the citizens of countries enduring repression will realise it is worth telling the truth and standing up to such regimes. They will realise that their efforts will eventually bear fruit and their morale will be strengthened. Nonetheless, it is also the case that specific measures are needed in addition to mere words, in order to demonstrate to the junta that it is not worth persevering with oppression to the bitter end, because of its impact on the nation and on the authorities themselves. Two determined actions must therefore be taken and seen through to the end. I am convinced that the truth will win through and that, as more people proclaim the truth inside Burma, so they will gather strength.