IN THE CHAIR: ANTONIOS TRAKATELLIS
Vice-President

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

  President. – The next item is the joint debate on the following reports:

- A6-0306/2006 by Mrs Kinga Gál, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, on the proposal for a Council regulation establishing a European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights [COM(2005)0280 – C6-0288/2005 – 2005/0124(CNS)]

and

- A6-0282/2006 by Mrs Magda Kósáné Kovács, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, on the proposal for a Council decision empowering the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights to pursue its activities in areas referred to in Title VI of the Treaty on European Union [COM(2005)0280 – C6-0289/2005 – 2005/0125(CNS)].

  Franco Frattini, Vice-President of the Commission. (IT) Mr President, I believe that today marks an important stage in the assessment of a provision that is highly important both for the Commission and for Parliament. The initiative in question, which, first of all, was adopted in accordance with the formal rules of a procedure that excludes codecision, has subsequently been carried forward politically through an extremely close collaboration with Parliament. The trialogue method, which has enabled us to come to an agreement on many occasions, is, in fact, a political solution: even though, from an institutional and legal point of view, we are sadly not in the presence of a formal codecision procedure, this political solution has enabled us thus far to develop an excellent working relationship.

I should like to thank the rapporteurs, Mrs Gál and Mrs Kósáné Kovács, for their useful collaboration. We have come to an agreement on many points, and I hope, too, that the few outstanding points can also be resolved by the end of the year so that, in 2007 – as has often been repeated by the European Council and Parliament, and as the Commission itself hopes – the Fundamental Rights Agency will at last become operational.

What points still need to be considered and developed further, even after the last trialogue, which was nonetheless extremely useful? There are three basic issues, which were among the items I recently addressed with the Ministers of Home Affairs at the Council meeting held last week in Luxembourg, and recently in a meeting with the Secretary General of the Council of Europe.

The first issue specifically concerns the relations between the future agency and the Council of Europe. The Commission, myself and – I am sure – the European Parliament itself intend to prevent any overlapping of powers between the future agency and the Council of Europe, which already does a fine job of protecting and promoting fundamental rights. I believe that it is possible to pursue the common objective of establishing a working relationship between the agency, on the one hand, and the Council of Europe, on the other, with each one working within its own areas of responsibility.

The agency's primary task is to oversee, monitor and gather together material regarding compliance with Community legislation, without going beyond this remit. The first point is therefore one of ensuring that the Council of Europe’s powers are respected in full and that there is a willingness to cooperate. The second point relates to the geographical scope of the Agency’s powers and responsibilities. You will all recall that the original position limited the geographical scope solely to the EU Member States. Obviously, the need soon arose to extend the scope of the responsibilities to candidate countries, countries that are already, albeit to varying degrees, on course to join the European Union.

There was also the serious problem of countries at the pre-accession stage, which we call potential candidate countries. This is an extremely important concept, because it refers to a key geographical area for Europe: the Western Balkans. These are countries that are negotiating, in some cases, or applying, in others, stabilisation and association agreements with the European Union, which involve among other things extremely sensitive material relating to the protection of fundamental rights. Hence the proposal, which is supported by the Council and contained within the text being examined today, to extend the scope of application to these countries.

Some Member States have expressed reservations in this regard, and the Council of Europe has voiced strong concerns, which it is my duty to report. I believe, however, that it is possible to find a satisfactory compromise solution, which in no way rules out the prospect that these countries might also fall within the competence of the agency. Such a compromise solution would take account even of the fact that the agency in question, which will already be responsible for all of the current powers of the Vienna Centre – so, racism, xenophobia and anti-Semitism – in addition to new powers, could best focus on the Member States of the European Union and on the candidate countries, at least to begin with. It is therefore advisable not to rule out the possibility that pre-accession countries might perhaps be taken into consideration, but account must be taken of the demands made, on the one side, by the Council of Europe, and, on the other, by some influential Member States that formally raised this issue at the Council meeting in Luxembourg. This is a point on which there is still room for reflection.

The third and final point relates to the inclusion of the so-called ‘third pillar’ topics: police and judicial cooperation. From the outset, the Commission – and I myself – have been in favour of the strategy – which this Parliament also considers to be the best – of including this topic in the remit of the agency in question. In my view, it would be rather difficult to have to explain to the people of Europe that we are close to establishing an agency with responsibility for promoting and protecting fundamental rights, and exclude from the scope of those powers the aspects of police cooperation and judicial activity, in relation to which there is an objective need to ensure that the fundamental rights of persons accused or on trial, for example, are respected in full. There is also, as you know, a problem of the legal basis, which I will obviously not focus on now, but there is a political reason for it. If this agency is to be of use to the citizens, then it somehow must include topics that come under the ‘third pillar’.

It is up to us to find an acceptable solution, but I do not believe that it should involve postponing the decision on whether to include the ‘third pillar’ topics until after the agency has been established. Postponing the decision would mean not making any decision at all, and I believe that that would be a mistake. As you know, within the Council, some large EU countries are demonstrating a certain reluctance to accept this inclusion, alleging internal constitutional problems. Personally, I believe that these problems can be overcome and that, precisely on this issue, Parliament can play a very important political role.

To conclude, I hope that, thanks to a compromise solution, the Council will accept a text which, even though it has not been formally codecided, may represent the joint efforts of Parliament, the Council and the Commission. This could perhaps be the first case, ladies and gentlemen, in which a shared political will has led us to waive rules that do not admit of the formal codecision procedure, and we have in fact reached a joint decision by political means. Aside from the agency, which will undoubtedly have a more solid foundation on which to develop if it has this result behind it, what we are discussing here might also serve as a good example for many other sectors to which the codecision procedure has unfortunately not yet been applied.

  Kinga Gál (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – (HU) I feel honoured to have been a participant in this process which proves – as Mr Frattini has just said in concluding his speech – that, beyond the formalities, it is possible to cooperate productively if there is a common will.

The creation of the Agency for Fundamental Rights is surrounded by numerous debates. The adoption of this report is the result of a long series of arduous discussions. Special thanks are due to Commissioner Frattini, to the Austrian Presidency and to the approach taken by the Finnish Presidency.

Throughout this process, Parliament has steadfastly taken the stand that it is necessary to transform the existing European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia to extend its remit to the totality of fundamental rights. We need to be vigilant in this area, as is all the more evident from events contravening fundamental rights within new Member States. Furthermore, we will need objective information from reliable governmental and non-governmental sources, research centres and various segments of civil society – such as religious organisations – and we must work closely together in defence of our fundamental rights.

The intention to create this agency has provoked and is still provoking debate in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. Honouring the work of the Council of Europe and recognising its necessity and importance, the text that is soon to be voted on has taken into account the remarks of that body to the effect that the Agency should in no way duplicate the work already carried out by the Council of Europe. Rather, its structure and network should assist the Council of Europe, and above all, to the decision-making forums in Europe: the Council, Parliament and the Commission.

The text being proposed for adoption is an acceptable compromise. At the same time, Parliament has maintained its original position as long as there is no agreement within the Council on an essential point. For it is clear to us that if we want to create an effective organisation instead of a mere showcase – which would be a waste of money, and in that respect I agree with those who would not lend their support to a useless organisation – it is obvious that its scope has to be extended to obtaining information, collecting data and reporting on questions falling under the third pillar. As we see day after day, it is precisely in matters relating to police and judicial cooperation that the most worrisome issues arise. Let me point to the specific problems of the trafficking of children and women, for instance.

Therefore, we are looking forward to an acceptable compromise with the Council. It is for this reason that we are postponing the final vote and referring the report back to the Commission, in the hope that the Council will take seriously its own decision regarding the 1 January 2007 date. By voting for the compromise amendments, for the compromise wording that we have negotiated during this long process, Parliament wishes to send an emphatic message regarding the importance of all that is contained in the text, and also to remind the Council that what happens next is now up to them.

The text to be voted on retains references to the Charter of Fundamental Rights as well as to Article 7 of the Treaty, since Parliament can only become involved in the creation of an agency that is a vital and effective body and that can become part of the solution in Europe. New problems are constantly arising with respect to our fundamental rights that require attention and remedies.

Let us help bring forward the solution with our votes, and let us indicate clearly what the European public opinion expects from us: the creation of an effective, independent, yet accountable organisation. Thank you for your help and support.

  Magda Kósáné Kovács (PSE), rapporteur. – (HU) The Council decision asking and authorising the Commission to submit a proposal for the creation of a Fundamental Rights Agency has now grown out of its infancy. Three years have passed, yet we still have the impression that there is no consensus among Member States on certain basic questions.

The process of harmonisation between the three institutions was a very important, happy and instructive experience for us. It revealed that Parliament, the Commission and the representatives of the current Presidency were able to come to an agreement on the most important questions, although no such agreement has been reached yet among the full membership of the Council. This efficient harmonisation, even if it concerns the future, as it were, gives me a great deal of confidence and optimism.

In the preparatory work, we agreed on the most important requirements. I would like to evoke simply the keywords here: we all want this institution to be independent, accountable and endowed with efficient organisation, and its work to be transparent, so that it will increase citizens’ trust in the work of the European institutions.

We have also accepted the outlines of its scope, since – as pointed out by Mrs Gál – we all maintain that the focus of the Agency should, first of all, be on the Member States and their institutions. The Agency should have the ability to express its opinion on European legislation concerning fundamental rights, with the competence as well to monitor third countries within a certain limited geographical area, since we did not wish to deprive the agency of its main area of concern, the European Community.

My task was to put forward a draft Council Resolution to Parliament, which has provoked extensive debate because there was and still is no complete agreement on whether or not the agency should have competence beyond the first pillar. I have to inform my fellow Members that in our original conception we endorsed extending the Agency’s competence to monitoring organisations belonging to the second pillar. As there did not seem to be any chance of consensus in this regard, I withdrew these proposals, as rapporteur, before the vote in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs.

Many of us are of the opinion, however, that it would diminish the importance of the Agency if we renounced broadening its scope to include the third pillar. For that reason, we stand firm in our resolve even though we never did nor do we now reject the idea of compromise, the idea of mutual compromise. Therefore, I wish to express my thanks to the Austrian and the Finnish Presidencies, but above all to Vice-President Frattini whose dedication and effectiveness helped us reach the eventual solution.

I wish to ask my fellow Members to support the proposals presented by the Committee on Civil Liberties together with the amendments therein. Afterwards, we will hand back the competence to the Commission, because it is up to the Commission to submit proposals to the Council, where we hope they will receive the necessary support.

  Cem Özdemir (Verts/ALE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, once again, let me remind the House that the origins of today’s debate can be traced back to a Council decision of December 2004. It is because of that that we are discussing the Agency for Fundamental Rights today, so the Council cannot slink out of the back door to escape a debate on the subject, acting all the while as if Members of this House had gone mad with desire for European bureaucracy and as if this had nothing do with what matters to the people of the European Union.

It also needs to be stressed that the Fundamental Rights Agency is something about which Parliament is engaged in talks with both the Commission and the Council, and in these we have endeavoured to get the agency a clearly delineated mandate. I would like again to highlight what this is all about. Nobody here in this House wants to see operational structures duplicated, and we have all reached a compromise to the effect that the agency’s mandate should require it to concentrate on the protection of fundamental rights in the Member States, in candidate countries, and, finally, in countries with which we have stabilisation and association agreements. Appropriate arrangements have been made for consultation with the Member States.

What I would like again to make clear is that the draft we have produced takes proper account of the interests of the Council of Europe. I would like, finally, to avail myself of this opportunity to thank Mrs Gál and Mrs Kovács once more for the work they have done.

Now it is the Council’s turn to do something.

  Jutta Haug (PSE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Budgets. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am speaking on behalf of the Committee on Budgets, which always means that one has to concentrate more on money than on what a report is actually about, and so that – rather than the report’s subject-matter, about which Members have already said everything that needs to be said – is what my opinion is about.

We do indeed have a problem with the funding for the European Union’s Agency for Fundamental Rights, which will be a whole new agency, similar to the Chemicals Agency or the Institute for Gender Equality, and will be in place from 2007 onwards, provided that it is agreed to by the time we assume it will be. Now we all know that the Council and Parliament agreed, in paragraph 47 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May of this year and relating to budgetary discipline and sound financial management agreed by them and the Commission, that the Council and Parliament would be required to discuss the funding arrangements of the new agencies and then come to an agreement on them.

As long ago as this July, before the summer recess, the Budget Committee invited the Council to enter negotiations with us – we did so, indeed, on repeated occasions. Since the Council has not, as yet, responded to our invitation, the Committee on Budgets has now, in the course of its deliberations on the coming financial year, renamed the budget line to which the Commission had appended the description ‘Human Rights Agency’ as the budget line for the ‘European Union's Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia’ and created a new one with the annotation ‘for information’. We hope that we will soon have a legal basis and will then be able to come to an agreement with the Council as to how the new agency should be funded.

  Hubert Pirker, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, further to what Mrs Haug has said, perhaps I might, on behalf of the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, make a number of fundamental observations relating to the agencies.

This House has spent years fighting against bureaucracy, duplication of structures and excessive bureaucracy, and, although it has always been right to do so, its efforts have met with only partial success. At the same time, though, the creation of new agencies is repeatedly endorsed, not only by this House, but also, and predominantly, by the Council. Demands are also made for new monitoring bodies and machinery, with consequences that are obvious when we take a look at the Court of Auditors’ report.

We now have sixteen agencies. I do not know whether you are familiar with all of them and know where they are to be found, but they now employ over 2 300 people, and, if you tot up the costs, you will see that these are probably now about to go over the billion mark. We are talking about EUR 1 000 million here, and when you see 60% or 70% of that going on the administration of these agencies alone, you will quite rightly ask yourself how much sense it makes to have these agencies, and you will be all the more likely to ask questions when you become aware that some of the work is done either in the Commission, the European Council, or, indeed, in Parliament and that these three institutions could well make a better and more efficient job of it. That is the problem that we face.

We know that there are, inevitably, administrative costs associated with the agencies, and that these are increasing dramatically; I have myself taken a look at the figures, which show an annual increase between 10% and 20% in personnel costs, which, in some agencies, runs to between 80% and 100%, but the question arises of who checks to see what services these agencies actually perform, in what way they benefit the public in the European Union, or what value they add. It may well be that some of them – perhaps even many of them – are superfluous. We should be so bold as to look to see how the various functions can be better shared around and in which instances others could do the jobs better.

What I am calling for is a pause for reflection and a review of the existing 16 agencies in terms of their performance and added value; I am also asking that consideration be given to closing down any agencies that have become surplus to requirements and no longer do anything useful, rather than constantly speculating about where we can open new ones.

  Michael Cashman, on behalf of the PSE Group. – Mr President, I should like to thank the Commissioner for the way in which he has worked so cooperatively with the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs on this. From Mr Pirker’s contribution, you will see that Mrs Gál has had to do an enormous amount of work in her own Group and I congratulate her on the work she has done to bring people together.

Let me just say to Mr Pirker that we have an expression in the United Kingdom that you put your money where your mouth is. The easiest thing in the world is to say that you are ‘concerned’ or you are ‘committed’; it is much harder to follow it through and give the resources in order to achieve the outcome that we all hope for. We often say ‘red tape’ when what we mean is that we do not want to stop people from doing something that they should not. In this case, when it comes to empowering human rights’ defenders, red tape is absolutely necessary and, I would say, brilliant. When it comes to cost, if, again, we say we value something and we put no resources behind it, we expose our hypocrisy. So that is why I ask Mrs Gál to continue her excellent work. I believe we will reach a compromise with the Council, because the Commission has shown that it is willing to try to initiate that compromise.

Let me also say to the Council of Europe that, although I fully understand its concerns, you cannot have too many human rights’ defenders in the field of defence of human rights and fundamental freedoms. With this agency we are not replicating what the Council of Europe does; we also have obligations in the Union, specifically under the Treaties: the Treaty on European Union and, of course, the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

We have seen in very recent months and, indeed, over the last year, worrying hate-speak used by politicians in certain parts of the Union. We have seen a rise not only in hate-speak but also in racist, xenophobic and homophobic violence, and the Council has done nothing when it comes to Articles 6 and 7. In the absence of action by the Council, is it any wonder that we need an agency that will monitor, report and bring forward recommendations and thereby hold every single Member State to its international obligations? It makes sense.

Finally, let me say this: if we see one individual attacked because of religion, sexual orientation, gender, ethnicity, whatever, and we stand back and do nothing then we create the conditions that brought about the Second World War. This institution in particular was built out of the ashes of the Second World War with a commitment that we would never turn our eyes or ourselves away from the appalling violence that man commits upon man.

  Sarah Ludford, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, I am delighted to congratulate Parliament’s two rapporteurs, Mrs Gál and Mrs Kósáné Kovács, for the excellent work that they have done, and also to congratulate Commissioner Frattini for the forceful way in which he has supported this exercise. Having been not so happy with him in a debate yesterday on PNR, I am very happy with him now. I would also like to have addressed my thanks to the Council, but of course they are not here.

This Fundamental Rights Agency is not just another European body. I believe that it will help reassure EU citizens that human rights are being upheld by the ‘Brussels bureaucrats’ and by EU governments when they are implementing European law. It will thus increase confidence in the European Union, and I think it is therefore a very appropriate 50th birthday present for the European Union to give itself in the run-up to March 2007.

I hope it will also help stop ‘gold-plating’ of EU directives, which some governments are rather prone to. They take a European law and when they transpose it into national law, they add things which have been sitting in a drawer in a ministry. Hopefully, we might see some curbing of that. But it is also essential to include matters of justice, security and policing, since, by their nature, police, judicial cooperation and criminal law measures, however desirable, are the most likely to raise concerns about human rights. For instance, we have the European arrest warrant but we still do not have the accompanying procedural guarantees for people facing charge and trial, which have long been promised.

I do not believe that this undermines the Council of Europe, and I fully agree with Michael Cashman on this: it intensifies the support for human rights in Europe, but we also need to include competence in relation to Articles 6 and 7 of the Treaty. We have to intensify the peer review and monitoring function for human rights within the European Union if we are to increase mutual trust and, therefore, provide a basis for mutual recognition of judicial decisions.

  Johannes Voggenhuber, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, I would like to extend my group’s thanks to the rapporteurs, Mrs Kovács and Mrs Gál, and I do not do so as a formality, but because both rapporteurs have had a very laborious task to perform and have set out, on this House’s behalf, a strong and convincing position, one that is backed by a large majority and will, it is to be hoped, also impress the Council.

This House has always seen itself as an advocate for fundamental rights, and that is, indeed, what it is supposed to be. Being an advocate of fundamental rights comes naturally to a body elected directly by the people to represent them, and I find it regrettable that the Council took no account of this when considering the codecision issue and thereby rendered the whole debate defective.

If you want to see whether politicians really want to accomplish something and what goals they most deeply want to achieve, then take a look at the instruments with which they equip themselves in order to get their way. Mr Pirker has just been reminding us of the bureaucracy at the European level. The instruments for monetary policy, the single market, and the stability pact are hard-edged laws, with money in abundance, sanctions, binding deadlines, monitoring bodies and much, much more. I have never yet heard Mr Pirker sounding off about the means available for enforcing financial and budgetary policy, about its monitoring and control instruments, the full disclosure of national data, its sanctions machinery, the powers given to the law courts – everything that one might wish for in order for that policy’s definite objectives to be achieved.

When it comes to democracy, though, when it comes to fundamental human rights, we have to make do with soft agreements and arrangements, with a bundle of affirmations lacking in any sanction, guarantee or monitoring mechanism. That is one of the causes of the crisis of confidence in Europe. The economic objectives are pursued with the utmost rigour, while the interests of people are a fit subject for pious utterances or, again, of affirmations.

All this is happening against the backdrop of a grave situation. Even though many years have passed, the Charter of Fundamental Rights has still not yet entered into force or become legally binding. The issues surrounding the CIA’s prisons, the transfer of data, the slow pace of investigations and the governments’ foot-dragging cooperation have dealt public confidence a blow from which it will take a long time to recover.

In our attempts at combating terrorism we are becoming less and less able to balance freedom and security, and the public can feel this. One consequence of the temporary failure of the European Constitution has been that intergovernmental cooperation has remained what it was before, namely the black hole of European democracy.

The government of one Member State – I refer to Poland – is openly considering the introduction of the death penalty. The British Home Secretary stood at the lectern in this House and called for a more lenient approach to the ban on torture when terrorists are involved. Even today, there is no early warning system attached to Articles 6 and 7. On the contrary, Mr Pirker, it is an unfortunate fact that the instruments for enforcing and guaranteeing fundamental rights are not equal in status to the instruments that are in place to get economic and monetary policy implemented.

We have a vitally important task to perform here, and, as we see it, one reason why it is important is that fundamental rights are indivisible. At the heart of this House’s demands, of course, is that governments should cooperate with each other on this. The second, and, in particular, the third pillar, must be fully within the Agency’s remit, for if they are not, it will become clear to the people that, where fundamental rights – the most vulnerable area of policy – are concerned, the governments are not taking citizens’ rights as seriously as they ought to.

  Giusto Catania, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that it is right to extend the powers and activities of the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia. The data collected over the last few years are worrying: it transpires from the Centre’s annual reports that there has been an increase in drug-related developments. The establishment of the agency in question can therefore help not only to monitor these serious developments but also to vigorously combat them. It is strange that the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, as represented by Mr Pirker, is worried about bureaucracy and the rise in costs when we are concerned here with defending fundamental rights. The value of human rights cannot be quantified economically. The protection of fundamental rights is an aspect of our identity, and is perhaps the only way to make Europe strong.

I expected an attack – which has not materialised – on the agencies, including Frontex, an agency that has not performed any duties this year, nor helped to improve the lives of EU citizens. I believe, instead, that we must strongly defend the activities and the future of the Fundamental Rights Agency. The problem of duplication does not exist, and even if we were to create some, I would not be worried, because I firmly believe that it can only help to improve the lives of European citizens if there are more agencies, more structures and more institutions that are responsible for protecting human rights.

I am concerned about the Council’s absence: only yesterday, the minister left the House and, today, an important debate is taking place. However, I believe that, during a debate such as this, in which two opposing positions – our Parliament’s and the Council’s – are up against each other, it would have been helpful if Council representatives had at least been present in this House.

I believe that granting Parliament a powerful role in the establishment of the Fundamental Rights Agency is a positive step, just as I believe that the work of Mrs Gál, Mrs Kósáné Kovács and Mr Frattini, who has reaffirmed his favourable position in this House, is important. However, we must also ensure that there is strong involvement on the part of NGOs and European civil society.

  Wojciech Roszkowski, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (PL) Mr President, in its time, the ideology of human rights played an important role in undermining the destructive forces of totalitarianism. However, this ideology is now starting to mutate, or has mutated, into a caricature of its former self. The right of everyone to everything, rights instead of duties, the replacement of rights by privileges – these are the bounds of absurdity towards which we are moving.

How high minded it sounds – a Fundamental Rights Agency. But what form will this Agency take and what will it do? The grounds for the application to establish the Agency state that it needs to be given broader authority to enable it to implement the aims of the EU, a common foreign policy included. However, expanding the authority of EU institutions is a threat to the principle of sovereignty and subsidiarity. It threatens, for example, the implementation of such curious acts as the most recent European Parliament resolution on xenophobia. The problem lies in how the Agency should exercise its authority. Will it address genuine threats to human rights, or will it simply pillory governments that have fallen out of favour with the EU majority for one reason or another? Alternatively, it might devote itself to promoting privileges for certain minorities, or absurdly vague concepts such as gender equality in all areas, an issue which I have raised in this House on previous occasions.

It has been suggested that the institution of the Fundamental Rights Forum be deleted from the proposal for the Agency. Such a Forum was to include representatives of social, professional and ecclesiastical organisations, and also of religious and philosophical organisations. There is now only a vague promise of their involvement in the Agency. This means that everything will be decided by officials and politicians who will arrive at decisions by voting. The decisions will obviously be neutral ones. But how will this neutrality work out in practice? Let us take a recent example. The European Union is contributing to the UN Population Fund, which for its part assists the practice of forced abortion in developing countries. Amendments tabled by the Union for Europe of the Nations were returned again during this year’s budget debate. We demanded that the EU should not assist programmes which promote forced abortion. This derives from the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the provisions of the 1994 Cairo conference. The issue is, incidentally, totally separate from the debate on the legality or otherwise of abortion. It addresses freedom of choice, a fundamental human right, and one which the majority of this House supposedly acknowledges. However, the majority of members of the Committee on Budgets rejected these three amendments, thereby supporting coercion and rejecting the Charter of Fundamental Rights where third countries are concerned.

Whilst full of platitudes about the rights of various minorities, the majority of MEPs are of the opinion that we can use common European funds to finance activities such as forced abortion in China, where women whose pregnancies are at variance with government quotas are dragged out of their homes and forced to have abortions against their will, even in the ninth month of pregnancy. A year ago the Western press reported a series of drastic examples of such actions, but where were the advocates of women’s rights and the human rights then? It is not even a question of defending unborn life, it is a question of respecting fundamental human rights. Those who advocate abortion claim that the foetus is part of a woman’s body. I would suggest to you, ladies and gentlemen, that if it were a matter of forced amputation of a hand or a foot, the alarm would most certainly be raised. Yet a foetus is not even part of the body. It is essentially different. Whilst some regard it as a living being, others regard it as being of less value than any part of the human body. If the European Union ignores the rights of women outside its borders to have children, how can it defend human rights within its borders? This is hypocrisy on a colossal scale. Nice work: liberal democracy supporting coercion!

After this most recent experience I have considerable doubts as to whether the proposed Fundamental Rights Agency will not become just another instrument for political manoeuvring, in which common sense would always be outvoted.

  Johannes Blokland, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – (NL) Mr President, the European Fundamental Rights Agency is politically controversial – so much so that a Member State is considering vetoing it. The Council of Europe’s Assembly also has major objections to it, and, last week, its chairman called for the proposal to be reviewed.

There are two major arguments that speak out against the establishment of a Fundamental Rights Agency, and it is unfortunate that the compromise struck by Mrs Gál does not do enough to refute them. To me, that is sufficient reason for submitting an amendment to reject the proposal that we are to vote on today. The proposed agency will unnecessarily duplicate the activities of the Council of Europe, the Human Rights Court and the OSCE. In addition, it draws an unwelcome distinction between the 25 EU Member States and the other 21 European countries. Secondly, the Fundamental Rights Agency stands in the way of a good relationship with our neighbouring countries on this matter. Indeed, talks and continuous dialogue between the European Union and third countries are held in the framework of international relations, and that involves the discussion of topics other than critical views of fundamental rights.

Very recently, the Dutch Senate unanimously prohibited the government from voting in favour of this proposal. Since a Dutch veto can be averted only if the aforementioned points of criticism are taken on board, it is likely that the vote will be postponed.

  Koenraad Dillen (NI). – (NL) Mr President, quite a few people are wishing the Fundamental Rights Agency much success, and, in view of recent events, it will need it. I reckon the agency will have enough on its plate just upholding the freedom of expression. Yesterday, this House expressed its indignation at what is happening in Russia, which is wholly justified, except that it is not only in Russia that freedom of expression needs to be upheld. Allow me to give you a few examples. In my own country, the trade unions announced yesterday that they will track down all members who stood for my party, the Vlaams Belang, during the recent elections, with a view to kicking them out. That is tantamount to a Berufsverbot in the heart of the Union. In France, Dr Redeker, a professor of philosophy, had to go into hiding following death threats, because the oh-so-tolerant Islam does not tolerate criticism of its holy Koran. France is being threatened with an economic boycott from Ankara and the Turkish Government, because Charles Aznavour and President Chirac have been in Yerevan demanding that Turkey should acknowledge the Armenian genocide – something that is not to the so-called model candidate country’s liking.

Indeed, there is a great deal yet to be done by this agency, and not just in Russia.

  Timothy Kirkhope (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I wish to begin by congratulating Mrs Gál on her hard work, but I am afraid that I also have to strike a rather discordant note in these discussions.

As a former member of the Convention on the Charter of Fundamental Rights, I obviously have no problem with the development of human rights, but I have a problem with this proposal. I think this agency is unnecessary; if its powers were to be effective they could only be delivered either under a European constitution, which certainly is not imminent now, or some other legal treaty base, which it certainly will not have.

The Charter has always been contradictory, in my view, to the Council of Europe Convention on Human Rights, which also covers many countries outside the EU. The articles are very different in each case. Whatever anyone says, a new proliferation of European agencies and their functions will cause not only an overlap but also an unnecessary increase in bureaucracy. It will, of course, be expensive, and I would remind Mr Cashman, who says ‘put your money where your mouth is’, that this is not my money or his money – it is the money of the European citizens, and we have an obligation to be very careful indeed about how we spend their money when we take initiatives of this kind.

The current body on which, if it goes ahead, this will be built – the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia – has not actually shown itself to be that objective or that positive in its work. I have raised in this House on a number of occasions the issue in 2003 of the suppression of the anti-Semitism report. There was a lot of discussion about that, and it clearly showed that there was not the objectivity needed when looking at human or fundamental rights, but a rather subjective approach by a number of officials. I do not want to end up in a situation where we have not only conflict between two agencies – one of the Council of Europe and one of our own – but also a lack of objectivity in the handling of cases which, undoubtedly, are always going to be sensitive.

I think we have to be very careful. We can certainly have our dreams and hopes for the improvement of human rights, not only in the European Union but particularly in those states, such as Russia and elsewhere, where they are clearly now being ignored. However, it is important that we do not increase the number of agencies merely for the sake of it on a political basis. We should look at our existing agencies and our powers of persuasion at the highest level and use them to the full before we take this new adventure.

  Martine Roure (PSE). – (FR) Mr President, first of all, by way of introduction to my remarks, I would like to know whether Mr Pirker was speaking for his group or on his own behalf. Having heard what Mr Kirkhope had to say, I no longer know. The first speaker, Mr Pirker, was supposed to be giving the opinion of his group. After listening to him, I certainly wonder whether the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats supports its own rapporteur, Mrs Gál, or not. It is no longer very clear where we stand today. Yet in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, we seemed to be in agreement; at least that is what our votes indicate. I must admit that we are somewhat flummoxed by the position of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats today, which does not match up in any way at all with the debate we conducted in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs. What purpose, then, is served by debates in committee? As far as our group is concerned, we have been consistent.

I would like to thank Mrs Gál and Mrs Kósáné Kovács for their excellent proposals and for their efforts that have culminated in a universally acceptable compromise. We welcome this proposal from the Commission for a broadening of the mandate of the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, making it into a European Union Agency on Fundamental Rights, because the European Union must show an example and guarantee better protection of the fundamental rights of its citizens.

The prime responsibility of such an agency – and I am sorry to see that some of the previous speakers have now left – must be to protect fundamental rights in the Member States as a matter of priority. That would not prevent it from looking elsewhere, but its first priority must be the Member States – let us put our own house in order. Over the past few years, we have seen a rise in extremism in Europe, an increase in outpourings of poisonous invective. We must be vigilant in defending the rights of everyone, a vigilance that must even extend into the confines of our own Parliament. We must keep watch for racist and xenophobic attacks. The peace of our societies is at risk unless we can inculcate respect for our differences and acceptance of diversity.

The agency will have to ensure that the relevant European legislation is effectively transposed into the national law of the Member States and that it is properly applied. It will guarantee that the legislation of every Member State accords with our European principles. We certainly have a very comprehensive body of anti-discrimination law, and we are all well aware that it has been very poorly transposed in the Member States. The agency would be able to raise problems and provide advice on the best ways of implementing this legislation. It would be competent to deal with all areas covered by the Charter of Fundamental Rights, even though it is true that the Charter is not yet actionable. Our Parliament was one of the initiators of the Charter – that is worth remembering – and the Charter should be placed at the heart of the European integration process.

If the agency were to have no powers under the third pillar, it would offer little more than the present Observatory. We agree on that point. In fact, the activities of the police and judiciary are at the heart of efforts to protect fundamental rights. It is therefore essential that the agency should have powers in this domain; that is one of the priorities to which I believed that the whole of this Parliament subscribed. It is worth recalling that this proposal from the Commission is the result of repeated calls from the Council for the creation of such an agency. In December 2003, for example, the European Council suggested that the mandate of the Vienna Observatory be broadened, and that wish was enshrined in the Hague Programme. In short, we surely ought to know what we want.

Accordingly, we are backing these reports in their entirety, and we call on the Council to take heed of the position on this matter that was formulated in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and is endorsed by a large majority of Parliament.

  Hubert Pirker (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, let me make it perfectly clear, for Mrs Roure’s benefit, that the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats certainly does value and endorse the work Mrs Gál has done, and she is well aware of that fact, so nothing has changed in that respect. We have an equally high regard for the work the Commissioner is doing, but, as I said at the very outset, we do have to do some fundamental and general thinking about agencies. We see human rights as indivisible; compliance with them is not merely optional. In my view, it goes without saying that they must be complied with within the European Union and in the states that are set to accede to it.

That is why some fundamental thinking about agencies and the shape they take is to be recommended. I am right behind Mrs Gál and the Commissioner, but all my other remarks still stand – and underlined several times over.

  Ona Juknevičienė (ALDE). – (LT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Parliament has always reacted appropriately to violations of human rights. I have spoken about this here more than once, particularly in respect of violations of human rights in the republics of Central Asia. However, we are not used to talking about human rights, their protection and violations in the Community. Perhaps we believe that we do not have this problem, or that it is of little importance.

I would like to offer a real life example. In 2005, the following violations of human rights were reported: disregard of the right to privacy, especially when listening to private conversations or publicising pre-trial investigation material; the intrusion of politics into the work of law enforcement and the courts; lack of independence in pre-trial investigations and prosecution; violation of the right to a fair trial; the inhuman and brutal behaviour of police officers; discrimination, racism, trafficking in women, and so on.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, you probably think that I am referring to the republics of Central Asia again. Sadly, all this is happening in my own country – Lithuania. This was stated by the Lithuanian Humans Rights Monitoring Institute and even acknowledged by the President of the Republic of Lithuania. The press tell us that the development of democracy has stopped in the ten new Member States. I agree with this statement and believe this is due to the fact that the pre-accession pressure has disappeared. Therefore, I believe that the new agency may help us move forward; however, its current powers are insufficient. The agency would need considerably stronger powers in order to become an effective instrument in monitoring and ensuring the rights of citizens. After all, ensuring democracy and human rights is our duty and the reason the people of the Community elected us.

(Applause)

IN THE CHAIR: MR DOS SANTOS
Vice-President

  Bernat Joan i Marí (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, I support the excellent work done, and I wish to thank Mrs Gál and Mrs Kósáné Kovács for it. I think a Fundamental Rights Agency is very important for the European Union in order to protect, and ensure respect for, these rights throughout the Union. I would like to mention one aspect of fundamental rights: rights relating to language and to culture. These are not clearly protected in many European states, nor are they in some states which are candidates for accession. This Agency could be a very good instrument to stress this point and to ensure that the rights of stateless citizens or of citizens belonging to a minority within a state are respected. The Universal Declaration on Linguistic Rights, made in Barcelona in 1996, is a good document to take into account, and I believe we are working in the right direction. I hope for a majority vote from this Parliament.

  Jiří Maštálka (GUE/NGL). – (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, I agree with Mrs Juknevičienė. We often speak in this Chamber about upholding human rights in third countries, yet rarely do we have the opportunity to strengthen the protection of human rights right here in our Member States. The establishment of the Human Rights Agency is, to my mind, a definite step in the right direction. Our citizens certainly have the right to factual, comparable and objective information on respect for human rights both in their own Member State and throughout Europe. Although I am very much in favour of the establishment of this agency, I should like, if I may, to ask some fundamental questions, however.

Firstly, as a former member of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, for whose work I have great admiration, I should like to ask how, in practice, this cooperation with the agency will be delivered, in such a way that it will lead not to a duplication of activities, but rather to activities that complement each other.

Secondly, in view of the fact that, as far as this proposal is concerned, the agency is to be geared towards targets and assessments, I should like to ask how, when these areas of interest are being determined, it can be ensured that some Member States will not overlook politically awkward issues.

Thirdly, I should like to stress that most of the budget, two thirds of it at least, should be earmarked for programmes and not for administrative or personnel requirements.

  Bogdan Pęk (IND/DEM). – (PL) Mr President, it seems there is to be yet another agency. Parkinson’s law rides again. Anyone who believes that it will be possible for a group of highly paid bureaucrats to improve human rights on the ground by administrative measures is rather naïve, to say the least. I do not want to use stronger words. Increasing the number of bodies in the area of political do-gooding while these same political groups and this same Parliament are stifling the economic freedom which could earn the money for a real improvement in the living standards of the peoples of Europe is a misjudgement and a classic political faux pas.

That is why I would today ask the House to consider who it is that will ensure the impartiality of an Agency employing hundreds of highly paid bureaucrats subject to practically no control over their activities. These people could use the Agency as a political weapon to fight undesirable individuals or political opponents, or to attack awkward governments who do not conform with so-called political correctness.

I believe this action is unconstitutional in at least some Member States. It implements the principles of a rejected constitution through the back door. It is a blind alley, and in my opinion it should be given very careful consideration.

  Paweł Bartłomiej Piskorski (NI). – (PL) Mr President, the question we are discussing today in this House is not whether fundamental rights should be observed. We are not debating whether human rights are fundamental to our functioning within the European Union. What we are debating is whether yet another agency within our structures, another agency which will cost tens of millions of euro, really will be an instrument which will contribute towards the observance of and respect for human rights not only within the Member States, but also in the countries with which we have relations.

I myself categorically reject the view put forward by some in this House, namely that we need to convince our electorate that we do care about something, and are therefore setting up an agency for that purpose. This is a flawed way of thinking, and it is wasteful. Our electorate will not be convinced of our concern. What they will be sure of is that we are spending their money, and therefore that we are even more cut off from them. It is the European Parliament we are all Members of that is the human rights agency for Europe. Of course we should gather data about the observance of human rights, but we should do so by spending money on supporting non-governmental organisations, rather than on yet another agency within our structures.

  Bogusław Sonik (PPE-DE). – (PL) Mr President, let me remind the House that six months ago we set up the European Institute for Gender Equality. Now we are to set up another agency. To start with, I would like to refer to the statements by Mrs Roure. She accuses my group, the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, of not speaking with one voice. Mrs Roure, please try and understand that in some parties, people are allowed to have different opinions. The Socialists might have a single, compulsory political line to toe, but with us things are different and I would like to add my voice in support of Mr Kirkhope.

The purpose of the EU Fundamental Rights Agency is to fill a gap in the EU’s activities. It is to concentrate on the EU’s internal activities, covering the member institutions and Member States. Unfortunately, little attention has been paid to the external aspect, which focuses primarily on the candidate countries. This restriction on the scope of the Agency’s activities is based on the view that a cohesive internal policy on fundamental rights is necessary if we are to have a consistent approach on human rights in international relations.

However, I would like to remind you that observance of fundamental rights is a far greater problem in many countries outside the European Union, including neighbouring states such as Russia and Belarus. For this reason the Agency should not restrict its activities to the Member States, where genuine problems concerning human rights are incomparably smaller than outside its borders, particularly as each Member State has its own institutions to ensure respect for fundamental rights and human rights.

I believe that we have missed a chance and an opportunity to bolster the external aspect of the European Union’s human rights policy. The aim of the proposal to create this Agency is to broaden the mandate of the European Centre for Monitoring Racism and Xenophobia and to create a European Union Fundamental Rights Agency. It will create a specialist centre of knowledge concerning fundamental rights at European Union level. I would have no objection to this, apart from the fact that the Agency should also deal with the observance of human rights outside the European Union. I would not have anything against it, were it not for the fact that setting up this latest Agency will cost the citizens of the European Union more than EUR 150 million. What is the point of spending money on yet another institution in view of such a tight budget for the years 2007-2013?

  Andrzej Jan Szejna (PSE). – (PL) Mr President, one of the aims that the European Union has set itself is to bolster the protection of human rights and its citizens’ interests, as well as to protect freedom and support democracy on the basis of fundamental rights. This makes it important to secure assistance and specialist knowledge in the field of fundamental rights for relevant Community and Member State institutions.

In view of the unusually heated debates and political battles that are currently taking place in Poland, Hungary and Slovakia, I regard this proposal as being well-founded. A European Union Fundamental Rights Agency appointed as a successor to the European Centre for Monitoring Racism and Xenophobia would be responsible for supplementing existing fundamental rights monitoring mechanisms. However, care must be taken to ensure that this newly-created EU body operates on the principle of independence and accountability. On the one hand, it must be assured its independence, while on the other hand it must be fully accountable to the institutions of the European Union. For this reason both the internal decision-making processes within the institution and the appointment of its decision-making bodies must be transparent.

The European Parliament plays a substantial role in fundamental rights, and therefore special consideration should be given to it when determining the Agency’s structures so as to strengthen the legitimacy of the latter. Both the Commission and Parliament must take an active part in determining this Agency’s multi-annual programme framework. In addition to the main area of the Agency’s activity, which will be to assist European Union institutions and Member States, we should consider the possibility of developing collaboration with third countries to ensure the better implementation of Community law and internal policies of the European Union. In particular, collaboration with candidate countries should be promoted, as this will allow the EU to support their integration efforts with regard to the harmonisation of their national laws with Community law.

It is important for the activities of this Agency to make allowance for the Council of Europe’s range of activities in order to avoid overlap and achieve synergy in collaboration between the two organisations.

  Anneli Jäätteenmäki (ALDE). – (FI) Mr President, the Council of Europe is Europe’s most important human rights agency, and will remain so even after this agency has been established. The Council of Europe has wide-ranging supervisory and monitoring rights. The agency under discussion will be completely different. The task of the agency will not be to monitor Member States but to provide them and the Union’s institutions with information and expertise. The agency will be a service facility with the job of assisting us. The work of the agency would never focus on any particular country, and it would not investigate any individual outstanding events or breaches, as is the case with the Council of Europe. It is nevertheless important that this kind of independent agency for fundamental human rights, the Human Rights Agency, should be set up in the EU. It is also important that it works closely with the Council of Europe.

In addition, I would like to stress that, now that we are seeing an increase in the powers of the police and are contemplating and tightening up counter-terrorist measures, it is important that at the same time we also take a look at how fundamental rights and human rights function. Furthermore, the work of this agency should, I believe, be extended to the third pillar, so that it might apply to police cooperation and cooperation on crime. In order to make progress, however, this cooperation, police cooperation and cooperation on crime, could, I think, be implemented in a more restricted form than in the Commission’s proposal, for it to get through. Moreover, in the long term, the EU must also make up for its shortcomings in the sense that it does not intervene when Member States are in breach of human rights. We have no mechanisms for that. We know that human rights do not currently function in the best possible way inside the EU, and we should also be addressing those problems and not just looking at what is happening outside the EU. Of course, it is important to monitor and intervene in human rights violations wherever they take place, but the EU and its Member States should obviously ensure that the human rights of their own citizens and those living here are respected.

  Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL). – (NL) Mr President, human rights are a global issue. Despite major failings, we in Europe are in the lead. There are agreements in the Council of Europe about the level of human rights to be guaranteed in Europe at least. The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms is binding upon 47 Member States, 20 states more, therefore, than the 27 that will belong to the European Union from 2007. The Charter of Fundamental Rights from 2000 is the largest common denominator of existing provisions from national constitutions and that European Convention. This Charter was later included in the draft for a constitution as Chapter II. In this connection, reference was made, with good reason, to the existing European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights to which the EU would also thereby subscribe. It would be good if the now proposed Human Rights Agency could serve as a signal to demonstrate that the European Union attaches greater importance to human rights than to the common market. Some of my group see this proposal, above all, as carrying an entirely different message, and as being an attempt at staging a competitive battle with the Council of Europe and a chance to campaign for the text of the constitution, which has already been rejected twice, and to which we are opposed.

  Roger Knapman (IND/DEM). – Mr President, last week’s gem in this place was that Europol be given fresh powers to police Euroland whilst Europol itself was placed above the law. Even the Third Reich did not think of that one. This week is even better: an agency for fundamental rights has been conceived to ensure that Member States comply with the Charter. But this was contained in a failed EU Constitution. After all, France and Holland exercised their fundamental right to say ‘no’ to this and yet again you are trying to sneak large parts of the Constitution in through the back door.

Mrs Gál even begins her statement by saying that the suspension of the Constitution-making process makes this the right moment to promote fundamental rights. Is that what you said? The Politburo would be pleased with that. In fact, if fundamental rights really meant anything in the EU, the democratic rejection of the Constitution would make this absolutely the wrong moment to bring forward such a proposal.

There was I believe an old Glen Miller song beginning: ‘Sleepy time Gal, you’re turning night into day’. You may believe that you can turn ‘no’ into ‘yes’, but when the sleepy time voters wake up, they will soon throw this out.

  Alessandro Battilocchio (NI). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I speak on behalf of the new Italian Socialist Party. The proposal for a Council decision to extend the powers of the current European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia is an important step in the right direction. At a difficult moment in time, when the global requirements for security and stability are clashing with citizens’ rights and when discrimination even in the Western world is still a serious source of friction among communities, ethnic groups, religions and the underprivileged, it has become vital to monitor these developments by means of a body with a strong, extensive remit.

I am therefore in favour of the proposal to extend the powers of the new Fundamental Rights Agency to include the ‘third pillar’, and thus intergovernmental cooperation in police, judicial, immigration and terrorist matters, since these sectors are becoming more and more closely associated with Europeans’ everyday lives, and consequently with respect for the fundamental rights guaranteed by our Treaties. I also support the approach presented by this Parliament to encourage dialogue with civil society and to cooperate with all of those bodies, especially non-governmental ones, that both at local and at national and European levels do a great deal to help improve the human rights situation within the European Union.

  Reinhard Rack (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, human rights are a great good, one that we have to work to defend throughout the world, and, aware though I am of the sad events in Russia, there is still much for us to do at home.

Important though Articles 6 and 7 of the EU Treaty are as cornerstones, we cannot – we must not – leave it at that. Since we do not believe that it is sufficient to make little more than cursory mention to them, we cannot say often enough, in any discussion of them, that what we need above all is our own comprehensive catalogue of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the form of binding European law. We do need the European Constitution, and the European Charter of Human Rights contained in it must become more than just a solemn declaration. Only when it has become binding and directly applicable European law can the celebrations begin, and that is a priority for the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats as much as it is for the other groups.

Given the high value that we rightly attach to fundamental rights, it also goes without saying that all the essential functions involved in ensuring compliance with fundamental rights must remain reserved, in the main, to the EU institutions. The agency we are discussing today can, may and should, have exclusively ancillary functions, and it is in this respect that I have my doubts about this document.

Commissioner Frattini said, among other things, that the Agency is meant to monitor compliance with fundamental rights, so what has become of the Commission’s core function? I have, for many years, been teaching my university students that the Commission is the guardian of the Treaties and watches over them and that it is the European Court of Justice that exists to guarantee the judicial protection of European law, and does an outstanding job of it too. By the way, are the democratic and legal structures in our Member States really as much at risk as some speakers today have claimed? Some Members’ speeches today really have got me worried.

Last, but not least, political control over European requirements is one of the essential functions of this House, of the European Parliament itself, and that is the way it must stay. It is for that reason that our group, faced with the topic of agencies, concerned itself with, and gave thought to, such mundane things as bureaucracy, parallel structures, duplication and additional funding.

Mrs Gál has our wholehearted backing in the work she has done and is doing; the preparatory steps she has taken in this area are good and important. We would, though, like it to be borne in mind that it is not acceptable that the rules applicable to all other agencies should not be binding on this one. That goes against common sense. The assessment role that this agency is planned to have is something else that we ought by rights to leave with the European Court of Justice, rather than allowing it to be put at risk by duplicated functions.

  Józef Pinior (PSE). – (PL) Mr President, Commissioner Frattini, protecting human rights, civil rights and political freedoms in the world today is one of the European Union’s most important spheres of activity. The EU’s growing importance in international relations and the development of a common foreign policy require new institutions that will make it possible to utilise the Community’s political and economic potential to the full.

Expanding the existing European Centre for Monitoring Racism and Xenophobia and extending its mandate so that it becomes the Fundamental Rights Agency will lay the foundations of a new Agency that will become one of the leading European institutions in the years to come.

In order for the Fundamental Rights Agency to be able to fulfil this role, it must have a broader remit concerning issues pertaining to cooperation between the police, court and justice systems and also to immigration and combating terrorism. In the first place, therefore, the role of the European Parliament in setting out the mandate and defining the structure of the Agency must be strengthened. The Agency should be required to consult with the European Parliament as regards its multi-annual frameworks and candidates for the post of its director. The Agency must be open to participation by candidate countries and those with which a stabilisation and association agreement has been signed. The future Agency will have to appoint a scientific committee which will ensure the high academic quality of its operations, and it must collaborate closely with the Council of Europe and coordinate its activities with the latter.

I would also like to underline that the tasks of the Agency, which will replace the existing Centre for Monitoring Racism and Xenophobia, should continue to cover racism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism and protecting minority rights as key elements in the protection of fundamental rights. All of the Agency’s reports must take full account of the issue of gender equality.

  Kinga Gál (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – Mr President, I should like to thank you and my colleagues for the help and backing I have received. As I warned you in my introduction, the Agency is highly debated and provokes reactions. But I have to assure all of you, in answer to Mrs Roure’s question, that the PPE-DE Group is backing me, and this support will be converted into votes in a few minutes.

There will be some delegations who vote against the report for different reasons, mainly questioning the role of the agencies in general, but the PPE-DE Group is well aware of the need to protect fundamental rights.

The rapporteur did not have an easy task, as you could hear before, if you listened carefully. But let me underline the fact that there is a Council decision to establish a Fundamental Rights Agency from 2004 extending the mandate of the existing European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia. Parliament, the Commission and the Austrian and Finnish Presidencies tried to do our best to design a mandate which can enable useful, effective and objective work to be done. This is exactly what our societies are expecting from us.

  Magda Kósáné Kovács (PSE), rapporteur. – (HU) This may be unusual, but in my first sentence, I would like to thank Mrs Gál for her cooperation. The very useful and effective collaboration that has evolved between the two parliamentary groups within the committee is primarily her doing.

Nevertheless, today it has become clear that not all our fellow MEPs share the belief that membership in the EU does not automatically go hand in hand with a system of guarantees for human rights in the Member States. Not everyone accepts that we need to develop further that system of guarantees. There are some who ask and hope for assistance. I thank those who are asking for help, for wanting to help their own countries as well. Some take the view that the EU institutions should not look over their shoulders into their local card games.

I am proud that my political group supports both proposals, mine and that of Mrs Gál, along the lines of a shared set of values. I regret very much that some people make a mockery of this. I think such mockery would have more success in Hyde Park than in the European Parliament.

All the same, I am asking my fellow MEPs to overcome their fear of bureaucracy for the sake of a crucial cause, and to ask themselves whether we spend every penny of the common budget as usefully as is now being requested for the Agency for Fundamental Rights. In fact, we are always prepared to cooperate in improving the efficiency of our budgetary spending.

I look forward to your support in this important endeavour.

  Franco Frattini, Vice-President of the Commission. (IT) Mr President, I too would like to thank once again the two rapporteurs and all those who have spoken. I recognise the need, firstly, for this Parliament to show a large majority, as hoped for by the two rapporteurs, in favour of this initiative. Otherwise, our joint efforts would be thwarted. We have worked together to give Parliament a strong and authoritative voice, even in the absence of the formal codecision procedure. Let us avoid a division in this Parliament that would give the Council the impression that, all things considered, it might even take decisions alone. This is a political necessity, not least because I have heard certain influential Members of this Parliament doubting the very raison d’être of the agency.

First, we need to clarify the figures being cited. I have heard it said that the agency will cost EUR 150 million. That is not true. The institution in question will cost, in 2007, EUR 14 million, not EUR 150 million, and will eventually cost, in 2010, EUR 21 million, not EUR 150 million. The agency, which is the natural successor of the Vienna Monitoring Centre, which employs 40 people, will have 50 officials in 2007, an increase of just 10 employees. Ladies and gentlemen, 50 officials correspond to the staff of a small European municipality of 10 000 or 15 000 inhabitants. Do we really believe that it is not worth having 50 people working to maintain a high level of vigilance in connection with human rights in Europe? I believe it is worth it.

Why do we need an agency? We need an agency in order to have independent evaluation, which is precisely what many Members of Parliament have pointed out. I have heard someone ask: ‘But what has the Commission got to do with it?’ The Commission will work much better if it is able to make use of an agency that is capable independently of supplying it with material on the basis of which it can carry out evaluations and form opinions. I want to reassure Mr Rack: we will continue to carry out our duties, which in this field are not bureaucratic duties but, rather, political support for the work of Parliament and the Council. This is why we need an independent agency that will supply us with material with which to draw up our proposals. It is clear that the Commission's work will not diminish, rather it will be strengthened and increased.

What is the Council of Europe’s role? The Council of Europe will continue to carry out its own work. I can confirm: we do not want overlapping and, in this sector too, the rules of the Treaties apply. The agency will be responsible for monitoring respect for fundamental rights on the basis of Community law whereas, as you well know, the Council of Europe does not have competence in the field of human rights under Community legislation. Consequently, the areas of activity of the two institutions will be absolutely separate, and this is a requirement that we intend to safeguard.

I defend the Fundamental Rights Agency precisely because I do not believe that it should be used to point the finger at this or that Member State or to serve as a tool of political fighting, infighting even. That would be a mistake, and I agree with those who argue that the formulation of political opinions cannot be left to officials. That task will remain in the hands of the Commission. We hope for an agency that will help to increase transparency in Europe concerning the procedures for guaranteeing fundamental rights.

If I make reference to political groups and the judiciary in Europe, it is because I believe that they too must wish – and I am sure that they do – for transparency in the protection of fundamental rights in their activities. It will in fact be much better for the authority of the institutions of the police and judiciary if they are guaranteed complete transparency regarding procedures for carrying out their crime-fighting activities. This is an initiative geared towards helping them, rather than hindering them. It is certainly not the intention of the Fundamental Rights Agency to put obstacles in their way.

  President. The debate is closed.

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

(The sitting was suspended at 10.40 a.m. and resumed at 11 a.m.)

Written Statements (Rule 142)

  Gábor Harangozó (PSE). – The European Union has always presented the protection and promotion of fundamental rights as one of its basic policy objectives. In this respect, the creation of the agency to protect and promote these rights is an important tool in meeting this objective within the framework of the recently endorsed ‘The Hague Programme’ action plan. Establishing this agency is therefore a very practical step, as it is a new initiative that will allow the collection and analysis of data at EU level by a genuinely independent centre of expertise.

Proposals from the Commission have legitimately given rise to a wide-ranging debate on the scope of the competences of such an agency. By expanding the mandate of the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, we should ensure, on the one hand, that the focus on racism and xenophobia remains an important character of the agency and, on the other, that the agency’s independence, not only with respect to the EU institutions but also with respect to the Member States, is maintained. Despite these concerns, I am optimistic that the European Parliament during the vote will broadly welcome the text proposed by the rapporteur.

  Katalin Lévai (PSE). – (HU) It would be difficult to overestimate the value of the creation of the Agency for Fundamental Rights. It is, indeed, a milestone in the important struggle to defend human rights in Europe. At the same time, we have to state right away that it can only fulfil its role if endowed with real competence and the tools for effective functioning. Otherwise, it will degenerate into a self-serving paper mill, incapable of real influence.

It is therefore necessary to set up an independent organisation with real and broad legal powers that can effectively intervene in cases of human rights violations.

We have to put special emphasis on combating Europe’s dark demons: the racism, xenophobia and anti-Semitism that resurface from time to time, and – especially in the case of some new and newly-joining states in Central and Eastern Europe – atrocities and discrimination against the Roma and other ethnic or national minorities. Unfortunately, in recent times, we have witnessed several instances of such incidents that undermine the soul of Europe. The Agency must therefore pay special attention to these issues.

It follows directly from my argument for an Agency with strong powers that its competence must inevitably extend to the matter of judicial and police cooperation, including matters relating to immigration and terrorism, as well as to the struggle against human trafficking, crimes against children, the drugs and arms trade, corruption and fraud. I would, of course, advocate its extension to a common foreign and security policy as well.

I welcome the deeper involvement of the European Parliament in the Agency’s work, since I believe that the Union’s only directly elected body is one of the depositaries of the cause of human rights.

IN THE CHAIR: MR ALEJO VIDAL-QUADRAS
Vice-President.

  President. As you know, on 15 June the European Parliament pronounced that it was in favour of the adoption of the euro by Slovenia from 1 January 2007. Certain technical adaptations are therefore necessary.

Despite the fact that the Treaty does not require it, the Council has chosen to ask for an opinion. The Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs took the view that a resolution by Parliament was not necessary for that opinion, and Mrs Berès, chairman of that committee, has sent a letter to the President of Ecofin expressing the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs' positive opinion of the technical adaptations to be carried out.

We therefore wish our fellow European citizens in Slovenia the best of luck with their new currency.

  President. The next item is the vote.

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

- Before the vote on the draft legislative resolution:

  Claude Moraes (PSE), rapporteur. – Mr President, according to our rules, after a rejection of a legislative proposal, it should be referred back to committee. The aim of such a referral is to try and find an acceptable solution for Parliament. Unfortunately, in this specific case, a referral may be meaningless as the Council will not be able to change its position. At the same time, it is not the intention of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs to impede the Council in taking its decision – as the committee can do according to the legal base in the Treaty.

What we intend to do is to send our political message to the Council that Europol should be strengthened and founded on a sound legal base according to the EU Treaties in the same way that Eurojust is constituted. Given that this message is clearly stated in the legislative resolutions, may I propose that you put them directly to the vote with my recommendation to vote in favour.

- Before the vote on the draft legislative resolution:

  Claude Moraes (PSE), rapporteur. – Mr President, the same statement as before. So I recommend voting for the legislative resolution.

- Before the final vote:

  Kinga Gál (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – Mr President, given the fact that we have adopted the amended proposal, I should like to ask Mr Frattini if he will accept the amendments just adopted by this House, or does he need more time for some final compromises in the Council?

  Franco Frattini, Vice-President of the Commission. (IT) Mr President, I believe that a further period of reflection would be appropriate. You all know my opinion on the amendments that you have just approved. The Council still has some difficulty in accepting them. I believe that the best solution would be to take some time and for us to attempt to convince the Council to accommodate the opinion expressed today by Parliament.

  Kinga Gál (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – Mr President, I therefore request that the vote be postponed and the matter be referred back to the committee responsible, pursuant to Rule 53 of the Rules of Procedure, in order to await the Council’s position on the amendments.

(Parliament decided to postpone the vote and the matter is therefore considered referred back to the competent committee for further examination)

- Before the vote:

  Magda Kósáné Kovács (PSE), rapporteur. – (HU) Before the vote, which should be very straightforward, I have to correct a regrettable error. I wish to ask my fellow Members to please be advised that the new wording of paragraph 2a of the recital appears mistakenly on the voting list. I withdrew those of my proposals that concerned extending the Agency’s remit to include the second pillar. On the other hand, the proposal which I retained and which appears on the voting list, replacing the proposed text of paragraph 3a of the recital, now has a new number, paragraph 3.

I am asking my fellow Members to please cast their votes accordingly. If you deem it justified, Mr President, I shall read the short wording of the proposal to be voted on. With your permission and for the sake of simplicity, I will read it in French.

(FR) ‘The Agency's remit enables it to provide protection for human rights not only in the field of terrorism and organised crime but also in other fields, such as trafficking in persons, offences against children, illicit drug and arms trafficking and corruption and fraud, where measures can also weaken the effectiveness of the protection of human rights’.

Thank you, Mr President, and may I also apologise, of course, to the House.

- Before the final vote:

  Magda Kósáné Kovács (PSE), rapporteur. – (FR) Mr President, I shall repeat a question to Vice-President Frattini that my honourable colleague has already asked: do you intend to accept all the amendments that the House has just adopted, or would you like more time to present some final compromise proposals?

  Franco Frattini, Vice-President of the Commission. (FR) I believe a little more time will be needed to consult with the Council, as the rapporteur said.

  Magda Kósáné Kovács (PSE), rapporteur. – (FR) Mr President, I naturally accept Mr Frattini's reply, and the process will remain the same.

(Parliament decided to postpone the vote and the matter is therefore considered referred back to the competent committee for further examination)

- Following the vote on Amendment 7:

  Eva Lichtenberger (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Mr President, there are differences between the French and English translations of the original document of which we must take note. Whereas the English text makes explicit reference to accession to the Munich Convention, the French version talks in terms of discussion about accession to it, and there is a considerable difference between the two.

We now, therefore, do not know how the text is to be interpreted. If the English version is normative, then the French MEPs need to be aware that they are agreeing to accession to the Munich Convention, even though the formulation in the French version is rather softer. The differences are in the detail.

  President. All right, then the English version is valid.

- After the vote:

  Zbigniew Zaleski (PPE-DE). – (ES) Mr President, before moving on to the final item, on behalf of many Members of this Parliament I would like to express my profound sadness and discontent.

By not voting on a resolution on the death of the Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya today, this Parliament is, I believe, making a political and human mistake.

I hope that the honourable Members, particularly the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, understand this message.

- Before the vote on paragraph 6:

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE-DE). – (PL) It is proposed that the sum of 50 000 in paragraph 6 be replaced by the sum of 40 000 in order to avoid changing the current rules.

(Applause)

(Parliament accepted the oral amendment)

  President. That concludes the vote.

- Report: Cavada (A6-0326/2006)

  Carlos Coelho (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) I welcome the conclusion of these bilateral agreements on the participation of Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey in the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA).

These three countries are on the list of 13 candidate countries involved in the accession process, and this kind of agreement, whereby authorisation can be given for them to take part in Community programmes and agencies, seeks to strengthen the pre-accession strategy.

Accordingly, this is one of the main ways in which to help the candidate countries implement the Community acquis more effectively because it ultimately acts as a kind of preparation process whereby these countries and their citizens might familiarise themselves with the Union’s policies and working methods.

These agreements lay down conditions for participating in the EMCDDA, along lines similar to those that apply to Norway.

These agreements will certainly bring a great many benefits, and I see no problems as regards the participation arrangements, either on a technical level insofar as the countries concerned will have links to REITOX and will share data, in full compliance with Community and national rules on data protection or on a financial level, in that they will have to contribute to covering the cost of their participation. They will, moreover, be represented on the Executive Board, albeit without voting rights.

- Report: Chichester (A6-0314/2006)

  Jens-Peter Bonde (IND/DEM), in writing. (DA) The Galileo programme is an EU programme for satellite-based radio navigation. At present, all satellite-based radio navigation is based on the well-known GPS system and a Russian system. Galileo is a civilian system, whilst the American GPS is a military one. It will also be a better system from a technical point of view, with 30 satellites providing better coverage. For the commercial service, this will mean precision to within 3 mm, whereas GPS provides precision to within approximately 2 to 3 cm. Nowadays, satellite navigation is an indispensable tool in our daily lives. It is therefore unbelievably risky for this to be dependent on the discretion of the US military. Galileo is thus entirely necessary in order to provide a secure and independent navigation system. Everyone will be able to use the basic service free of charge. The project is an expensive business, costing around DKK 30 billion, but one that Denmark could not have carried off alone. Ultimately, if we wish to be independent of the US military, it is a project that the June Movement is able to support.

The report also supports the extension of the project beyond the construction period. The June Movement is therefore voting in favour of the proposal.

- Report: Pahor (A6-0274/2006)

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the excellent report by my honourable colleague Mr Pahor on the amendment of the incompatibility provisions in Rules 3 and 4 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, which deal with the verification of credentials and the duration of the mandate It is indeed only right that the administrations of the Member States should be involved in the verification of credentials, particularly in cases where a new Member of the European Parliament holds an office that may be incompatible with membership of the European Parliament.

- Report: Moraes (A6-0278/2006)

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. I fully support the strategy that my friend Claude Moraes outlined in the House during the vote. Hopefully we have sent a political message to the Council without blocking the legislation.

- Report: Moraes (A6-0279/2006)

  Carlos Coelho (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) Parliament has consistently rejected all initiatives submitted to it, when consulted about detailed issues relating to Europol.

We find ourselves in the same situation again. I therefore back the rapporteur’s, Mr Morais’, position that the initiative on amending Europol's staff regulations should be rejected, along with the initiative on adjusting their basic salaries.

I completely understand that Europol needs to carry out internal adjustments, but it makes no sense for Parliament to issue its opinion, because, as an intergovernmental institution, Parliament does not play a relevant role in this institution’s administrative decision-making process.

We have supported a great many initiatives aimed at broadening Europol’s remit and giving it operational powers, thereby enabling it to become an effective weapon in the fight against organised crime. We have also, however, emphasised the need for this process to be accompanied by measures guaranteeing democratic and legal control.

I therefore hope that the Commission will soon submit to us a proposal aimed at integrating Europol into the EU’s institutional system, with the Europol Convention to be replaced by a Council decision, whereby the structure, working methods, scope of activity and missions will be subject to codecision.

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. I fully support the approach to this report outlined by my friend Claude Moraes during the vote in the House. We will hopefully send an important political signal to Council without blocking the legislation.

- Report: Mann, Erika (A6-0291/2006)

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI), in writing. – (FR) Although some members of the Contact Group are doing everything in their power to reach an agreement within the prescribed time frame, in other words by the end of this year, the status of Kosovo has not yet been established.

I am well aware that the partition of Kosovo is not on the negotiating agenda and that the international community pours scorn on the constitution that Serbia has just adopted, which grants extensive autonomy to the province of Kosovo, rightly regarded by Serbs as the cradle of their country. I am also well aware that these negotiations are a masquerade and that the aim is to impose the secession of Kosovo.

Be that as it may, the report offered to us today seems to regard the independence of Kosovo as signed, sealed and delivered, because the aid it proposes is nothing short of a conventional donation to a country outside the EU. The few amendments relating to respect for human rights are nothing but a token gesture; the persecution of Serbian minorities under the indifferent eye of the multinational forces is a reality that surely warrants the utmost caution.

We do not feel obliged to condone this situation.

- Report: Gál (A6-0306/2006)

  Carlo Fatuzzo (PPE-DE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am used to seeing MEPs leave the Chamber when I begin to speak. I would like to thank those of you who have stayed to listen to this important statement on the report on the establishment of the Fundamental Rights Agency.

I have voted for referral back to committee, but I would like to say on this subject that fundamental rights include that of pensioners to collect a pension. The socialist-communist government, currently in power in Italy and led by President Prodi, is cutting the pensions of 500 000 Italian citizens who have worked abroad, in Switzerland, by two thirds of the sum that they are currently receiving. It is as if we were to receive an allowance of one third of that received up to now.

This is no way to treat pensioners, who have the right to live and to be able to count on a secure pension. What security have those who have found, at the beginning of the year, that their pension has been cut by a whole 66%? Shame on the Prodi centre-left government in Italy.

  Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE). – Mr President, the interpretation of my speech in Finnish yesterday was misleading and, in some parts, even contradictory to the original message. I find it very regrettable, especially because I had sent my speech in advance. It is a pity that even during the Finnish Presidency these kinds of mistakes take place. As much as we love to speak our own mother tongue and we are proud of it, these kinds of mistakes do not leave us much choice.

Therefore I would ask my colleagues to read my original arguments on the requested closure of certain units in the Kozloduy nuclear power plant in Bulgaria when the final and accurate translation is available.

  President. Thank you very much, Mrs Korhola. You are right: the full multilingualism that we practice in this House often causes us problems, but please believe me that the services do what they can.

Given the number of languages and technical difficulties we face, despite the fact that certain problems may arise such as the one you have mentioned, on the whole I believe that this Parliament offers an example to the world in terms of respecting multilingualism.

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI), in writing. – (FR) If there is one area in which Brussels is highly productive, it is surely that of creating agencies: defence, anti-drug, maritime, road and air safety, energy, reconstruction, etc., etc.

Today it is the turn of the European Union's fundamental rights. Is this agency merely Europe's umpteenth smart gadget, or is it the key to the proper functioning of the democracies in the Union? According to this report, 'Fundamental rights should be at the heart of all EU policies and measures so that Europe is indeed referred to as a symbol of fundamental rights'. Magnificent! Superb! The only snag is that things look rather different in the real world.

Today in the Kingdom of Belgium, a veritable banana oligarchy, an opposition leader was sentenced to ten years of ineligibility for public office simply because of his views. Similarly, Jean-Marie Le Pen was bitterly condemned in France for having expressed a moderate view, very widely endorsed by the French people, on the consequences of a massive influx of Muslim immigrants. In Britain this month, proceedings were initiated against Mr Nick Griffin, also for having expressed his views, following provocation unworthy of a BBC journalist.

One cannot fail to conclude that freedom of expression and freedom of opinion are being ever more frequently threatened and flouted and are giving way to self-censorship and intellectual terrorism.

  Hélène Goudin and Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM), in writing. (SV) ‘In view of the actually suspended constitution-making process of the European Union (EU), the rapporteur considers that it is the right moment for Europe to flag the protection and promotion of fundamental human rights.’

This is how the rapporteur chooses to justify the need for a new agency to monitor rights. Since 1953, this function has been performed at the highest level by the well-respected European Court of Human Rights, to which many more states are party than there are EU Member States, and the process has been highly successful.

The apparent aim of this report is to set up an agency to monitor fundamental human rights entirely because the Constitution has not been adopted. This is a quite remarkable idea and shows once again the EU's tireless yearning to become a supranational power that controls everything in every field without paying any heed to the existence of inter-state treaties and agreements or the national right of self-determination.

The June List has nonetheless voted in favour of a series of amendments relating to democratic scrutiny of the Agency’s activities and a fair gender distribution amongst its members. We have also voted in favour of children’s rights having a prominent place in the activities of the Agency, should the proposal go through.

The June List rejects the report overall.

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. I welcome this legislation, which concerns the transformation of the European Union Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia into a fully fledged Agency for Fundamental Rights.

The aim is to have an independent body which monitors in a continuous and systematic manner the conformity of national and European laws against established international Human Rights norms. The Fundamental Rights Agency will in turn be able to draft reports and opinions for the EU institutions and provide guidance and opinions. Member States and EU institutions will not be bound by its findings.

  Bernadette Vergnaud (PSE), in writing. – (FR) I believe it is important to create an Agency for Fundamental Rights that is both independent and accountable. It is necessary to strike a balance between these two requirements while bearing in mind that the main objective is to devise a functional and effective body.

If that objective is to be achieved, active cooperation among the three European institutions will be indispensable. It is, first and foremost, a matter of reaching a political consensus. The Council, however, has let it be known that it does not wish the powers of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights to be extended to the third pillar, in other words to intergovernmental cooperation in the fields of policing, justice, immigration and anti-terrorist activities. The Netherlands has even announced that it will use its veto to prevent the agency from starting its work on 1 January 2007 because it would duplicate the efforts of the Council of Europe.

For this reason, while I voted in favour of the whole package of amendments to Mrs Gál's report, I nevertheless came down in favour of deferring the final vote to let the Council reconsider its position.

- Report: Kósáné Kovács (A6-0282/2006)

  Carl Lang (NI), in writing. – (FR) According to this report, 'the Fundamental Rights Agency could be a proper body providing a regular overview on the enforcement of human rights'.

Accordingly, one case that the future agency will certainly have to examine is the current wave of attacks on freedom of expression in Europe.

Sadly, there is no shortage of examples: from the caricatures of Mohammed published in a Danish newspaper, which provoked the murder of priests in Turkey, violent demonstrations and the burning of churches, to the lecture delivered by Pope Benedict XVI which a Turkish Muslim leader denounced as reflecting 'hatred and enmity' and, more recently, to the ordeal of French philosopher Robert Redeker, who has been subjected to death threats and forced to change addresses on a daily basis because of an article on the Koran which was deemed to be hostile and offensive to the Prophet, to Islam and to Muslims.

Self-censorship, threats and aggression are becoming ever more widespread at the expense of freedom of expression and opinion, which are now probably the most endangered freedoms in Europe.

Accordingly, if the first task of this future agency is to defend these freedoms effectively and to condemn violations of them, we are in favour of it. If it is not, the agency will just be yet another worthless and costly talking shop.

- Future action in the field of patents (B6-0522/2006)

  Marco Cappato (ALDE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I have voted against the resolution on the future of patents, because I believe that the European Parliament should have sent a clear message, calling for Community rules in the field of European patents. The middle way envisaged by the Commission consists of adding some European elements to a system that is however, and will remain, essentially intergovernmental.

The European Patent Office has already demonstrated its own ability to do damage in the field of software patentability. I hope that the Commission, instead of exploring the hybrid path that they are proposing to us, will want to return with courage to the idea of the Community patent, even against the trend for renationalisation, which is by now prevalent in all sectors of the European Union.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) Although the Council common position on a proposal for a directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions was rejected in the European Parliament by a resounding majority (648 votes) in July 2005, the Commission relaunched the debate in January on the future of the patenting system in the EU. In so doing, it side-stepped the outcome of this vote, which was the result of a mass protest.

The nub of the issue is the attempt to set up a European patent litigation organisation and a European patents court, whose decisions would override those of the national courts of each Member State. This court would remain under the control of the national representatives on the Board of the European Patent Office (EPO), who would moreover be responsible for appointing judges. In recent years, the EPO has issued hundreds of patents, for example on software, that some countries have deemed invalid. With the loss of sovereignty, the national courts would not be able to issue rulings against patents.

As regards the resolution adopted today, which we voted against, we wish to reiterate our opposition to the idea of issuing patents on ideas and knowledge and to that of putting up barriers to intellectual freedom, technological innovation and the very competitiveness of the European economy.

  Mathieu Grosch (PPE-DE), in writing. (DE) Since this House, in Article 1, is merely urging the Commission to explore various possibilities, it follows that decisions have not yet been taken as to which solutions should be chosen. In the interests of completeness, then, measures should also be analysed that do not enjoy the approval of all sides.

- Report: Jeggle (A6-0290/2006)

  Michl Ebner (PPE-DE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I have voted in favour of the Jeggle report, in a convinced and reasoned manner, because I am of the opinion that it is one of the initiatives that will take forward the debate on the subject of research on animals, that is to say on limiting research on live animals as much as possible. I believe that we must seize every opportunity in this regard, as we have done in relation to the initiative in question. I am aware of the fact that the legal basis for other sectors is not the most self-evident. Nevertheless, I feel that we have taken a step forward, and I hope that others will follow in this direction.

  Jan Andersson, Anna Hedh, Ewa Hedkvist Petersen, Inger Segelström and Åsa Westlund (PSE), in writing. (SV) We voted against Mrs Jeggle’s own-initiative report (A6-0290/2006) as a whole, because, in many areas, it counteracts the EU’s efforts to strengthen animal protection. We are unable to support the idea that the EU should postpone the introduction of better animal protection until our trading partners within the WTO do likewise. This would seriously slow down progress in this area.

In addition, we also reject the introduction of trade barriers against third countries with animal protection standards less rigorous than those of the EU. To do so would be to risk hitting developing countries that are dependent on agricultural exports to the EU.

We would still like to stress, however, that we are positively disposed towards the Commission’s Action Plan on the Protection and Welfare of Animals. We also welcome those parts of the report that propose further progress in a number of areas that are of importance to the protection of animals.

  Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos, Fausto Correia, Edite Estrela and Joel Hasse Ferreira (PSE), in writing. (PT) I voted in favour of the first part of paragraph 71 of the Jeggle report, for the following reasons.

1. Bullfighting is a centuries-old tradition that is rooted in various regions of different EU Member States. Its characteristics vary according to the country; in Portugal, for example, killing the bull was first prohibited in 1836.

2. Bullfighting is responsible for the existence of the fighting bull, and, without it, this species would have become extinct a long time ago, given that rearing these animals has no economic value in terms of producing meat or milk;

3. This does not mean that the spectacle of the bullfight and the tradition associated with it should not evolve and adapt to the moral values of the time. The current trend is to be on hand as quickly as possible to ensure that animals do not continue to suffer physically. There are prestigious sports that have evolved from violent practices. One example is fencing in which, nowadays, the participants are not physical harmed. In bullfighting, the iron spike could easily be replaced by an electronic stick which, when it came into contact with the animal, could produce the same effect in terms of spectacle.

4. Paragraph No 71 of the report, by simplistically proposing an end to bullfighting …

(Explanation of vote abbreviated in accordance with Rule 163(1) of the Rules of Procedure)

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) Although animal protection and welfare are important – not least because of the correlation between the quality of human life, on the one hand, and food safety and the quality of products of animal origin on the other – specific traditions and cultures must also be taken into account.

We support a number of ideas in the report. For example, the protection of animals is an expression of humanity; the scope of European policy should be extended beyond the welfare of farm animals; account must be taken of the EU's specific regional and environmental characteristics; and a transversal animal protection policy should be promoted, covering legislation, vocational training, financial support and scientific research.

We would also like to highlight, on the positive side, the reference to the need to take account of the size of farms and the additional costs involved in animal protection. Farmers, in particular those on small and medium-sized holdings and those involved in traditional farming, should be compensated for financial losses incurred in implementing animal welfare measures.

As regards bullfighting, we do not accept the rapporteur's position, given that it is wrong to apply a broad brush approach to everything. For example, it is wrong to treat rope bullfighting in the Azores in the same way as bullfighting in which the bull dies, although the latter must also be understood in the context of local cultures and traditions, which can develop new practices.

  Robert Goebbels (PSE), in writing. – (FR) I abstained in the final vote on this report because the European Parliament, as is its wont, has translated its honourable intentions into an avalanche of unenforceable rules and regulations. Who can check the time that cows spend grazing in pastures? Who can verify the actual age of a piglet prior to castration? The road to hell is paved with good intentions!

  Ana Maria Gomes (PSE), in writing. (PT) I voted in favour of the amendment by the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats providing for the removal of the word ‘bull’ from paragraph 71 of the Jeggle report.

I voted this way because the fighting bull must not be allowed to die out, and its existence is safeguarded by the institution of the bullfight.

Having said that, I am repulsed by the spectacle of the bullfight as it is currently practised in Portugal and in other EU Member States. Under the cloak of the flimsy pretext of ‘tradition’, this spectacle trivialises the suffering of the animals in the guise of public entertainment.

Like other aspects of daily life in our societies, bullfighting also has to evolve and to rid itself of the barbarism that it has inherited and that still marks it out. No aspect of public life should be immune to progress and to the evolution of people’s sensibilities.

This resolution should accordingly act as a warning to those who reject any kind of change in bullfighting. It is vital that this activity change as soon as possible so that it no longer depends crucially on animal suffering. Otherwise, my country, Portugal, together with the EU, will have to take drastic measures.

The way in which a society treats animals reveals more than just its attitude to the animals themselves; it reveals that society’s level of civilisation, humanity and progress.

  Hélène Goudin (IND/DEM), in writing. (SV) We believe that the implementation of a policy within the EU designed to ensure the protection and welfare of animals is most certainly one of the responsibilities of a union of fundamental values.

I therefore concur, in the main, with the report, and I am voting in favour of it overall. However, I do not support the ideas, put forward in the explanatory statement of the report, of creating an EU centre or laboratory for the protection and welfare of animals. It is for the Member States to ensure that they implement an animal protection policy in accordance with the general strategy for animal protection agreed at EU level.

  Jens Holm and Eva-Britt Svensson (GUE/NGL), in writing. (SV) We welcome the Commission’s proposal for an Action Plan on the Protection and Welfare of Animals 2006-2010. There is a great need to make practical improvements to the conditions in which animals live, and the Commission’s proposal contains many important proposals. Unfortunately, we have been forced to note that Mrs Jeggle’s report has failed to live up to the high expectations that we had of it, amongst other things in the way it stresses that high standards of animal protection lead to reduced competitiveness. This risks making it impossible, in practice, to have a progressive policy in this area. We therefore chose to abstain in the final vote on this report today.

  Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM), in writing. (SV) We believe that the implementation of a policy within the EU designed to ensure the protection and welfare of animals is most certainly one of the responsibilities of a union of fundamental values.

I therefore concur, in the main, with the report, and I am voting in favour of it overall. However, I do not support the ideas, put forward in the explanatory statement of the report, of creating an EU centre or laboratory for the protection and welfare of animals. It is for the Member States to ensure that they implement an animal protection policy in accordance with the general strategy for animal protection agreed at EU level.

Similarly, I do not support part of what is called for by paragraph 71 of the draft report, namely that dog, bull and cock fighting should be brought to an end at EU level by means of European legislation. In our opinion, it is the citizens of each Member State who should have the final and decisive say, via national elections or referendums, on whether they wish to prohibit the activities mentioned above within the territories of their own countries.

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. I voted for this Report, which contains many sensible suggestions for improving the welfare of animals. However, we must not only set high welfare standards, we must also enforce them. The enforcement of our existing laws on animal welfare is far too patchy. The Commission needs to challenge Member States to properly implement the law with improved inspection and the application of sanctions.

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) This own-initiative report falls down on two counts. The first concerns the condemnation – happily not adopted – of bullfighting, because this issue hardly justifies concern on the part of the EU. As compliance with the minimum standards required of an EU Member State is not in question, I do not feel that the Community institutions should be issuing opinions on the matter.

Furthermore, the attempt, via Community ‘legislation’, to impose on one Member State either the traditions and cultural values of another or the particular perspective of one of the Member States on traditions or cultural values foreign to it is, as much as anything, indicative of an arrogant and totally unacceptable attitude, and something we do not wish to see. This is irrespective of the opinion we may have of the traditions concerned.

Let the EU deal with matters that relate to the Community and let the Member States deal with what should naturally fall under their competence.

- Report: Ehler (A6-0272/2006)

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) I voted for the report drafted by my excellent colleague Jan Christian Ehler on the follow-up to the report on competition in professional services. Nevertheless, I did abstain on some provisions relating to advertising in the absence of more precise information on the impact of the Communication on the professional and ethical quality of services and on their price.

I share the view that it is imperative to incorporate providers of professional services into our European internal market, but we must take account of the specific characteristics of these professions as regards the indispensable requirement to afford special protection to European consumers in a market that is rapidly becoming more and more international. Over and above these considerations, it seems absolutely crucial to ensure that providers of professional services receive greater recognition from the European political institutions and that they have their proper place in the construct of the social market economy in Europe.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) The sole purpose of this report is to assess and promote reforms in the professional services sector by means of deregulation and the removal of all barriers to competition. This fulfils, in other words, the objectives of total deregulation and the strengthening of competition contained in the Kok report of November 2004 and included in the relaunch of the Lisbon Strategy in 2005.

It also forms part of the process of liberalising the services sector and of creating an internal market for services, as proposed in what is referred to as the Bolkestein Directive. In this context, the prevailing view is that the professions’ self-regulation bodies are barriers to the free provision of services.

We agree that some of these services are of general interest and should be considered public ‘goods’ and that, accordingly, there need to be rules to ensure the quality of service and to protect end-users and consumers.

For this reason, the right of the Member States to regulate these activities at national level or to authorise self-regulation by professional bodies must not be undermined. The Member States must be entitled to draw up regulations based on traditional, geographical and demographic characteristics, or other special regulations, for example on advertising.

  Marianne Thyssen (PPE-DE), in writing. (NL) Liberal and intellectual professions are given that description for the reason that they are simply different from other service providers in many ways. Whilst we need to guide them, to help them contribute to the Lisbon objectives as much as they can and show respect for the Convention's fundamental principles, we should not overlook their individuality.

The Ehler report very much recognises this individuality, which is also why it can count on my backing. Where his report is concerned, Mr Ehler has gone about things the right way: by demanding that more structure be injected into the debate, so that clear questions can be matched by clear replies that are imbued with legal certainty. This is in the interest of the customers (entrepreneurs and consumers/clients), of competition and collegial relations within the professional group, as well as in the general interest.

- Report: Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (A6-0302/2006)

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the excellent report by my honourable colleague and friend, Mr Varela Suanzes-Carpegna, on economic and trade relations between the European Union and Mercosur. I am particularly grateful to him for having accepted the amendments relating to the place of small and medium-sized enterprises in the cooperation chapter of the proposed association agreement with Mercosur, to the related funding implications and to the role of the representative organisations of SMEs.

At a time when the negotiations at the World Trade Organization are deadlocked and the European Union is preparing to negotiate bilateral agreements, the report maps out the route to trade cooperation with that very important part of the American continent. If the association agreement could be finalised, it would create the world's largest interregional free-trade area and would present both parties with golden opportunities for trade and hence for economic growth while enhancing the international competitiveness of both markets.

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI), in writing. – (FR) In spite of its denials, the European Union is engaging in more and more bilateral trade negotiations in order to lessen the fallout from the foreseeable failure of the Doha Round of multilateral negotiations. These negotiations, however, have the same flaws as the WTO talks: the concessions made by the European Union to its trading partners are far greater than the partners' concessions to the EU, and European agriculture is being sacrificed with no guarantee that foreign markets will be truly opened to European industrial products or services. Some of the Mercosur countries, in fact, already benefit from the European Union's generalised system of preferences, which gives them duty-free and quota-free access to the European market.

One wonders, moreover, what interest these future trading partners could have in such agreements, since the cost of failure to conclude an agreement would be minimal in relation to the present volume of trade between the two parties.

The main motive behind this agreement seems to be sheer vanity, the desire to gain the distinction of having created the world's first interregional free-trade area, which would soon be extended to the whole American continent. This is yet another example of Brussels' propensity for letting ideological objectives override all other considerations, particularly economic and social considerations.

  Hélène Goudin (IND/DEM), in writing. (SV) The June List believes that when trade is freer, world prosperity is furthered. The concept of free trade, indeed, is based on the idea that the more parties there are to it, the better the results they will see.

This own-initiative report contains much that is worthwhile and that could give rise to increased prosperity. Unfortunately, as is so often the case in this Parliament, there are also extraneous and unhelpful wordings.

The report talks, for example, of the strategic external policy factors involved in an agreement, of aid and of giving Parliament more power in both trade and external policy matters.

It is unfortunate that the points I have just mentioned overshadow the positives that could be achieved. I have therefore voted against the report in today’s vote.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) The proposal to conclude an association agreement and to establish a free trade area between the EU and Mercosur forms part of the current crusade to open up the markets to global competition against the backdrop of the current deadlock at the WTO.

The report manages to spell out the EU’s ambition for dominance in Latin America, specifically in the Mercosur countries, in spite of the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), whilst, remarkably, not undermining the FTAA. Contradictions? Surely not!

The majority in Parliament is seeking to bring all sectors into this free trade area, including what are known as the ‘Singapore issues’, namely investment, competition, public markets and trade facilitation. Furthermore, this majority lays claim to the EU being a model of integration for Latin America.

We feel that the liberalisation of the markets undermines the sovereignty of the people and of (some) States when it comes to managing their resources and choosing a path of development for their countries to follow. With the liberalisation of world trade, workers’ salaries and rights have come under pressure, and most small and medium-sized farms and SMEs have been put at risk, with the interests of the large multinationals and the concentration of capital brought to the fore.

Hence our vote against.

  Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM), in writing. (SV) Free trade is the most important agent of prosperity in the world, and the more countries that participate in it, the more the prosperity of those countries will grow. The incorporation of large parts of South America into a free trade area with the EU would therefore represent a big step towards prosperity and the elimination of poverty.

This own-initiative report therefore contains many worthwhile proposals that could lead to increased prosperity if they were implemented. As so often in this Parliament, however, the report also, unfortunately, contains a number of points, the aim of which is to further the development of the EU into a federal superpower and to increase Parliament’s power at the expense of the Member States. The report talks, for example, of the strategic external policy factors involved in an agreement, of aid and of giving Parliament more power over both trade policy and external policy.

Despite the strong objections I have made, it is my judgment that it is better for this Interregional Association Agreement to be entered into than for it to be prevented.

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. In general I welcome this report, which promotes the relaunching and strengthening of the bi-regional strategic partnership with Mercosur. It aims to reinforce regional integration as a priority dimension of support for development in Latin America, recognising the principles of ‘less than full reciprocity’ and ‘special and differential treatment’ depending on the levels of development and sectoral competitiveness of the two regions. It also advocates gradual and reciprocal liberalisation of trade.

I feel, however, that there should be some caution in liberalising services (particularly public services). There should at all times be recognition of the specific needs of developing countries. If applied in a timely and gradual manner, liberalisation has the key to unlock commercial potential and stimulate economic growth to the satisfaction of both parties. But it is not an end in itself and should not be seen as a panacea for all the problems that our partners face.

  Tobias Pflüger (GUE/NGL), in writing. (DE) The Varela Suanzes-Carpegna report reads like a wish list compiled by European mega-businesses and Mercosur’s agri-businesses, who aim to establish, as quickly as possible, an EU/Mercosur free trade area. Neither compliance with human rights nor the effects on broad swathes of the population of both regions are treated as having any relevance whatever.

While the report does highlight the costs that would result from a failure to adopt the agreement, it devotes not a single word to the social costs that an EU/Mercosur free trade area would bring with it, for the free trade agreements reached over the past decades show with terrible clarity that the liberalisation of trading relationships laid down in them does nothing to help increase prosperity. It is small-scale producers that are among the first to lose out as a result of free trade agreements, which facilitate access to the European market only for a few agricultural industry products.

Where public procurement, services and investment rules are concerned, the EU is going on the offensive and demanding such things as equal access to Mercosur government tenders in the fields of water, transport and energy.

It is clear that the EU has no desire to put issues of human rights and democracy at the heart of the trade agreements with Latin America; instead, it gives priority to free trade for businesses, as a result of which the poorer sectors of the population will lose out even more.

Instead of a new round of negotiations towards the conclusion of the EU/Mercosur agreement, the EU should be beginning an inquiry into the social and economic consequences of liberalisation measures in Latin America.

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) History has taught us that trade is an effective way of fostering positive relations between nations and boosting economic development This alone would be a good reason for us to seek to conclude an agreement with Mercosur, as I have advocated in both public speeches and political initiatives with the Commission. There are further factors, for example historical and cultural ties, which make our commitment in this area all the more justified. We refer specifically to Brazil and to the thriving Portuguese community in Venezuela.

The recent accession of Venezuela gives the agreement a further external policy dimension, as this is not only an oil-producing country but also a country to which the EU needs to pay special attention.

This agreement offers tremendous potential for progress and economic development, and for this reason, highlighting an issue that I have followed closely, I share the rapporteur's desire to call on the Commission to channel its efforts into making this enormous economic area viable.

  Kathy Sinnott (IND/DEM), in writing. The claim is that the Commission wants there to be a balanced approach in dealing with ethanol-producing countries. In the two concrete cases that I am aware of, Mallow and Carlow sugar plants in Ireland, this balance is not apparent.

Because the Irish Government did not do due diligence in its negotiations with the Commission for the compensation package as part of the closure of Mallow and Carlow under temporary sugar restructuring rules, we now find that the Commission is inflexible about turning these factories into ethanol-producing plants. In fact, despite repeated appeals to Commissioner Fischer Boel to allow the ruling to be reconsidered and allow ethanol to be produced in these factories using the sugar beet immediately available, I have been assured that the plants will be completely dismantled.

- The situation with regard to soft fruits and cherries intended for processing (B6-0525/2006)

  Hélène Goudin and Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM), in writing. (SV) We have voted against this resolution since it is designed to restrict access to the internal market for third countries and in various ways to make it more difficult for them to gain such access, and since it is designed to introduce various new forms of aid for EU farmers within the sector in question.

We believe that the market in general must be opened up for agricultural produce, which also includes soft fruits and cherries intended for processing.

In fact, it is scandalous that the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development should, quite out of the blue, submit to us here in the European Parliament a motion for a resolution such as this, which talks of excessive imports of soft fruits from third countries and seeks, amongst other things, to introduce the following:

– qualified market access,

– support mechanisms for producer groups,

– special safeguard clauses for entry prices, and

– financial support to take old soft fruit and cherry plantations out of production in the event of prolonged supply surpluses.

We are absolutely opposed to proposals of this nature by this Parliament.

- Reports: Gál (A6-0306/2006) and Kósáné Kovács (A6-0282/2006)

  Carl Schlyter (Verts/ALE), in writing. (SV) I am voting against both of these reports because Mrs Kósáne Kovács’ report will most likely stress that it is the job of the EU to decide on and implement a common foreign and security policy. I believe that what resources there are should be spent on existing bodies such as the Council of Europe, the OSCE and the European Court of Human Rights, rather than on competing with these institutions.

(The sitting was closed at 12.10 p.m.)