IN THE CHAIR: MR DOS SANTOS
Vice-President

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

  President. The next item is the report by Mr Fruteau (A6-0172/2007) on review procedures concerning the award of public contracts

(COM(2006)0195 C6-0141/2006 2006/0066(COD)).

  Meglena Kuneva, Member of the Commission. Mr President, on behalf of Commissioner McCreevy, I would like to thank warmly the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, and in particular the rapporteur, Mr Fruteau, for his excellent work in preparing the report on the review of the remedies directive in the area of public procurement. Before listening to Members’ remarks, I should like to congratulate Mr Fruteau on his election to the French Parliament. I wish him all the best in this new challenge, and I am sure he will continue to fight for European values from a different perspective. I also want to pay tribute to the committee chairman, the rapporteur and the shadow rapporteurs for the way in which they conducted the negotiations between our three institutions.

Public procurement is a cornerstone of the internal market and accounts for about 16% of EU GDP. It is therefore crucial that public procurement markets be open and transparent, guaranteeing fair competition between bidders from different Member States. Only this will lead to the best value for money for public authorities in terms of procurement. Let me underline that the ultimate beneficiaries of this are the European citizens and taxpayers.

European public procurement rules contribute to more open, transparent and competitive procurement markets. With the rules in place, we now need to make sure that they are respected. The Commission has identified situations where rejected bidders in a public procurement procedure encounter difficulties in seeking legal redress. This is especially the case when the public contract has already been concluded. In such situations a rejected bidder very often cannot reverse the decision, even if he is in the right.

The new directive aims to remedy this in two ways. First, by imposing a mandatory 10-day standstill period between the communication of the award decision and the conclusion of the public contract. Second, by introducing a new mechanism which enables a national court to declare public contracts ‘ineffective’. Ineffectiveness implies that the contract is null and void. Ineffectiveness is the proposed sanction for contracts which have been illegally awarded to a single supplier without prior transparency and competitive tendering. Ineffectiveness is also the proposed sanction where the 10-day standstill period has not been respected and the tenderer’s chances of obtaining the contract have been adversely affected.

The Commission believes that by strengthening national review procedures in this manner, business will have stronger incentives to bid for contracts anywhere in the EU. Adoption of the proposed directive should, therefore, have a major impact, stimulating a further opening-up of the public procurement markets.

I draw your attention to the fact that the compromise contains an obligation that Member States report to the Commission on the specific decisions of national review bodies which are based on the directive. This obligation has been included in the text at the request of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection. The Commission wishes to underline the principle of loyal cooperation which Member States have to observe in fulfilling this obligation. A statement along these lines will be added to the minutes of the Council meeting at which the proposed directive is adopted.

The report adopted last May by the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, under the leadership of Mr Fruteau, has played a very important role in the negotiations. The compromise that is now on the table as Amendment 86 seeks to meet the objectives of the committee and, in particular, its call for a strengthening of national review procedures in the area of public procurement.

Let me conclude that European companies today need open public procurement markets. Effective procedures for seeking redress are essential to make sure that public contracts ultimately go to the company that has made the best offer. This will help to build confidence among businesses and citizens that public procurement procedures are fair and correctly implemented. This new directive constitutes another major step towards more competition in our European single market.

  Jean-Claude Fruteau (PSE), rapporteur. – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the completion and proper operation of our internal market now require that we give economic operators the capacity to conduct their business across the Union. With this in mind, European companies need to be sure that if problems arise, they will have a legislative framework that will enable them to protect their interests.

In the area of public contracts, they must have a guarantee that they will have effective recourse if they consider that their rights have been violated in the process of awarding these contracts. There are already a series of provisions in the national legal systems along these lines. However, the absence of coordinated rules relating to the deadlines for pre-contractual reviews has contributed to allowing a race to sign contracts to unfold, which prevents any objection from being raised against the procedures used once the contract has been signed.

The desire to resolve this problem is the main objective of the text on which the European Parliament is now being asked to reach a decision in plenary, which is the result of a compromise reached with the European Commission and the Council. In this respect I would like to thank the shadow rapporteurs and the various political groups for their excellent cooperation, in a spirit of openness and dialogue. I would also, of course, like to thank the representatives of the Commission and of the Presidency-in-Office of the Council for their availability, expertise and desire to succeed, which made it possible to reach an agreement at first reading.

The final text confirms the general focus of the reform around two main aims: firstly, to preserve the opportunity for candidates to seek a review by providing for the timely postponement of the contract; secondly, to establish a set of adequate penalties, which are essential for preventing violations.

In order to achieve the first objective, Parliament, the Commission and the Council propose to establish a minimum standstill period of ten days, fifteen days in some cases, between the decision to award the contract and the signature of the contract, to allow candidates that consider their interests to have been damaged time to seek a review. In order to take into account the realities on the ground, this minimum period shall not apply to a series of situations, particularly in very urgent cases. The specific situations associated with framework agreements will also be exempted from this standstill period, subject to particularly exemplary penalties if irregularities are discovered.

The second major focus of the draft reform concerns the penalties for violation of the rules. On this issue, the compromise reached with the Council and the Commission fully takes up the desire expressed by Parliament to have a set of penalties that are both severe and also adapted to the realities faced by local authorities. Therefore serious violations of the rules will result in the contract being considered ineffective, creating a deterrent for the awarding authorities. These cases include illegal direct awarding of contracts, which the Court of Justice has deemed to be the most serious violation of the rules applying to public contracts. Also affected are violations of the rules regarding framework agreements, and violations that damage tenderers’ chances of winning the contract.

It will not, however, be compulsory for contracts to be considered ineffective in cases of minor breaches, for which the draft reform allows the possibility of applying other, less drastic penalties. It shall also be possible to be exempted from the rule of ineffectiveness of contracts if imperative public-interest reasons require that the contracts remain effective, subject, of course, to safeguards that Parliament wanted and secured.

Based around these two objectives, the draft reform submitted to you for the vote is a balanced text that gained the support of representatives of Parliament and of the Commission and the Council. It was finalised under a tight schedule, and offers a series of guarantees that are necessary for economic operators that are candidates for public contracts, without placing excessive constraints on the awarding bodies. If it is adopted today it will enable Europe to take a new step along the path towards harmonising the rules governing its internal market. It will also help to give the Union effective tools to make the practices involved in awarding public contracts more ethical, by reducing the risks of fraud and corruption.

  Hans-Peter Mayer (PPE-DE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by complimenting Mr Fruteau on his report, although our fellow Member knows that I am still not wholly content with the standstill period proposed.

As the rapporteur for the Committee on Legal Affairs, I have examined the subject in great detail, and held a hearing in my constituency. As a result, in my report I called for a standard period of 14 calendar days from the announcement. I believe that a simple and standard deadline is imperative for the sake of small and medium-sized companies. The opinion of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection has confirmed this view. The Committee on Legal Affairs adopted my proposal unanimously. Unfortunately, despite the enhanced cooperation, the vote in the Committee on Legal Affairs has been ignored. So let me stress once again that this type of increased cooperation is not serving the intended purpose. We would be well advised to create clearer relationships in the current discussions on reform and enhancing cooperation.

I personally feel that the compromise on deadlines is still too complicated for SMEs. The distinction made between postal and electronic notification is unnecessary in my opinion. What is positive is that Mr Fruteau and the shadow rapporteur have agreed to a standard deadline and have removed the references to calendar days and working days, thereby eliminating the confusion generated by the periods given in the original Commission proposal.

On balance, I will be voting in favour of the compromise, which is the result of much discussion and a massive effort on the part of all rapporteurs, the Commission and the Council Presidency.

  Andreas Schwab, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking the rapporteur, shadow rapporteur, and the draftsmen of the opinion for their work. I can assure you that when we voted in the trilogue, we did try to take the interests of the various committees into account. There were, however, clear positions in the Council that unfortunately we were unable to reconcile with all of Parliament's views.

We have reached an agreement in the first reading. This is always portrayed as being constitutionally tricky, but I do not think that this compromise is an over-hasty or inappropriate solution. I therefore hope that you will be able to vote in favour of this compromise.

We have moved one step closer to legislation based on transposing Court of Justice case law from the rulings on Alcatel and Halle city, and also on the Commission's statement that illegal direct contracts constitute a major problem in the internal market. We in the European Parliament have endorsed this reasoning, but have also made it clear – among other things last Tuesday in the debate on Arlene McCarthy's report – that Parliament feels that cases can no longer be considered in terms of economic factors alone. Instead, we want to see clearer, more reliable data backing up claims in future.

Among the main advantages of this new, revised directive are the fact that the public procurement process will now be more transparent for bidders, who will also have better opportunities for legal redress if they are not happy with an award decision. Given that 16% of total internal market GDP falls under public procurement legislation, it will represent a great step forward if the authorities awarding the contracts really comply with the letter and spirit of the contract.

At the same time as making it clear that illegally awarded contracts are invalid, we also stressed that nepotism has no place in the European Union and that anyone who fails to follow the rules cannot expect their contracts to be upheld. I believe that this marks another major step towards creating a genuine single market.

  Evelyne Gebhardt , on behalf of the PSE Group. – (DE) Mr President, on behalf of my group I would like to start by making two important comments. Firstly I am very pleased that Mr Fruteau's excellent work has borne fruit. We should be very grateful that we have him.

Secondly, I would like to express my sadness that Mr Fruteau's election to the French Parliament means that we will be losing a valuable fellow Member. Mr Fruteau, I am sorry that you will soon be leaving our ranks. It is always sad when we lose talented MEPs.

Perhaps I should begin by responding to Mr Mayer's comments on the hotly-debated standstill period. The Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection and Mr Fruteau have both sought to establish simple rules. There was just one small difference: you wanted 14 days, and Mr Fruteau favoured 12. But those two days were not the real problem. The problem was that the Council really did not want a simple solution, so we were banging our heads against a brick wall. We in the Committee on Internal Market would also have liked a simpler solution than that which is being put forward.

When the directive is transposed, I do not want to hear ministers from any Member State saying that it is too bureaucratic and blaming Brussels. It is the ministers themselves who are responsible: Brussels and Strasbourg wanted something very different. The ministers should take responsibility for their decision.

My second point relates to the very heated discussion between Parliament and the Council of Ministers on the scope of exemptions, and how far we could extend the potential for exemptions in the name of public interest. We in Parliament have a more rigorous view on this than the Council, because this directive is clearly intended to improve the effectiveness of the public procurement review procedure, notably in those cases which already run counter to existing laws. So it is not a case of changing the Member States' directives on public procurement, but rather a question of deciding what sanctions could be applied in this area. We should not confuse the two. Today's plenary discussion has not made that mistake, but it does occasionally creep into the public debate. We should re-emphasise the fact that we are trying to define sanctions for when contracts are awarded illegally. Reality justifies this strict approach.

  Alexander Lambsdorff, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I too would like to take this opportunity to thank the rapporteur for his work. I also wish him all the very best in his future work in the French Assemblée Nationale. I know you had to produce this report in the midst of the electoral campaign, which was no mean feat. So thank you very much.

I am particularly pleased that Parliament and the Council were able to agree on the key elements during the trilogue. It is important that we establish the same binding conditions in all Member States of the European Union. I would like to pick up on a few points that I consider particularly important.

The first point has already been addressed: the length of the standstill period before contracts are concluded. I am glad to hear that there is agreement, but I do think that the ten-day period with an additional five days for postage is pretty short. I would also have liked companies to have been given more time to review the award decision. Companies that do not have a legal department – which are mostly small and medium-sized companies – always find it very difficult and time-consuming to examine a decision to award a contract. I fully agree with Mrs Gebhardt: this is the Council's doing, not Parliament's.

Secondly, I am very pleased that we have agreed to introduce a declaration of ineffectiveness to penalise illegal direct contracts. What is particularly important here is that exemptions on the grounds of public interest should only be authorised for very specific reasons. For example, exemptions justified by public interest are usually only valid if the reasons go beyond purely economic interests. If a Member State chooses to cite economic grounds, the Commission has to be notified. Some Member States are concerned that this will lay the foundations for future infringement proceedings, but it will have quite the opposite effect. As the Council has always emphasised, exemptions are only granted in exceptional circumstances, in which the economic considerations for both contracting parties are so great that it is reasonable to waive the ineffectiveness penalty. Notification is only required in these rare cases. The Member States should be expected to comply with these rules so that the Commission can ensure a uniform application of the directive's provisions throughout the European Union.

Better legislation also entails uniform implementation, and ensuring that the Commission has a clear view of whether this is really happening. This is one of the principles of fairness and is essential for improving the functioning of the internal market.

Before I finish, I would like to thank Mr Fruteau, Mrs Rühle, Mr Schwab and Mr Zillmann again. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the group's assistants and the MEPs who have worked so hard to produce a solid text. I would however be grateful if, in future, this kind of debate could be held in Brussels rather than in Strasbourg.

  Heide Rühle, on behalf of Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too would like to thank the rapporteur. After all, he is responsible for our being able to approve a directive on first reading, a directive that seeks to improve legal certainty in the area of public procurement. This will benefit local authorities and private contractors alike. We hope that it will benefit small companies in particular, as they cannot afford big legal departments.

We particularly welcome the fact that the rapporteur insisted from the outset that the directive should be strictly limited to EU directives, with no extended scope. In order to allow all bidders to examine the contract award, a standstill period of at least 10 days has been included. I should say that I too would have preferred a longer period, but my priority was reaching a compromise in the first reading so as to increase legal certainty. Member States do have the option, however, to extend the period if they so wish.

Contracts that are concluded illegally during the standstill period shall be declared ineffective unless there are overriding reasons relating to a non-economic public interest. Ineffectiveness will be determined by an independent court. This was another of our priorities, and we fully supported the rapporteur on this point.

The public contracting body's duty of information has been clearly defined in order to increase transparency in public procurement and to reduce the risk of illegal practices and corruption. On balance, we have found a good and viable compromise that will improve legislation in Europe. Our group will therefore be supporting the report in its entirety.

  Eva-Britt Svensson, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (SV) Mr President, I do not intend to devote my speaking time to going into details, but shall instead focus on more overarching aspects of procurement generally. I also wish to state that our group, the Confederal Group of the European United Left/Nordic Green Left will vote in favour of the report as a whole. I also wish, of course, to thank the rapporteur and the shadow rapporteur for the fact that we have now obtained a better report.

I have a very great deal of respect for the rapporteur and the shadow rapporteur, who have elucidated all the legal concepts that people are required to understand if they are to familiarise themselves with these regulations. As an elected representative, I must in any case acknowledge for my own part that it is sometimes hard, if not impossible, to find one’s way through the legal text. Our political decisions in this House need to be crystal-clear and comprehensible in every respect to those who have to assume political responsibility for the decisions.

I also find it difficult to understand why political decisions actually have to be taken on this issue. Matters should operate in such a way that we elected parliamentary representatives decide what it is we want to achieve through our political decisions. It is then the task of the legal experts to assume responsibility for designing the legal rules and to do so in accordance with what was specified in the political decision and with what we are aiming to achieve through our decisions.

We are no doubt all agreed that procurement rules should be fair and should guarantee equal treatment. In the proposal for a directive, the justification talks, for example, about its being particularly important for small economies and small companies that there be an efficient, competitive and properly functioning public procurement market. That is certainly true, but I wonder how many small companies really have the ability to assimilate all the legal wording. They need, of course, to be quite certain that they understand the regulations fully so as not subsequently to be exposed to accusations and to be held responsible for incorrect procurement.

I also think that, in the future, we need to reflect more on the fact that procurement is not only about finance. Rather, we must have a form of procurement that can also take account of the fact that we are reducing the amount of transportation and the harmful effects on the climate that we do in fact have when we have public procurement involving 27 Member States.

  Marc Tarabella (PSE). – (FR) Mr President, I apologise for interrupting the debate on the basis of Rule 145 of our Rules of Procedure, but I wanted to point out the presence in the gallery of a delegation of around forty Belgian members of parliament from the Walloon region: they are accompanying young people who are visiting the European institutions, today here in Strasbourg and tomorrow in Brussels. This group is led by the President of the Walloon Parliament, Mr José Happart, who was an MEP from 1984 to 1999. I am speaking on behalf of all my colleagues who are Walloon members of parliament from the four groups that are represented in the Walloon Parliament. Thank you and I apologise once again for interrupting the debate.

(Applause)

  Petre Popeangă, în numele grupului ITS. – Desigur, orice iniţiativă care are drept scop îmbunătăţirea activităţilor comunitare, în special a celor din domeniul economic, este benefică realizării obiectivelor Uniunii, cu deosebire a celui mai important dintre acestea - promovarea progresului economic şi social.

În acest context general, iniţiativele care au ca obiectiv îmbunătăţirea modului de derulare a uneia dintre activităţile economice importante, cea a achiziţiilor publice, nu poate fi decât una salutară. De aceea, demersul Parlamentului şi al Consiliului de a propune adoptarea acestei directive este pe deplin justificat, deoarece a rezultat dintr-o necesitate reală: aceea că actualele norme nu creează cadrul legal suficient care să permită promovarea în condiţii de eficienţă a recursului în cazurile de nerespectare a prevederilor comunitare în materie de achiziţii publice. La această concluzie s-a ajuns şi în urma consultării unor operatori economici din mai multe state membre, care, cu această ocazie, au confirmat faptul că actualele proceduri naţionale de recurs nu permit întotdeauna o corecţie suficientă a cazurilor de nerespectare a prevederilor comunitare în materie.

Prin textul final al directivei, majoritatea acestor lacune sunt corectate, iar aplicarea acesteia va avea efecte benefice în toate situaţiile, dar mai ales în cazurile de atribuire, prin înţelegerea părţilor, a contractelor de achiziţii, practică ilegală, care se înregistrează în mai toate statele Uniunii, dar pentru a cărei stopare, până în prezent, nu au fost adoptate soluţii eficiente. Efecte benefice se vor înregistra şi în ţările nou-aderate precum România, unde prevederile legale în materie sunt încă destul de permisive, situaţie care poate facilita atribuirea oneroasă a contractelor de achiziţii publice.

În concluzie, susţin şi voi vota pentru adoptarea proiectului de directivă.

  Malcolm Harbour (PPE-DE). – Mr President, as coordinator for my group, I want to join my colleagues in thanking Mr Fruteau for an extremely thorough and complex piece of work. When we started this, we did not expect that so much detailed work would be needed in the Council, and he has led that process very effectively, which I am sure will stand him in good stead when he goes to the French Parliament.

I have just a few observations about the importance of this directive, building on what a number of colleagues, including my fellow coordinator, Mrs Gebhardt, have said about the importance of the Commission carefully monitoring the transposition and implementation of this directive. It is, I think, unnecessarily complex, but that is what the Member States wanted.

Nevertheless, we have to ensure that companies are able to exercise their rights under the directive in a simple way, and those who consider that practices have been wrong are able to avail themselves of the declaration of ineffectiveness of the contract. As the directive points out, this is by far the most effective remedy, and that is what will sustain competition in public procurement.

As they do characteristically, the Member States have also carved out for themselves the possibility, under certainly carefully defined circumstances, not to apply the suspension procedures. However, it is extremely important that the Member States use this right very sparingly and, therefore, I ask the Commission to ensure that it is properly monitored.

The other point on which I particularly want to thank Mr Fruteau for his cooperation concerns framework contracts, which constitute a new element brought in by the reform of the directives undertaken by this committee in 2003. These framework contracts do not need the full weight of some of these suspensive procedures in the award of contracts, as a result of a framework, to smaller businesses which are effectively pre-approved to be able to benefit from these contracts. We have reached the right balance here and I thank the rapporteur very much for that.

Overall, this is a worthwhile reform, but it will need continual vigilance by the Commission, with support from the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, to ensure that it is really effective.

  Jacques Toubon (PPE-DE). – (FR) Mr President, we are dealing with a text which, from a technical and legal point of view, is of great practical importance, because it is actually about preserving the possibilities for recourse for candidates for public contracts by establishing a period suspending the awarding of the contract, in other words a period between the contract being awarded and the contract being signed, in order to enable unsuccessful candidates to lodge an appeal, in the knowledge that it is much better to try to object to a contract being signed than to win damages once the contract had been signed. This proposal also establishes effective measures for combating the illegal direct awarding of contracts.

The discussion with the Council was based on the excellent report by Mr Fruteau, mainly on the issue of penalties to void contracts that have been awarded in violation of the standstill period, which we achieved at the end of the trilogue. The Member States therefore have the opportunity to establish substitution penalties for violations of the standstill period, and this proposal has our support. It is a good compromise. The ineffectiveness penalty for violations and the possibility of applying other penalties, and therefore of leaving some room to manoeuvre for the national courts in the event of violation of the standstill period, is a good formula, and we approve it.

  Meglena Kuneva, Member of the Commission. Mr President, I have listened carefully to the discussion on the proposal for a directive on the review of the Remedies Directives in the area of public procurement and I would like to thank Members sincerely for all their comments.

In closing, let me stress a few key points. First, we cannot establish a truly open and competitive market for public procurement without effective remedies for businesses seeking redress. Second, this is crucial to making sure that public contracts ultimately go to the company which has made the best offer. Third, we really need to further reassure businesses, public administration and citizens that public procurement procedures are fair.

Later today, Parliament has the opportunity to endorse a proposal which reflects the views it has already expressed in the report by its lead committee. On behalf of Commissioner McCreevy, I would again like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Fruteau, and Parliament for the importance they have attached to the subject and to stress that Parliament’s vote is a historic occasion to contribute to fair and more competitive public procurement in Europe.

  President. The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Wednesday from 12 noon.

  President. The next item is the report (A6-0191/2007) by Mrs Roithová on behalf of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection on consumer confidence in the digital environment (2006/2048(INI)).

  Zuzana Roithová (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – (CS) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am delighted that, after a year’s work, I and the shadow rapporteurs can now present to you the complete report on consumer confidence in the digital environment.

With this report Parliament is sending out a strong political plea to the Commission and the Member States to update the conditions for online business and to take steps to enhance consumer confidence as regards the most recent trends in the digital environment. Businesses and consumers are waiting for unequivocal, simple, enforceable rules that will enhance online business culture in the European market. The report is merely the start of the whole process. I am aware that implementing it would involve a considerable amount of work for the Commission, which is already limited in terms of financial and human resources

Public hearings and studies have revealed some telling facts, to which we cannot turn a blind eye. Just 6% of consumers buy online from suppliers in other Member States. One third do not receive the goods or services they order on account of their nationality, their country of residence or the country in which their payment card was issued. Some modern electronic services providing digital content are only available to customers in the old EU-15.

Users are bound by any number of digital contracts that they have simply clicked on and have not read. They are therefore unaware that these contracts may contain a number of unfair and misleading contractual arrangements. We have discovered that not even legal experts are capable of deciphering the exact content of digital contracts, for example, licensing arrangements with the end user. Small businesses are unaware of their obligations in e-commerce and have difficulty in making their way around 27 different legal systems. Consumers do not know their Internet rights, and indeed, there is no document summarising these rights. Users are not sure what they can and cannot do with the digital content they have purchased. They are afraid of resolving claims in another country and do not know about counterfeit medicines sold on the Internet. We therefore propose the following: a worldwide campaign to be launched by the Commission to highlight the dangers of counterfeit medicines; the creation of a Europe-wide early-warning system to combat fraudulent activities on the Internet; and an extension to the scope of contracts on which bans are to be imposed due to unfair contractual arrangements.

The principle of the single market is less restriction and more opportunity. Paradoxically, however, it is as though this principle did not apply to the electronic environment, despite the cross-border opportunities. I would venture to say that 27 separate national markets are hampering the development of the information society in Europe, which lags behind that of the USA and Asia.

If we are to demolish the artificial or natural obstacles to e-commerce we will have to overcome the fragmented rules of the Member States. This will be possible in the long term if the political will is there to achieve complete harmonisation. Such a dynamic sector, however, calls for a quicker and more flexible solution. This is why in the report I opted for coordinated work on voluntary standards, or rather super-standards, for example an optional standardised contract geared towards cross-border e-commerce. The content must be agreed upon by business and consumer organisations, in which the Commission will have a vital role to play in terms of coordination. Holders of the European trustmark for cross-border e-commerce must adhere to these standards. Consumer organisations welcome the implementation of the trustmark and are committed to revealing and disclosing any misuse, with the help of existing technical and legal resources.

We also call for the formulation of a European Charter of Users’ Rights in the information society. The European Parliament is one of the first parliaments in the world seeking to clarify consumer Internet rights. If the Charter is widely accessible and available in all official languages, consumers will begin to demand their rights and businesses will begin to uphold the Charter and not to risk having to spend money on resolving disputes.

I feel that the report will act as an inspiration for improving standards in the digital environment.

I should now like to thank the shadow rapporteurs for their outstanding help: Mrs Herczog, Mrs Rühle, Mr Schmidt and Mrs Jäätteenmäki and the assistants, in particular Mr Jirsa for his invaluable expert advice. I also appreciate the support of the coordinators, the chairman and the secretariat of the committee and the services. I was delighted with the constructive communication from consumer organisations, businesses and individual members of the Commission staff. I should in particular like to commend Mrs Kuneva on her obliging and very open attitude. She has embarked on her new post in the Commission in an outstanding fashion. I believe that we will be able to overcome any difficulties that may arise when our proposals on increasing confidence in the European digital environment are put into practice.

  Meglena Kuneva, Member of the Commission. Mr President, I am really very pleased to be here today to discuss with you this very important topic of how we can improve consumer confidence in the digital environment.

I would like to start my speech by thanking Mrs Roithová and all the shadow rapporteurs for their excellent and very close cooperation – and this is not just a matter of courtesy, but a sincere recognition of very hard work.

I am glad that the Commission and the European Parliament agree on a common line in approaching this very important and challenging issue. This is clearly an important and ambitious report, and I think we all broadly share the same objectives and analyses of the problems.

The digital economy – and more specifically e-commerce – has great potential to improve consumer welfare by making a greater range of products available, boosting price competition and developing new markets. It is also central to completing the retail side of the internal market. At present, retail markets are still fragmented along national lines into mini-markets, as Mrs Roithová indicated. This makes no sense in the age of e-commerce and the internet. E-commerce is changing the face of retail, but only at national level. The internet is borderless but consumers, businesses and regulators are not. Fifty per cent of European consumers who have a computer at home have made an e-commerce purchase in the previous 12 months, but only 12% of those with a computer at home bought cross-border. This indicates the need for action to increase consumer confidence on the retail side of the internal market and the necessity to solve the fragmentation of the market to achieve finally a citizens’ market.

As you know, since the beginning of the year we have launched two major initiatives for consumers: the consumer policy strategy and the consultation on the review of existing consumer protection legislation. Our objective as a Commission is to help the EU rise to the challenges of growth and jobs and reconnecting with its citizens. This objective will be met if, by 2013, we can credibly demonstrate to all citizens that they can shop from anywhere in the EU – from corner shop to website – confident that they are equally and effectively protected.

The need to improve consumer confidence in the digital economy runs through every aspect of this strategy. Mrs Roithová’s report shows that the obstacles – including regulatory obstacles – are numerous. My predecessors made progress in tackling some of them with the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive and the Regulation on Consumer Protection Cooperation, which established the European Consumer Centre (ECC) network. My priority now is to tackle the remaining obstacles, with the reform of existing consumer protection legislation related to consumer contracts.

As you know, we have initiated a broad consultation on the future of consumer protection, and we have started to analyse reactions from the stakeholders. We are looking forward to Mrs Petre’s report after the summer. Your views and your support will be an important reference for our follow-up work and for specific proposals. The Commission’s follow-up to the review of the acquis is a basis on which build consumer trust. The development of standardised consumer contracts may be something to investigate further once this solid base is established.

One of the aims of this exercise is to reduce the regulatory fragmentation of the internal market by targeted harmonisation of issues that cause particular problems for consumers and businesses. We will, inter alia, consider whether standards and standardisation can play a role in this process.

Similarly for self-regulation. The Commission has done some important work to establish a best practice model for self- and co-regulation, and we will continue to do so in the future. I share your concerns about the interplay of different legislation governing online transactions or digital goods. There are many precise laws, and consumers and businesses may not be sufficiently aware of their rights and duties in the digital environment. I will examine how best to clarify these issues with my colleagues, Mrs Reding and Mr McCreevy.

Thanks to your input, we will explore the idea of a practical guide which would cover information society services and help citizens to understand their rights better. I would also like to thank you for insisting on the importance of enforcement – I fully agree with you. Quality legislation is not enough if it is not backed up by effective enforcement. We have set up a network of national enforcers in the European Union and we will now gradually enlarge the network to third country partners in order to enhance its efficiency.

In conclusion, I would like to thank you for your commitment to helping European citizens to enjoy all the benefits of the internal market and the digital economy. I look forward to working with you to fulfil our common goals and to achieve a citizens’ internal market.

  David Hammerstein (Verts/ALE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy. – (ES) Mr President, I would like to thank Mrs Roithová for such a wonderful report.

Consumer confidence in the digital environment largely depends on our ability to provide consumers with protection and clarity within that environment.

We must bear in mind that SMEs are also consumers, and the European Union must promote the use of these new technologies and encourage SMEs to participate in on-line markets. At the same time, we must promote consumer confidence on these platforms by ensuring that transactions are transparent and fair.

Consumers must be aware of their obligations and rights in the digital world. For some products, such as MP3 players, DVD players and computer game consoles, the consumer is obliged to accept very strict conditions in the small print, and in some cases this verges on the illegal and violates the right to privacy.

At the same time, the producers of these devices are expanding the use of digital rights management systems in order to prevent unauthorised copies. This creates fear, and that can undermine consumer confidence. In order to resolve the problem of interoperability, open standards are required that create a safer, more open and more trustworthy environment.

Software patents are also a serious threat for software developers in SMEs, who cannot afford the legal costs. Fear in this environment is not compatible with confidence either amongst SMEs or amongst consumers.

Digital platforms can only provide growth and development if they are based on open and interoperable standards. Standards can contribute to less fragmentation of markets and the use of open-source software can also make a considerable contribution to promoting on-line security.

Improving the security and confidence of consumers depends upon certain key elements: legislation, mechanisms for strengthening and creating regulatory instruments such as codes of conduct and confidence marks.

  Malcolm Harbour, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – Mr President, it gives me great pleasure to welcome this report and to thank my colleague, Mrs Roithová, for her outstanding work, and the shadow rapporteurs, who are here as well. It has been a very good team effort. I also want to thank Mrs Kuneva for her very positive response.

This report shows the value that a parliamentary committee can bring to a complex issue, particularly one that cuts across so many policy areas. The special message I want to put to the Commissioner is that I hope she will take this forward and become the champion of consumers in the e-world and in e-commerce, because, as she said, it is not just her services that have a share in this – it is also those of Mrs Reding and of Mr McCreevy, and, indeed, of Mr Frattini and of Mr Verheugen, in his role as champion of enterprise, in particular small enterprise. As far as Mr Frattini is concerned, I want to emphasise again the concern that many of us feel about the proposed reform of the Rome I Regulation in particular, which is in serious danger of undermining the provisions for small businesses to be active in the world of e-commerce. There are also important data protection provisions that consumers feel concerned about in terms of giving up their data and going online, which also come under his area. Therefore, I think it needs that coordinated approach.

I also want to pick up on what Mr Hammerstein-Mintz said, that small enterprises are the ones we need to look at in particular. Large enterprises can build complex websites in different languages, based in different countries, but we want to allow small enterprises with an innovative and exciting product and service based in one EU country to be able to access that EU market freely and simply, to take real advantage of the powers that e-commerce offers them. We have to be very careful that we design the regime in such a way as to ensure that we do not discourage them from doing that, because we want not only consumers to go online but also businesses to put their products online, and to make the two work together, because that is what we have the opportunity to do in our dynamic e-commerce market as it moves forward from here.

  Edit Herczog, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (HU) I would like to thank the rapporteur for her work over the last eighteen months, during which she has demonstrated considerable openness and willingness to compromise. Not the least, I would like to thank the Commissioner for her openness as we have been working together in this area ever since she was elected to this position.

The result of this work is a report whose ambitious political messages have not, contrary to what usually happens, been diluted by the numerous compromises made. If anything, they have been reinforced by them. This is exactly what we need; after all, it is how Europe’s society and economy are gearing up for the digital age which is at stake. What is required here is for increasingly wider sections of European society to have access to information technologies. We must therefore emphasise, at any rate, as a footnote to this report the importance of e-inclusion, in other words, how important it is that the inhabitants of rural areas, those with disabilities, the older generations and those on the lowest incomes can be included in Europe’s vibrant digital society.

There is no question that the future belongs to the information society and knowledge-based economy. As we have already realised, we also have to accept that business, the goods and services market along with consumption itself are becoming knowledge-based and digital. However, consumers are still consumers even on the Internet, with rights and obligations. They need to know, above all, what exactly they are facing: brochures, free newspapers, products or even services.

Equipped with this knowledge, they need to behave just as discerningly as if they were in a conventional library, bank, travel agents or store. They need to know what they can and cannot do. In return for their compliance, they can then enjoy the protection afforded to law-abiding consumers in the traditional market too. However, there are numerous aspects of the digital environment which are fuelling the lack of consumer confidence. The easy, rapid flow of information, the frequent lack of information for consumers and the quick and extensive spread of illegal behaviour are just some of the many reasons why anyone using the Internet can cross the boundary of law-abiding consumer activity, even acting in good faith. It is our political responsibility as politicians to devise those tools for Europe’s digital environment, which will allow our Internet users to remain law-abiding consumers.

On behalf of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, I can say that we will support the idea of a digital consumers charter in the longer term, which will provide every single consumer with clear, comprehensible information about what they should do in particular situations when using the Internet. Parliament is also aware that the dynamic development of the digital environment and the ongoing monitoring of consumer protection legislation will have a major impact on the content of any future charter. However, consumers also need information until then, which is why we are asking the Commission, even in current circumstances and based on current legislation, to provide some guidance as to what rights and protection e-consumers have.

With this in mind, we are proposing that a network of consumer protection centres should be set up, based on the model of the SOLVIT system and Dolceta website. In other words, a European e-consumer information and support portal, which can help Europe's online consumers by offering advice, answers and solutions. Similarly, we support clarification of the legislation governing the use and protection of digital content. After all, the interoperability between the tools and content, on the one hand, and online management of rights, on the other, are two important principles.

Finally, I would like to draw the attention of consumers and industry to the fact that this is something in their joint interest. Based on the model of traditional markets, the digital market too depends on law-abiding behaviour. There are currently a large number of committees involved in this area. We would therefore like the Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection, which is linked to consumers and is the most responsive, to coordinate within the Commission the further efforts in this area.

IN THE CHAIR: MR MAURO
Vice-President

  Olle Schmidt, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (SV) Commissioner, Mr President, few could have imagined how the Internet would fundamentally change the world, both politically and economically. In spite of attempts by totalitarian regimes to limit the flow of information, the Internet is winning millions of new users. The way in which we use the Internet is also rapidly being transformed from the passive acquisition of information to an interactive approach. We buy and sell goods and services on it, and we chat and meet each other there. We have even acquired another life on the Internet, a virtual reality that, for some people, becomes more important than reality itself.

There are statistics showing a 21% annual increase in Internet commerce, and even though cross-border shopping within the EU is not extensive, there is a lot to indicate that it will increase. More than half of European households own a computer – an increase of approximately 4% in one year. Forty-two per cent of all households are on the Internet, and here too the increase is one of 4% in one year. In my own country, a good 75% of the population have an Internet connection at home. It is nonetheless gratifying that the biggest increase is taking place in the new Member States.

As many of my fellow Members have pointed out in this House, the number of frauds and other acts of deception is increasing concurrently with this development. In the light of this, Mrs Roithová’s report is an important step towards improving consumers’ faith in the digital market. We know that, in parallel with Parliament’s work, the Commission reviews the whole of the EU’s consumer legislation.

Paragraph 19 of the report proposes what it calls a European trust mark. That is obviously a good idea, but I can see certain problems. Firstly, the costs of keeping such a quality mark updated may prove to be considerable. The Commission has itself calculated the costs at EUR 1 million per country per year, which is a considerable sum of money. Secondly, there is a danger of the trust mark being stolen, misused or falsified.

Another important point is the setting up of an EU charter of users’ rights and obligations in the information society. This is not a new issue and is obviously an important area for the Commission, as the Commissioner also pointed out in connection with the ongoing review. I believe that the wordings proposed in the amendments better take account of the complexity and speed of the changes in the digital environment.

It perhaps does not even need to be said, but the digital environment obviously needs an efficient framework in the form of rules and legislation. All actors who make use of the Internet need to be aware of their rights and obligations. We need informed and educated consumers. We need not only vendors and entrepreneurs with a sense of responsibility but also bold innovators who envisage new possibilities and new jobs. We of course also need laws that operate in a changing environment.

The Commission has to balance all these interests with a view to an EU that is better able to become more competitive and to comply with the requirements of the Lisbon Strategy.

Last of all, I should like to point out that we must never forget that it is freedom and free access to information that has formed the basis for the huge success of the Internet.

  Mieczysław Edmund Janowski, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (PL) Mr President, I should like to thank Mrs Roithová for tackling such an important issue. We should remember that work on developing the Internet began barely 40 years ago, yet we can now speak of an Internet revolution.

This extraordinary instrument opens up tremendous opportunities in many areas. It also presents us with many challenges. It may be used for laudable purposes but may unfortunately also be exploited for criminal activities. The same is true of many other instruments used by men and women as they develop civilisations.

The use of digital technology in electronic commerce for the purchase of goods and services ought to be seen in this context. As stated in the report, the legal and technical solutions applied should comply with a range of criteria. I would like to make a few remarks in this regard.

Firstly, access to the Internet retail market should be far more widespread. This is linked to more generalised access to broadband Internet, a matter that has been repeatedly mentioned in the House. At present only around 25% of households in the European Union have a broadband connection, and therefore enjoy a high quality connection.

Secondly, the purchaser needs to be certain that making purchases in this way is secure, both as regards the transaction itself and in terms of the relevant guarantee for the goods and services purchased, regardless of borders.

Thirdly, the fact that the transactions are often anonymous cannot be allowed to facilitate criminal activity in any way. I have in mind piracy of films or musical works that are protected intellectual property. It is therefore essential to clarify the expression 'for personal use only'.

Fourthly, other activities conducted through the Internet, such as the purchase of paedophile or pornographic material and the propagation of prostitution call for specific action by the police and prosecuting authorities. This is weighing on our consciences.

Fifthly, payments over the Internet must be undertaken in a way that ensures full security for both parties. Sixthly, advertisements for goods or services that can be purchased electronically must allow potential purchasers to verify the information put out.

My seventh remark is that the security of bank transactions undertaken by electronic means needs to be drastically improved. My eighth remark is to point out the importance of using digital means to provide certain medical services, diagnosis, and monitoring at a distance, notably in more remote areas.

My penultimate point relates to the importance of distance education. Finally, we would do well to remember that the disabled in particular benefit greatly from the opportunity to use digital platforms as consumers.

In conclusion, I should like to emphasise that high quality, honesty, transparency and flexibility must be essential features of the soundly based market in digital services open to competition that we wish to create.

  Heide Rühle, on behalf of Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, my special thanks go to the rapporteur. Through her efforts we have an excellent own-initiative report to approve today. I hope and am confident that the Commission will take the report's recommendations and conclusions on board when reviewing European consumer rights.

Our group supports your report, Mrs Roithovà, and most of your compromise amendments. However, we do regret your decision to water down your proposal on the subject of the European trustmark. We will therefore not be voting for Amendment 4 and we will also be rejecting the Liberals' amendments.

Intellectual property rights cannot be allowed to erode consumer rights. Consumers need clear information about their legal position when dealing with digital content and digital rights management. They are entitled to interoperable solutions.

The report addresses important issues, calling for a European charter of user rights, the creation of a European early warning system and a database for combating Internet fraud, the inclusion of an external audit obligation for specific electronic services such as online banking, and standardising European provisions for cross-border electronic invoices. It also calls for a coordinated global approach for the digital environment, including an analysis of external factors such as privacy protection, citizens' access to information technologies and Internet security.

The report also calls on the Commission to examine measures to deal with class actions in the case of cross-border digital environment disputes between businesses and consumers. We will be supporting the report and hope that it will be adopted in the plenary.

  Nils Lundgren, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – (SV) Mr President, trade and the exchange of goods, services and capital are the very bases of economic prosperity. Therefore, any technology that reduces the transaction costs for commerce is also fundamental to increased prosperity. With the world becoming more interconnected with the help of modern communications, safe and quick methods of payment and the removal of a good deal of protectionism, ever more countries around the world are now being drawn into global trade. In the long run, this is to the advantage of everyone on earth. It is therefore the EU’s most important task to do everything it can to facilitate trade, firstly within the EU area and secondly between the EU area and the rest of the world.

The EU is very successful at facilitating trade within the EU area and has made a considerable contribution to the EU countries’ economic development. The big exception is agriculture, in which precisely no liberalisation has taken place and in which there are, then, major gains in prosperity still to be brought about.

When it comes to trade between the EU area and the rest of the world, matters look nothing like so good. EU protectionism in respect of the surrounding world is extensive and embraces not only the agricultural sphere but also labour-intensive industrial products. The economic costs for the poor countries of the world and for EU consumers are very great. It is, therefore, above all in these areas that we wish to invest our political resources in order to design an EU policy for increased trade and increased prosperity.

EU trade is at present a phenomenon of limited scope, but I dare say we all believe that it is a form of trade with a great future. Mrs Roithová is therefore discussing an area that will prove to be very important in the future, but the question is that of what the EU’s role might be in this area at this stage in the development of e-commerce.

Mrs Roithová and the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy maintain that consumers do not dare to make cross-border purchases via the Internet within the EU because of poor legal certainty. Perhaps that is so, but do we know it for a fact? Every new area and every new problem that is identified are presented in this House as evidence that the EU needs to intervene. The tiresome phrase ‘this shows that the EU is needed’ is repeated like a mantra. In any socio-economic analysis of such problems, however, the attempt is first made to establish what the market failures are, whether they can be corrected through political measures and, if so, what these measures might be, and at which political level they should be resorted to.

In this House, the very point of departure is, more often than not, that the failures can and should be remedied at EU level. Every problem that is identified is taken as a pretext for advancing the EU’s strategic positions at the expense of the Member States or of international bodies that are more global in scope. Constantly, man merkt die Absicht [‘the intention is noted’].

E-commerce is still in its infancy, and we do not know what is slowing down its growth, in which areas it will flourish and what forms it will then take. I would therefore advise the House to oppose all these proposals concerning EU-directed and EU-sponsored grant programmes and education and information campaigns and to wait before calling for charters of rights, dispute resolution mechanisms and harmonisation of contract law at EU level, and I advise it to say no to a logo for a European trustmark in this area.

Those countries and regions that are creative and that are pioneers in various areas are those that offer entrepreneurs the freedom to feel their way towards solutions that politicians or officials cannot normally foresee. Where e-commerce is concerned, we shall find that there are very strong incentives for companies to create security for consumers. Such security will therefore be brought about by the financial market with the help of new insurance services and through the development of trademarks by producers themselves.

  Milan Gaľa (PPE-DE). – (SK) Allow me to thank Mrs Roithová for this report. It is responding to a dynamically developing digital environment. This is an area of everyday life for all of us, whether we are consumers or business people. New technologies offer huge opportunities to make full use of the internal market. Statistics, however, show that only 6% of European consumers participate in on-line transactions, and 33% experience problems, because their country of residence is different to that of the sellers of the goods.

According to the Eurobarometer survey, 48% of merchants in the European Union are ready to sell across borders, but only 29% of companies are actually involved in cross-border transactions with at least one other country of the European Union. And yet 57% retailers in European Union sell via the Internet. The largest barriers to cross-border transactions include the uncertainty of transactions, different accounting rules, difficulties in the resolution of complaints and disputes, differences in national legislation on consumer protection, problems in provision of after-sales services, extra costs arising due to cross-border delivery, and the cost of translations.

The use of the on-line environment is more complicated than the off-line environment due to its many barriers. Because of this, I consider important the proposal to elaborate a strategy to build consumer confidence. It should be an attempt to respond and to implement steps for making Internet transactions more attractive, thus bringing an end to the fragmentation of the internal market in the digital environment. This should lead to improvements in access to goods and services offered on-line in other Member States.

  Evelyne Gebhardt (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, Mrs Roithová, many thanks for your excellent report. My thanks also go to the shadow rapporteur Mrs Herczog, who was responsible for working on the report within my group.

This is a subject of particular importance to our citizens. It was very good to hear that Commissioner Kuneva will be taking action in this area. That is essential, and we can only support her efforts. We will be behind the Commissioner one hundred per cent.

Our citizens have a whole range of problems in the digital environment. Goods do not arrive, or they arrive late. They may want to order a product in another country, but find themselves unable to do so because the company says that they are resident in the wrong country. Or they place an order and suddenly find themselves landed with a subscription. These are the problems that our citizens encounter. Of course, within the European Union there is already some very positive regulation within this area, but it is very disjointed. It is vital that we create positive legislation for this area that meets the expectations of our citizens and, more importantly, of consumers.

We want the citizens to enjoy the benefits of the single market in this arena. However, they can only benefit if we provide them with legal certainty, if they understand the basis on which they can do business, if they know that when they have a problem with a company they will be able to seek redress – and not have to wait 12 or 15 years for a result. They will also benefit from a more open market if they are able to compare prices and access more information. As you can see, there is still a lot to do in this area.

The citizens are expecting not only that we regulate the internal market, not only that we establish constructive and simpler rules for businesses, thereby ensuring that companies are free to move within the European Union. Our citizens also expect a Europe that works for them, in which policies are not just designed to encourage the economy, with the citizens merely expected to contribute to that economy. Instead, consumer protection should also determine policy, particularly in the digital arena. It must be clear that we are making policy for consumers, and that the economy serves the consumers. If this happens, Commissioner Kuneva – and I know this is your intention – then we will achieve our objective, namely a Europe for the citizens; a Europe in which they are free to make online purchases in another country without problems or obstacles, and in which they have rights, including the possibility of redress. You will certainly have the full backing of my group, Commissioner, and we will be very happy to work with you to achieve your aims.

  Marek Aleksander Czarnecki (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, the role of the on-line transactions market in the provision of products, services or information on these is now invaluable. Mrs Roithová rightly pointed out in her report, however, that the development and increased importance of that market is affected by its fragmentation across the various Member States of the European Union.

I agree that the aforementioned lack of harmonisation of provisions across the territory of the European Union and the lack of consumer confidence in transactions on the digital market may endanger the European Union's competitiveness on the world market especially as Europe is now lagging behind the United States and certain Asian countries.

Creating a European information system is certainly a good idea although it will require time and tremendous financial investment. It does appear, however, that such a proposal may increase the security of on-line transactions between entities in different countries. This is because it is precisely the diversity of provisions across Member States and the lack of access to them that enterprises cite as the main cause of the uncertainty about entering into transactions of this kind.

I believe that the situation in the new Member States where there is a shortage of financial resources for information campaigns on access to electronic services and their quality is also an urgent matter. The individual citizens of these countries often lack access to services of this nature, particularly in rural areas. The report rightly refers to discrimination against consumers in this group of countries regarding e-commerce. In my view, the Commission ought to deal with this situation as a matter of urgency, because all Union consumers are entitled to equal treatment.

  President. – Ladies and gentlemen, it gives me great pleasure to inform you that a delegation from the National Assembly of the Republic of Korea is present in the official gallery.

I warmly welcome the Korean delegation, which is here to take part in the tenth European Parliament-Korea Interparliamentary Meeting. Mr Lee Sang-Deuk is leading the Korean delegation, which is composed of six members of the National Assembly.

Our dialogue has developed greater depth and regularity in recent years. It has now become entirely political, covering a vast range of subjects from regional and international security to our citizens’ everyday concerns, alongside the increasingly active role of the European Union and South Korea in the international community.

We are delighted to have these fruitful, stable and ever-deepening cooperative relations with the Republic of Korea.

  President. – The debate continues on the report by Mrs Roithová on consumer confidence in the digital environment.

  Zita Pleštinská (PPE-DE). – (SK) First, I would like to praise the work of the rapporteur, Mrs Roithová, presenting us a very coherent and topical report on consumer confidence in the digital environment. Consumer confidence is an essential factor because despite the existence of the common market and the availability of information technology to consumers, the percentage of consumers purchasing products and services across borders is still very small.

The most frequently mentioned reasons include fears over possible problems with claims procedures, difficulties in settling disputes, and the cost of translations and cross-border delivery. By strengthening consumer confidence, we will definitely build the development potential not only of large corporations, but also of small and medium-sized businesses, which could expand their business using information technology to the whole internal market of the EU. Each consumer must know their rights. Only this will rid them of their distrust of Internet transactions.

The rapporteur proposes several measures for building consumer confidence. I hope we will integrate quite a few of these in the Commission’s current review of the consumer acquis. I support the idea of the rapporteur, that by drawing up a European charter of consumer rights and obligations and, more importantly, by promoting the latter, we could build the confidence of consumers in products and services offered on-line. Consumers hear far too often what they should not do on the Internet, but no specific list of the rights and obligations of on-line customers and merchants is available.

Unless consumers are aware of their rights, Europe will continue to lag behind America and Asia. The European Commission should swing into action and utilise the potential offered to us by the internal market. Commissioner, in conclusion I would like to express my delight that through you the European Commission had finally managed to attach the necessary emphasis to European consumer protection. Commissioner, I am looking forward to meeting you again and to our future cooperation.

  Gabriela Creţu (PSE). – Mr President, at first sight the digital environment looks like being a model of a world without boundaries, like a kind of theoretical perfect common market where everyone can provide goods, information services, communication and entertainment, and everyone is able to buy all these things. It is not true. We notice a strong fragmentation caused by the lack of trust on both sides – suppliers and consumers – but we have also noticed an unfounded economic protectionism that uses the same uncertainties as justification for excluding some possible stakeholders from the market.

Consumers, especially those from the small or new Member States, are still victims of a segregation based on nationality, place of residence or the place of origin of their credit cards. In my country, Romania, there are still major problems in this regard because of a bad reputation which has been artificially acquired and maintained, despite the fact that the report provided by the CyberSource Corporation did not include Romania among the countries with a high level of risk regarding electronic commerce.

It is not only true in our case. There are companies that are used to changing prices depending on the place of residence of the consumer, or totally forbidding access to their supply. This kind of commercial behaviour is hardly acceptable for consumers and small businesses. In order to avoid the feeling of being discriminated against, we need tangible, urgent measures: a database of those who are genuinely untrustworthy; European trust marks; common standards concerning contracts, terms and conditions; as well as stronger legal instruments and technical protection for those who use cyberspace.

Commissioner, we look forward to having a European charter of users’ rights and obligations in order to be able to support an inclusive society in a digital environment. I thank you all for the work you have done so far.

  Paul Rübig (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to congratulate Commissioner Kuneva and the rapporteur, because the digital environment is rapidly gaining in importance and we obviously need to ensure that it is affordable for European citizens. There is still a lot of work to be done.

Thankfully we have now nailed down the Regulation on roaming. As announced in the plenary on Monday, real competition is now beginning to develop in this sphere. Yesterday the front page headline of the Bild newspaper announced that the major mobile operators in Germany are already actively incorporating the Eurotariff into their charging structures. The same subject was covered by the ARD television channel yesterday and today. Changes are being set in motion. Particularly in the area of mobile telephones, we need greater transparency. Until now, users only found out at the end of the month what their data transfers had cost. For the first time, this Regulation has made it possible to reduce prices through greater transparency, and in so doing has made the mobile phone sector within the digital environment more forward-looking. That is vital.

In conjunction with the Regulation on roaming that is due to enter into force at the end of the month though, we will also need to establish international agreements so that reasonably priced phone calls and data transfers are not limited to the Europe of 27. Instead, we want to create a healthy international environment for competition and see international roaming become equally competitive.

I suspect that many consumers who sign new contracts will find that the tariff applies from the end of next week. That means that people on holiday or travelling for business will see the cheaper Eurotariff applied early. The competition will probably force prices down still further, making digital communication a key factor in Europe's competitive position.

  Maria Matsouka (PSE). – (EL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, today's debate is especially interesting and I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate the rapporteur on her worthwhile effort.

First of all, however, I should like to point out that the logical precondition to use of the digital environment is the development and dissemination of IT knowledge to all European citizens and cheap Internet access in all states without exception. The Internet is an excellent way for businesses and, more importantly, for consumers to make use of the single market. Moreover, the opening of the market through digital communication tools has been done with the objective of benefiting the citizens, who will have a broader choice of goods and services of a better standard and at competitive prices. However, these benefits are only available subject to certain preconditions. The European digital market is not strong or unified and the percentage of consumers, especially natural persons, engaging in e-commerce, especially cross-border e-commerce, is very small, due to the general insecurity which prevails. If, however, legal protection were strengthened at all three stages of the transaction, in other words before, during and after completion of the transaction, then we would be in a position to guarantee a secure environment, both for the citizens' transactions and their privacy.

The following could help to achieve this objective: timely and ongoing information for consumers about their rights and obligations, the incorporation of consumer policy into other Community policies, better control of the markets in order to avoid possible abuse on the part of stronger contracting parties, especially large companies, the possibility for collective claims for the effective restoration of possible losses and, finally, stronger independent consumer associations.

All this does, of course, presuppose certain political choices, especially on the part of the Member States and as long as there are areas or even countries in which actual access, on the one hand, and fast and cheap access to the Internet, on the other, are still unknown concepts, then I greatly fear that we shall come up against the digital divide and shall have to approach the digital environment theoretically.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (PSE). – Ansamblul instituţiilor publice reprezintă cel mai mare furnizor de servicii din Uniunea Europeană. Serviciile de guvernare electronică asigură transparenţă, acces facil la informaţii şi servicii publice şi conduce la importante economii de timp şi resurse financiare. Serviciile de guvernare electronică aduc instituţiile publice aproape de cei pe care acestea trebuie să-i servească. Serviciile de guvernare electronică cresc încrederea utilizatorilor în mediul digital şi se bazează pe aceasta, indiferent dacă vorbim de cetăţeni, de angajaţii instituţiilor publice sau de companii.

Cele douăzeci de servicii publice stabilite de Comisia Europeană în 2003, pentru a fi furnizate de statele membre şi prin mijloace electronice, trebuie să devină o realitate în toate statele membre până în 2010, indiferent dacă ne referim la un oraş mare sau la o comunitate mică. Servicii precum licitaţiile electronice, plata taxelor prin mijloace electronice, transpunerea de formulare către instituţiile publice, mai ales prin puncte unice de acces la nivel naţional, pentru autentificare şi acces la servicii integrate de guvernare electronică, contribuie la dezvoltarea societăţii informaţionale. România a început introducerea acestor servicii încă din 2001.

Infrastructura de chei publice, serviciile de semnătură electronică, protecţia datelor cu caracter personal sunt esenţiale pentru încrederea utilizatorilor în societatea informaţională. Deci se impun investiţii semnificative şi acordarea de prioritate pentru asigurarea securităţii mediului digital. De asemenea, este important ca în toate şcolile să existe calculatoare şi acestea să fie conectate la internet. Instruirea cetăţenilor şi mai ales sprijinirea lor în asigurarea securităţii calculatorului personal şi a conexiunii internet, aflată la domiciliul propriu, vor spori încrederea utilizatorilor în mediul digital.

  Meglena Kuneva, Member of the Commission. Mr President, we have heard some well-informed and very substantive contributions to this debate. I appreciate them and thank those who have taken the trouble to speak.

The importance of building trust and confidence should not be underestimated and I am very grateful for all the remarks to that effect. The digital environment is, in many ways, still new to many citizens. We need to continue efforts to create the necessary conditions for well-functioning markets and we need a simple and coherent legal framework, as well as the effective application of rules. The current review of consumer protection legislation should result in a single straightforward set of consumer protection rules, which will benefit consumers and businesses alike. We are at the beginning of this process and I will need your support and cooperation to make it a success. That is why I am very grateful to those of you who have already given such a boost to our joint efforts in this area.

The rapid development of new technologies also renders consumer relationships with product and service providers in the digital environment much more complex. We need to empower consumers. Only empowered consumers will be able to make real choices based on accurate information and be confident that they are effectively protected by solid rights.

Finally, we have to ensure effective application of the rules and place a strong emphasis on enforcement. Consumers can be confident only when they are able to effectively exercise their rights, when rogue traders are truly excluded from the markets and all those involved contribute to the application of consumer protection laws.

I think we agree on these elements, which are also stressed in your motion for a resolution. We will now carefully consider Parliament’s other recommendations and suggestions. However, as guardian of the Treaties, the Commission will do so by respecting the existing framework. I would like to thank you for the progress made towards enhancing consumer confidence in the digital environment. We need your input and continued cooperation to make the right choices on this ambitious journey.

I am very glad that we have made progress today and look forward to continuing and firm cooperation with Parliament. I listened carefully to all the remarks on strengthening the nature of this document, namely on having a charter, and I have already had thoughtful discussions with Mrs Roithová and many of you. We will continue to work on this area and to cooperate, and I believe that, after the necessary revision, especially in Mrs Reding’s area of responsibility, and in relation to consumer legislation, we will come up with a positive solution.

  Zuzana Roithová (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – (CS) Thank you for this very fruitful and positive debate. I should like to mention a parallel effect of this issue. It offers great potential insofar as it appeals to the European public, including the young generation, provided of course we are able to convey the practical meaning of the single online market, and perhaps this will in turn lead to people having greater confidence in the European institutions, which are doing such a good job of putting this into practice.

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place later today.

(The sitting was suspended at 11.40 a.m. and resumed at 12 noon.)

IN THE CHAIR: MR COCILOVO
Vice-President

  President. – The next item is the vote.

(For details of the outcome of the vote: see Minutes)

- Report: Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (A6-0210/2007)

- Before the vote on paragraph 38

  Paulo Casaca (PSE). – (PT) Mr President, I should like to table an amendment that has been agreed with our rapporteur, Mrs Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou. This amendment is intended to replace the current Amendment 38 with the following text:

‘Welcomes the Council decision of 18 June asking the EU to resume normal relations with the Palestinian Authority immediately and to this end to develop the conditions for urgent, practical and financial assistance, including direct financial support to the new government, as well as to ensure the provision of emergency and humanitarian assistance to the population of Gaza;’

  Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – (EL) Mr President, I should like first of all to thank all my honourable friends from the various political groups who cooperated with me on this report, which is so important for our Euro-Mediterranean partnership and which also contains important and sensitive points which have to do with the funding of the Palestinian Authority.

In the amendment referred to by Mr Casaca which, as he knows, we made together, there is a parenthesis at the end '(via, especially, the TIM)', which is part of the oral amendment. I have no other amendments to table other than to mention that paragraph 38 referring to the Mecca agreement and to a national unity government is no longer topical and has been deleted and replaced by the paragraph which Mr Casaca has just read out, with the parenthesis '(via, especially, the TIM)' at the end. That is all, other than to thank you for your cooperation and support.

  President. – To recap for everybody’s benefit, Mr Casaca has tabled an oral amendment to paragraph 38, which in its original version and with the rapporteur’s addition already has the words ‘via, especially, the TIM’ added at the end of the text that you will find attached to your voting list. Are there any objections to the oral amendment in its entirety? There are no objections. Quite exceptionally, the rapporteur is asking for the floor again.

  Rodi Κratsa-Τsagaropoulou (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – (EL) Recital N, which has to do with this matter.

  President. – The second oral amendment on suppression of recital N was tabled at the same time. It will require a separate vote, but the two amendments are connected.

(The oral amendments were accepted)

- Report: Fruteau (A6-0172/2007)

- After the vote

  Hannes Swoboda (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, I think we should congratulate Mr Fruteau on his election to the French Parliament. It may not be good news for us, but I am sure he is very pleased with the result.

  President. – I too would like to congratulate Mr Fruteau, and we now go on to the next item.

- Report: Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (A6-0170/2007)

Motion for a resolution: B6-0265/2007

Motion for a resolution: B6-0251/2007

- Before the vote on paragraph 11

  Luciana Sbarbati (ALDE). – (IT) Mr President, I should like to point out that there is a mistake in the Italian translation, which for us is substantive and not trivial. Where the English version has ‘calls upon regional authorities to establish special administrative commissions’, it says, ‘invita le autorità regionali a istituire tribunali amministrativi speciali’. That is a situation that we had at the time of fascism, which must not be brought back again. I therefore suggest we put ‘commissioni’, in line with the English and French texts. In addition, I should like to suggest that the 'powers of arbitration' associated with the commissions be reviewed and replaced with 'powers of decision'.

  President. – Thank you, Mrs Sbarbati; we shall of course ask the appropriate services to take action on the linguistic part of your comment.

Motion for a resolution: B6-0249/2007

- Report: Batzeli (A6-0212/2007)

- Before the vote on Amendment 7

  Katerina Batzeli (PSE), rapporteur. – (EL) Mr President, there has been a change in the word order; the proposed change is:

(the rapporteur continued in English)

‘social inclusion of all young people and extrajudicial and judicial measures’

(The oral amendment was not accepted)

- Report: Klich (A6-0223/2007)

- Before the vote

  Bogdan Klich (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – (PL) Mr President, I should like to offer my sincere thanks to everyone who contributed to this report. Special thanks are due to Mr Sakalas, the rapporteur for the Committee on Foreign Affairs, who was involved in the difficult procedure of strengthened cooperation between two of our Parliamentary committees. I am also bound to call on the House to support this report, for three reasons.

Firstly, because the report advocates better coordination between our foreign policy and our internal policy, to ensure that our foreign policy achieves the priorities of the area of freedom, security and justice.

Secondly, because we advocate the specific European method which balances between action to ensure the security of our citizens and action to protect their civic freedoms.

Thirdly, because we are calling for what remains of the third pillar, notably police and court cooperation on criminal matters, to become a Community issue.

- Before the vote on Amendment 3, first part

  Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE). – Mr President, in order to avoid confusion, I should just like to clarify our request for a split vote and an oral amendment to Amendment 3.

The oral amendment concerns the part of the text that the amendment by the PPE-DE Group seeks to delete. Therefore, if you wish to retain the text, including the oral amendment, you should vote against the first part of Amendment 3.

Mr President, we propose to insert the words 'by the Council and the Commission', so that the text will read: ‘to include a human rights compliance report by the Council and the Commission in all external policy initiatives or documents in the AFSJ...’.

I must point out to you that, if this House supports Amendment 3, the oral amendment will fall. However, if Amendment 3 by the PPE-DE Group is rejected, then the oral amendment will be included.

(The oral amendment was accepted)

- Report: Roure (A6-0151/2007)

- Report: Pirker (A6-0182/2007)

- Report: Roithová (A6-0191/2007)

  Thijs Berman (PSE). – Mr President, on 31 January 2007 I sent a letter to the President of this Parliament proposing the organisation of an annual lecture to honour the memory of the Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya. This Politkovskaya lecture should be held by a journalist who distinguishes her or himself through an outstanding effort to defend democracy and respect for all human beings. With this lecture we would honour all journalists for their essential role in keeping societies open.

This proposal was co-signed by Bart Staes, Jean-Marie Cavada, Ewa Klamt and Luisa Morgantini. Rule 28 states that the Presidency has to answer within 30 days. I received only a vague reply and nothing has happened in the mean time. We would like to organise this event for October this year, one year after the assassination of our valued Anna Politkovskaya. We need the cooperation of the Presidency and we hope we can count on it.

(Applause)

  President. – Thank you, Mr Berman. I believe the aim of the brief reply was precisely to prevent the time period from lapsing. Clearly, however, I shall refer this to the Bureau and the President and check with them what will be done to follow up your request.

- Report: Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (A6-0210/2007)

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) Two hundred words are not enough to express what needs to be said with regard to the range of issues raised by this report, given the tragic and complex situation in the occupied Palestinian territories. We would like, however, to highlight the following points:

- The report overlooks the Israeli aggression against the Palestinian people and the Israeli authorities’ flagrant disrespect for international law;

- It omits to mention the EU’s part in the collapse of the Palestinian Authority (PA), by joining in the boycott against the PA since 2006, a boycott that remains in place despite all the efforts made and agreements reached to set up a Palestinian government of national unity. The creation of the ‘temporary international mechanism’ was not aimed at preventing the collapse of the Palestinian institutions, and nor did it prevent the worsening humanitarian crisis facing millions of Palestinians in the occupied territories.

- The report overlooks the worsening situation in the occupied Palestinian territories, which is the result of 40 years of Israeli occupation – with the connivance of the USA and its allies – and its policy of not recognising the legitimate and inalienable right of the Palestinian people to an independent, sovereign and viable state, in accordance with the relevant UN resolutions.

  Bairbre de Brún, Mary Lou McDonald and Eva-Britt Svensson (GUE/NGL), in writing. The EU and the international community bear a heavy responsibility for the current tragedy in Palestine. Their failure to bring pressure to bear on Israel, the impunity afforded to the Israeli authorities, their refusal to talk to democratically elected politicians and their sanctions against the Palestinian authorities have led us to where we are today.

The EU must now grasp the political responsibility by opening political dialogue with all relevant actors in Palestine – in Gaza as well as the West Bank. We have to help the Palestinian people by engaging in dialogue with the specific intention of aiding the establishment of a unified, viable and secure Palestinian state.

For these reasons we have decided to abstain on this report.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE-DE), in writing. – (SK) The Barcelona Process is gaining in importance and bringing about concrete results. Similarly, progress has recently been seen in all sections of the Euromed Parliamentary Assembly. The most heart-warming progress was achieved in the political section, of which I am also a member.

The MEDA Program we voted on is the key financial instrument of the EU for implementation of the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership. It supports the measures accompanying reforms in economic and social structures by our Mediterranean partners, aimed at the closing the existing gap between the two sides of Mediterranean region.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not only the root cause of many military and civilian deaths. It also brings pitiable and insurmountable economic and social conditions to a section of Palestinian society. In recent days we have witnessed bloody conflicts between the Hamas and Fatah movements, and the escalation of violence in the Palestinian territory. It is necessary that the financial aid provided under the MEDA program, flowing to eight other countries in addition to Palestine, should not end up in the hands of extremists from the Hamas movement, but instead in the hands of the intended recipients, which is to say poverty-stricken Palestinian citizens.

  Athanasios Pafilis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The EU financial support to Palestine proposed by the report moves in the same direction as the interventionist imperialist policy in the area as a whole. It is the reverse side of the policy of freezing aid to the Palestinian people, as a punishment for choosing a government, through democratic and indisputable elections, which is not to the EU's liking. Now there is a proposal to again start giving financial support to the 'new government' appointed by President Abbas, which it approves of. The EU imperialists, in close cooperation with the USA and Israel within the framework of the 'New Middle East' plan, are exploiting the tragedy of the Palestinian people which they themselves created. They are using financial support as a means of blatant coercion, as a tool for intervening in the intra-Palestinian conflict. In reality, they are pouring oil on the flames in order to exacerbate the clashes and divisions, so as to bend the heroic resistance of the Palestinian people and of the other peoples in the area and impose their criminal plans.

The Greek Communist Party opposes the use of this support as a mechanism for imperialist intervention and that is why it voted against the report. It expresses its solidarity and demands humanitarian and financial support for the Palestinian people without terms and conditions, an end to the barbaric Israeli occupation and the creation of an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital.

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) Whenever the theme of this report is addressed, the question that inevitably arises is what purpose EU funding for Palestine should serve and what strategy should be followed in this regard. There are three fundamental axes that should always form part of this response: first, that of supporting the people, second, that of encouraging the creation of a future Palestinian state underpinned by democracy and respect for human rights, and third, that of promoting peace.

The outcome of investigations carried out by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) have, thus far, not exactly been reassuring. ‘On the basis of the information available to date in the press release of OLAF, no conclusive evidence of support of armed attacks or unlawful activities financed by EC contributions to the Palestinian Authority was found’. However, ‘there are consistent indications to support the hypothesis that it cannot be excluded that some of the assets of the Palestinian Authority may have been used by some individuals for other than the intended purpose’.

EU support must be visible, recognisable and effective in achieving these objectives. Unfortunately, there can be no certainty that this has been the result of our initiatives. It should also be acknowledged that, overall, the EU’s role in the region has been positive.

- Report: Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (A6-0170/2007)

  Andreas Mölzer (ITS), in writing. (DE) The notion of exchanging a certain amount of the information contained in criminal records is undoubtedly to be welcomed, particularly in sensitive areas such as paedophilia, but also in order to increase arrests of drug dealers and other criminal organisations.

However, it must not result in respectable citizens being treated as criminals because of a minor entry in their criminal record. As the case of files on hooligans has shown, being found close to events is often enough to justify inclusion in the blacklist. It is also dangerous to apply the process wholesale to sensitive areas, if only for reasons of data protection, which is why I was unable to vote in favour.

  Javier Moreno Sánchez (PSE), in writing. (ES) Like the other members of the Spanish Socialist Delegation, I am voting in favour because I do not wish to see the legislative procedure referred to in the report paralysed and because I agree with the result of Parliament’s consultation, as approved by the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs.

Nevertheless, by means of this explanation of vote, I wish to protest at the choice of rapporteur, Mr Díaz de Mera, who was accused and fined for contempt of court after refusing to cooperate with the Court trying the alleged perpetrators of the horrific attacks of 11 March, the worst terrorist attack to have taken place on European territory, which was carried out while he was Director of Police. In view of the seriousness of his conduct, the judge has begun the preliminary procedures with a view to presenting a plea to the European Parliament.

I therefore believe that Mr Díaz de Mera’s contempt of the Court and the content of his statements are not compatible with his being the European Parliament's rapporteur for reports on judicial and police cooperation between the Member States and the fight against terrorism, and they affect Parliament's credibility.

  Athanasios Pafilis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The directive on exchanges of information extracted from criminal records is yet another blow to the rights of inviolable privacy and personal data protection of the citizens of the EU. It makes provision for the transmission of information extracted from the criminal records not only in the Member States of the EU, but also in third countries, and not only in connection with criminal proceedings instituted against an individual, but also for any purpose. The directive contains no substantive measure for protecting personal data relating to this information. It blatantly infringes the national legislation of the Member States and of our country and the international conventions which provide that information for the purpose of convicting a person is absolutely confidential and may only be transmitted within the framework of criminal proceedings against him or in the very specific and limited circumstances provided for under the law. In this way, the harmonisation – in a reactionary direction – of the penal systems of the Member States is being further promoted, with the ultimate aim of formulating a single penal code in the EU which will restrict and abolish fundamental individual rights and political freedoms, while at the same time removing from the Member States one of the crucial elements on which their national sovereignty is based.

- Motions for resolutions (B6-0265/2007)

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) This resolution tabled by the Committee on Development is both relevant and highly significant. A few examples demonstrate what has been known for a long time, which is that the policies and measures actually pursued often run counter to the stated objectives.

The committee makes the point that, with regard to the Regional Strategy Document 2007-2013 and the Multiannual Indicative Programme for Asia proposed by the Commission, and taking account of the regulation establishing a financing instrument for development cooperation, which stipulates that 'the primary and overarching objective of cooperation under this Regulation shall be the eradication of poverty in partner countries and regions in the context of sustainable development', it is impossible to understand, for example, how ‘in the area of support to the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN), the stated objectives of the 'institutional support and region-to-region dialogue' programme include 'support[ing] possible ASEAN-EU Free Trade Agreement negotiations and implementation' and 'rais[ing] the visibility of EC contribution to ASEAN'. It is hard to see how this proposal can be squared with the primary objective of eradicating poverty in the context of official development assistance.

This is just the tip of the iceberg…

- Motions for resolutions (B6-0251/2007)

  Richard Seeber (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, the Austrian ÖVP delegation abstained from the vote on this report because we feel that this falls under subsidiarity and that decisions should be taken by the regional, local and national authorities. This is undoubtedly a tragedy for the individuals involved. However, the decision-making process should not be transferred to Brussels for political reasons. It should remain in the hands of the relevant local authorities.

  Hélène Goudin and Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM), in writing. (SV) We understand that there may be considerable problems within the construction sector in Spain and that situations may arise in which unsuspecting people buy properties in good faith which, it subsequently emerges, the construction companies had no legal right to build. These are, however, problems that can and must be solved within the legal framework of the Member State concerned. There is no reason to introduce any legislation at EU level in order to deal with these issues.

- Motions for resolutions (B6-0249/2007)

  Bruno Gollnisch (ITS), in writing. – (FR) You want to make the so-called ‘legal’ trade in what you call traditional weapons more ethical, and ban it according to criteria relating to their probable use (terrorist acts, human rights violations, aggravating or triggering conflicts, etc.). This is certainly a laudable intention.

But at the same time, and for several years, the European Union has repeatedly been shaken by a debate on whether to lift the arms embargo on China. That country is still a communist dictatorship, where there are still laogai, forced labour, persecution of Christians, the subjugation of the Tibetan people, etc.

In this context, your vague desire appears at best hypocritical, and at worst cynical.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) Last December, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution starting the process towards the creation of an Arms Trade Treaty. The resolution enjoyed the support of 153 countries, with the USA the only UN Member State to vote against the creation of the Treaty.

According to the 2007 Annual Report of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute – and as highlighted by our group – worldwide military spending reached USD 1 104 billion at current prices, that is to say, 3.5% up on the 2005 figure. What is more, between 1997 and 2006, the amount rose by 37%.

In the context of this very dangerous increase, incidents have occurred that illustrate how the illegal arms trade has risen dramatically. Take, for example, the alleged payment of over GBP 1 billion in bribes by BAE Systems, with the consent of the British Defence Minister, to the Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan.

It must also be said that the arms trade regulation will have more teeth if accompanied by a process of multilateral, reciprocal disarmament, and in particular the dismantling of vast nuclear arsenals.

  Athanasios Pafilis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The Greek Communist Party abstained from the vote on the joint resolution by the political groups (Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, Socialist Group in the European Parliament, Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, Union for Europe of the Nations Group and Confederal Group of the European United Left/Nordic Green Left) on the establishment of common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional weapons because:

• it considers it incalculable hypocrisy, at a time when between 1997 and 2006 military spending increased by 37% globally, with the countries of the ΕU (France, Britain and Germany) in the top five exporters of conventional weapons, that no mention is made of this;

• it is at the very least naïve to call for 'rules' from multinational arms companies which are responsible for moving and selling conventional weapons, including to organised crime, which is also the field for their international purchases. Moreover, for every export they know both the companies and the countries in which they are established;

• we cannot sign alongside parties and political groups which support the development of the arms industry, whose governments have armed in the past and who are today still arming reactionary regimes and paramilitary and militaristic organisations and trying to make out that they are the archangels of international rules and disarmament;

• we will not help to create the illusion among the people that the imperialists and their companies will accept 'fair rules'. For them, the criteria for exports of and the trade in arms are their political interests and profit.

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) I wholeheartedly endorse the content of this resolution. Countries have a right and a duty to defend their populations and to guarantee peace on their territory and the integrity of their borders. Illegal and irresponsible trade that flouts decent standards of behaviour is one of the main factors fomenting conflicts, wars and death. The arms trade, which lacks an international code of conduct that would bring to book those responsible, is something that we must be consistent and proactive in condemning, in the future, of course, but also right now. The fact that we do not yet have a code at international level should not water down the stance of EU Member States and our allies, nor make us less demanding. There are values on which one must not compromise.

- Report: Batzeli (A6-0212/2007)

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE-DE). – (SK) In substance, juvenile delinquency is an alarming phenomenon due to its mass scale. We have witnessed the growth of a number of crimes committed by children under 13 years old. Unfortunately, statistics show that these crimes are becoming crueller. Reasons for juvenile delinquency are surely multi-factorial, for example, socio-economic conditions, the environments where youth gather, family and school, the gang milieu, improper friends, and the early abuse of alcohol and all kinds of drugs.

I would like to praise the fact that, unlike in the recent past, the adopted document finally stresses the absolutely indispensable role of a close family, in which the father and mother devote sufficient time to their children. Otherwise, in the formation of their personalities, children will lack any role models in their own family. At last, the recommendation has been given that the Member States should furnish adequate support for families and parents. I am also appealing to all stakeholders to speak up and restrict the constant display of excessive violence, pornographic scenes, and scenes showing drug consumption in the mass media. Such images also appear on Internet sites or in generally available videogames. I am glad to see that the way forward is not only through repression of negative phenomena but, first and foremost, through primary prevention.

  Frank Vanhecke (ITS). – (NL) Mr President, I have voted against the Batzeli report because, as I see it, this House is once again refusing to face reality, it misjudges the causes of crime among young people and is, by and large, offering incorrect solutions. In particular, this House remains positively blind to the disproportionately high level of crime among young immigrants and particularly young Muslims, even though it is a phenomenon that is clearly prevalent in all European Member States. When explanations are given, they only refer to all kinds of socio-economic factors, while cultural elements are also clearly part of the mix, as is evidenced by the findings by Marion van San, the Dutch expert, on this subject matter.

Solace is once again being sought in all kinds of necessary – I have to admit – social and preventive measures, while judicial and repressive measures are left untouched; it should be clear to everyone that desperate situations call for desperate measures.

  Jan Andersson, Göran Färm, Anna Hedh, Inger Segelström and Åsa Westlund (PSE), in writing. (SV) It is important to analyse the Member States’ different experiences of youth crime and to disseminate good practice. However, this can be done within the framework of already existing structures at national level, as well as at Community level. We therefore voted against paragraph 33 on setting up a European Juvenile Delinquency Observatory.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) We abstained from the final vote on the report because our most important proposals were not included. These were as follows:

- considers that the values enshrined in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child of 20 November 1989 must be promoted.

- stresses the importance of (initial and permanent) training for magistrates working with minors, in this case delinquents, and the placement of specialists in other areas in youth courts, in order that they can take action before it is too late.

We feel that the rights of the child should be promoted and given greater visibility, and believe that strong action must be taken when it comes to juvenile delinquents, for example by suspending the implementation of youth behaviour plans, which should involve the individual in question and his or her parents or guardians.

Given that, in most cases, there are social and economic factors underlying juvenile delinquency, living standards for families must be improved in such a way that they pay more attention to children and young people.

We therefore advocate investing in prevention and not in legal proceedings, which is the line taken by the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats. Although they did not entirely achieve their objectives they did succeed in making the original report worse.

  Bruno Gollnisch (ITS), in writing. – (FR) Despite a few flashes, the rapporteur seems to be a follower of the culture of excuse and to be convinced that only society is guilty of the crimes suffered by its members. He thus delivers analyses and proposals that are at the very least surprising.

It borders on the absurd, with ‘tertiary prevention’ (sic!) reserved for known offenders, or ‘an up-to-date approach to conflict management at school’. Those Members who understand what that means should go and apply this ‘approach’ on the ground, in place of the admirable teachers who go to work every day with the fear of being hit or even stabbed for a misinterpreted look or bad mark!

It is verging on lunacy when it talks about management of ‘juvenile delinquency, moving towards decriminalisation, depenalisation and a lessening of the jurisdiction of courts and other institutions’? Sic again?! A crime that is no longer a crime if it is committed by a minor! A murderer who would no longer be punished because he is under 18!

Whatever you think, the best kinds of prevention cannot work without penalties, otherwise society will become a jungle in which the weakest are the first victims.

  Astrid Lulling (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) Given that juvenile delinquency is a major problem in all Member States, it would be disastrous for the EP to send the wrong signal.

Two themes in this report are crucial:

1) The lessening of the jurisdiction of courts and other institutions in the justice system for juveniles.

This system has existed since 1991 in a Member State, and youth magistrates recently demonstrated outside their court because the system is a ‘failure to help people in danger’.

The ombudsman for children in that country made the following comment: ‘the authorities are sending a message of powerlessness, impunity and abandonment to young people’.

Fortunately, the lessening of the jurisdiction of courts was not maintained.

2) The issue of ‘penalties’ has once again become a major theme in the European political discourse.

The opinion of the ESC on juvenile delinquency also placed an emphasis on the pillars for an effective response to juvenile delinquency of prevention, judicial and extra-judicial measures, rehabilitation, integration and social re-integration.

I was able to vote in favour of this report because our amendment, which is along the same lines, was adopted.

We should ask ourselves whether it is the job of the European Parliament to give instructions to the Member States on how to organise their criminal systems.

The creation of a new European observatory on juvenile delinquency is not necessary. Modern communications mean that it is easy for the national observatories to network with each other.

- Report: Klich (A6-0223/2007)

  Viorica-Pompilia-Georgeta Moisuc (ITS). – Propunerea de intrare în vigoare a Tratatului Constituţional, cu precizarea de numire în funcţie a unui ministru de externe şi a unui aparat diplomatic corespunzător, mi se pare hazardată în situaţia în care acest Tratat a fost respins de unele state europene, iar în statele nou intrate în Uniune nici măcar nu a fost pus în discuţie.

Lipsurile grave în privinţa respectării drepturilor şi libertăţilor omului, în special în ţările terţe, cu care Uniunea are relaţii speciale, mi se par a fi tratate global şi generalizant, problema fiind mult mai complexă. Un exemplu: ignorarea totală a acestui lucru în zona Transnistria este o chestiune minimalizată în raport. După părerea mea, situaţia drepturilor omului în Transnistria ar necesita ea însăşi o dezbatere aparte, pentru că este vorba de un focar de insecuritate la frontiera de est a Uniunii Europene.

Combaterea corupţiei în statele Uniunii Europene, nu numai în statele terţe, trebuie văzută şi urmărită atent, deoarece se petrec alunecări periculoase chiar în sânul comunităţii europene, ce trec cvasi-neobservate. Un exemplu: în România au fost puşi sub acuzare şi urmărire penală, pentru însuşire de sume mari de bani, fals şi uz de fals, o serie de membri ai actualului guvern, dintre care şi unii membri ai ungurilor din România, cetăţeni români. Reacţia guvernului de la Budapesta a fost promptă: a cerut oficial explicaţii guvernului român pentru aceasta, politizând acţiunea Parchetului General. Este un gest nu numai reprobabil, dar şi de amestec făţiş în treburile interne ale unui stat vecin, membru al Uniunii Europene. Este motivul pentru care noi am supus acest raport unui vot negativ.

  Frank Vanhecke (ITS). – (NL) Mr President, the Klich report is, in my eyes, yet another report in which Parliament simply chooses to ignore the will of the majority of French and Dutch people expressed democratically in their referendums, and continues to implement sections of this European Constitution in a very backhanded way. It is, as I see it, unacceptable and undemocratic that people should openly insist on the passerelle clause being activated, and I quote: ‘in step with the constitutional process’.

Moreover, it is equally unacceptable that people should insist on the introduction of qualified majorities in the areas of migration and integration. I think the individual Member States and peoples are entitled to a right of veto and should be able to remain in charge of their own labour market. Whilst this may all be very European, it is certainly not democratic.

  Bruno Gollnisch (ITS), in writing. – (FR) What if our external borders are sieves? Let us open them up to even more immigration that we will describe as ‘legal’ or ‘chosen’ or ‘relaxing visa policy’. What if the terrorists have set out to destroy our Western societies, out of hatred for their political foundations and values? Let us threaten to ostracise the States that support them and concentrate on the most important thing: a common definition of terrorism at the UN! The families of the victims of the attacks in London and Madrid will appreciate this semantic definition. What if our police services are collapsing under the absurd and bureaucratic demands of Europol? Let us give it the power to give them even more futile orders and give its bureaucrats the power to expedite investigations.

Let us think clearly: by destroying the internal borders of the European Union without strengthening the external borders, the creation of the area of ‘freedom, security and justice’ has encouraged the explosion of illegal immigration, trafficking and cross-border crime, and made our States more vulnerable to terrorism.

So yes, cooperation and solidarity in these areas are essential, but they must be in the context of intergovernmental cooperation between States with borders that are nationally defined and controlled.

  Carl Lang (ITS), in writing. – (FR) Having failed to construct an ‘area of freedom, security and justice’, the real haven of peace that Europe should have become after the ratification of the Schengen agreements, Brussels is worrying about its ‘external dimension’.

Europe wants to export its democratic values and its principles of the rule of law based on respect for human rights and the existence of sound institutions.

All of this is highly commendable. But what are the real methods that it is proposing? Eternal propaganda in favour of the developing world, immigration and Europe.

The report therefore asks us to activate the passerelle clause in Article 42 of the Treaty, which would bring the provisions concerning judicial and police cooperation and illegal immigration within the Community framework. The Member States would then be bound by decisions adopted by a majority of other States, even if they did not accept them.

The creation of a European ministry for foreign affairs, a proposal that was put forward in the Constitutional Treaty, which was itself rejected by French and Dutch referendums, is once again on the agenda. So once again we are talking about taking a little more of the Member States’ sovereign powers away and giving them to Brussels. What this report proposes is not more democracy but even more subservience.

  Athanasios Pafilis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The report promotes the implementation of a more aggressive foreign policy against nations and peoples and a more autocratic and repressive policy within the EU.

1. It calls for the enactment of the European Constitution, which is formally and materially dead, so that it can be safeguarded even further through the application of reactionary, anti-democratic laws in the name of terrorism. It is typical that the anti-fascist demonstrations in the Baltic countries are referred to as 'violent, radical tendencies among the Russian minorities'. It also calls for:

• repressive mechanisms at European level to be made more effective;

• all aspects of policy (military, economic, civil) to be used in order to exercise blatant coercion and thereby subjugate peoples and countries;

• cooperation with the USA to be strengthened;

• any differences between the Member States to be limited by taking a stand of 'the EU with one voice'.

2. In the field of international relations and dealings it adopts an American recipe for exporting internal law and converting it to international law by laying down unacceptable 'democracy', 'terrorism' and 'human rights' clauses, even in trade, thereby overturning basic principles of international law. It appoints itself as the inquisitor for human rights and democracy, trying to institutionalise the principle of 'whoever is with me'; in other words, whoever does not accept capitalism is an adversary.

3. In voting in favour of the report, the New Democracy and PASOK parties have shown that they are two sides of the same coin and have joined forces in order to strengthen the EU and establish the new imperialist order.

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) The most recent Commission communication on this issue advocates a strategy that is coherent and that is drawn up in conjunction with the countries of origin of immigration, in particular illegal immigration. This is the right approach and one that we support. At the same time, as an integral part of this policy, channels must be created to facilitate legal immigration, by publicising the potential risks and consequences of illegal immigration, and by making legal channels simple and transparent.

This approach also involves investing in creating jobs, in conjunction with these countries. Otherwise, while there is destitution on one side and the attraction of job opportunities on the other, there will always be immigration, and the process of immigration will be pursued illegally if there is no other way to enter the country.

Lastly, there is also the need, of course, to renew and strengthen cooperation with Mediterranean countries, due – albeit not exclusively – to immigration.

- Report: Roure (A6-0151/2007)

  Philip Claeys (ITS). – (NL) Mr President, I am not exaggerating when I say that this House, with its approval of the Roure report, is fundamentally undermining the freedom of opinion, as enshrined in various international agreements. In this respect, the Roure report goes much further than all these previous ideological reports supporting one-way racism, which this House appears to have a patent on. Indeed, with the unconditional support for the dangerous framework decision, this House is in favour of making the expression of opinions and convictions a criminal offence in a way that is reminiscent of totalitarian regimes.

‘Every opinion’ – and I quote verbatim from the report – ‘that could bring about illegal behaviour, will from hereon in be punishable in every European Member State’. Accordingly, any deviation from the prevailing political discourse on immigration, national identity and Islamisation will be nipped in the bud. The spirit of Voltaire’s tolerance, so exquisitely expressed in the phrase ‘I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it’, is being desecrated by European officialdom. This Europe is far more dangerous than the imaginary ogre it claims to be fighting. This Europe is a danger to democracy.

  Bruno Gollnisch (ITS), in writing. – (FR) On 19 April, the European Ministers of Justice reached a political agreement on combating racism in Europe with great difficulty. It is a new legal instrument that will restrict freedom of expression even further.

In this respect we would like to thank the Member States who put up some resistance to the adoption of this text, who believe that limiting freedom of expression is not the way to combat racism. They are Great Britain, Italy, Ireland and some Scandinavian countries.

Freedom of expression is a fundamental freedom. It may only be limited by civil law in cases of invasion of private life, libel or inciting people to commit a crime.

Why is such a text relevant or appropriate at this time? At a time when Europe’s borders have disappeared, causing an explosion of illegal immigration and cross-border criminality, is it not more urgent to ensure the security of the European people in their own territory than to worry about penalising expressions that are allegedly racist?

Finally, I would like to highlight the curious lack of condemnation of the crimes of Stalin or of the Armenian genocide in this text. Only the crimes of Hitler and crimes that are recognised by international courts (Srebrenica, Rwanda) are listed. This text is aiming to restrict freedom, and it is untimely and sectarian. We shall vote against it.

  Andreas Mölzer (ITS), in writing. (DE) In law, everyone is equal: but some are more equal than others. Currently, migrants in the EU appear to enjoy a certain degree of freedom. Not only does ill-conceived consideration for other mores mean that individuals are released without charge, but the media also fail to report on criminality and racism among migrants. The do-gooders are still churning out indignation, with long demonstrations and loud calls to combat racism.

On the government side, the racism card is played to get rid of disagreeable opponents. National parties with strong ties to their country are banned under the pretext that they are racist merely because they quote official government statistics about above-average crime rates among immigrants. This should not be allowed in a democracy. Multi-cultural idealists are intent on taking us at full speed towards the safety barriers, and the proposed framework decision on combating racism is another step on the road towards a totalitarian state. Someone needs to grab the handbrake, which is why I voted against Mrs Roure's report.

  Andrzej Jan Szejna (PSE), in writing. (PL) I am voting in favour of the adoption of the report by Mrs Roure entitled ‘Combating racism and xenophobia: progress in the negotiations on the framework decision’.

Racially motivated crimes remain an ongoing problem in all Member States. It is estimated that over nine million people become victims of racially motivated crime every year. At the same time, the significant differences between legal provisions on combating racism and xenophobia in European Union Member States make it impossible to combat these incidents effectively at cross-border or European level.

Accordingly, clear political support should be given to the Europe of citizens and the framework decision adopted so as to provide strong protection for fundamental rights. In this connection, a sound legal framework aimed at combating racism and xenophobia should also be developed by facilitating the swift adoption of the horizontal directive on combating discrimination pursuant to Article 13 of the Treaty on European Union, providing for effective, proportional and deterrent penal sanctions.

- Report: Pirker (A6-0182/2007)

  Zita Pleštinská (PPE-DE). – (SK) Mr President, I would first like to join all those greeting you on your name day today. The problem of refugees bears not only on critical regions such as Malta. Refugees are living among us as well. My country – Slovakia – is predominantly a transit country for foreigners forced to flee armed conflicts. Many of them have found their new homes here and asserted themselves in the labour market.

Referring to discussions on the report on asylum, practical cooperation and the quality of decision-making in the common European Asylum System prepared by our colleague Hubert Pirker, I would like from the bottom of my heart to express my gratitude to the Council for Migrants and Refugees of the Conference of Bishops of Slovakia, and to praise their sensitive and exemplary approach to the resolution of the extremely difficult situation of refugees.

The discussions on Hubert Pirker’s report are taking place in European Parliament on June 20, in other words the very day that has been declared the World Day of Refugees by the United Nations General Assembly. I take this as a symbol of the solidarity of the European Parliament with the Member States that are struggling to resolve the difficult situation of refugees. I am grateful to the rapporteur for this report, which I supported with my vote as a step towards achieving a common asylum system in the EU. It is an excellent foundation for decisions that need to be swift, secure and just for all concerned.

  Frank Vanhecke (ITS). – (NL) Mr President, even though I think that we in this House have already seen a lot in terms of reports, I have the impression that where refugee policy is concerned, the Pirker report beats them all. What does this report say, word for word? It says that a forward-looking common asylum policy is based on, and I quote ‘the obligation to admit asylum seekers and the principle of sending them home not being an option’. This is not only pure nonsense from a legal and international law point of view, it also sends out an entirely wrong political message.

As I see it, a truly forward-looking asylum policy should first and foremost address the reception of genuine asylum seekers in the region and on the continent of the asylum applicants themselves. They can only be received in strictly monitored centres and only those who, following rigorous scrutiny, are recognised as genuine refugees can possibly be received in a country of the European Union for a little while. Crucial in such policy is, of course, the list of safe countries. I regret that, in this respect, the Pirker report is going completely the wrong way, something which we have grown accustomed to, unfortunately, in this European integration process.

  Philip Bradbourn (PPE-DE), in writing. Conservatives are completely opposed to a common asylum system for the European Union. It is the sovereign right of a Member State, especially when outside the Schengen accords, to determine its own asylum and immigration policies. For this reason the Conservatives have voted against this report.

  Jörg Leichtfried (PSE), in writing. (DE) I am in favour of a common, pro-active EU asylum policy.

This asylum policy should be built on the obligation to allow asylum seekers entry and to respect the principle of non-refoulement. I am also voting in favour of a fairer distribution of the burden between Member States, a common database of countries of origin and information campaigns in the countries of origin and transit.

I support the introduction of a common asylum procedure at EU level by 2010 and the creation of a single status for those individuals who are entitled to seek asylum or subsidiary protection.

  Andreas Mölzer (ITS), in writing. (DE) The only commendable point in the report is the plan to conduct information campaigns in the countries of origin. I voted against the proposal, because as long as the United Kingdom accepts 12% of all applications from refugees and Sweden rubber stamps 91% of requests, we will never be able to agree. We cannot tackle asylum shopping with harmonised EU regulations when asylum rights are abused to avoid the legal immigration rules and when our processes are drawn out by pointless appeals, even where there are no grounds for granting asylum.

As long as it is still possible to throw away one's papers, say the magic word, asylum, and remain in the EU for years, there will always be plenty of ways for thieves to stay on the move or go to ground. The only way to tackle this abuse is to only accept asylum applications made in reception camps outside the EU's borders.

  Athanasios Pafilis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The report reflects and maps the hostile policy of the EU towards immigrants and refugees. It avoids talking about the causes which generate the waves of immigrants and refugees: the imperialist wars and interventions by the EU, the USA and ΝΑΤΟ and the plundering exploitation of the wealth-producing resources of countries and peoples throughout the world. Thousands of immigrants and refugees are drowning on the maritime borders of the ΕU and being kept in 'concentration camps' in the countries of the ΕU, under conditions which are a disgrace to human civilisation. The images of absolute misery and barbaric treatment of immigrants and refugees which the European Parliament mission encountered a few days ago in the holding centres in Samos and Athens are a typical example. The Greek Government granted asylum to 39 people (0.84%) out of 4 624 applicants. The situation is similar in the other Member States of the ΕU. The report, with the measures for a European repatriation procedure and a list of 'safe third countries', basically promotes the abolition of asylum, while its proposals for the application of monitoring systems and biometric databases within the framework of a joint asylum system deals with refugees with repressive means. It exacerbates the drastic situation of refugees in the EU, thereby revealing in all its majesty the inhumane and barbaric nature of this imperialist Union and its exploitative capitalist system.

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) The number of asylum seekers rises daily throughout the EU.

Many people’s desperation has led to tragic consequences.

It is vital for the EU to establish shared rules that will help prevent a repetition of such situations and will lay the foundations for mutual assistance between Member States, given that the pressures they face vary, often according to their geographical location.

The establishment of a common European asylum system should be based on three major axes: the introduction of a uniform procedure, the sharing of information about countries of origin and closer cooperation among the Member States in order to help those Member States that are under particular pressure. Close ties between the Member States’ authorities must therefore be encouraged, with the ultimate aim of improving the quality of the decision-making process, which needs to be quicker, fairer and more reliable. Only in this way will we be able to accomplish the goal of a common asylum system by 2010.

  Martine Roure (PSE), in writing. – (FR) The European Union has always insisted that the deadline for establishing a common asylum system by 2010 should be maintained. Improving the quality of decisions should bring the policies of the Member States closer together in order to arrive at this common system. Improving the quality of the decisions taken should allow people needing protection to enter the EU safely and to have their applications properly examined.

We must fight the tendency of some people to think that improving decisions on asylum will reduce the number of asylum applications. The common asylum policy must, above all, protect people and guarantee the right to asylum and the principle of non-refoulement according to the Geneva Conventions. I also reject any attempt to externalise asylum applications. This is why I tabled and voted in favour of amendments to the list of safe third countries. I find it worrying that the Commission is considering this list in the absence of codecision for the European Parliament and without awaiting the decision of the European Court of Justice, which we have referred to on this point.

  Carl Schlyter (Verts/ALE), in writing. (SV) Despite the fact that I am opposed to a common asylum policy which – and all experience indicates this - undermines the rights of asylum seekers, I am abstaining from voting because the proposed improvements do not, in spite of everything, justify rejection.

- Report: Roithová (A6-0191/2007)

  Bruno Gollnisch (ITS), in writing. – (FR) I would like to make a few comments on this report.

It is certain that in terms of digital commerce, consumers are in a weak position. This is particularly true in the case of eBay: you have to trust your correspondent, for example if you are buying, to send the product to you, whether you ordered it in your own country or abroad.

There are some tools, such as PayPal, which are supposed to make this type of transaction safe, but they are not very practical or easy for the average person to use. Something needs to be done to increase consumer confidence in e-commerce, which is a vast, expanding sector.

But we should also be very careful not to over-regulate this market and not to create excessive confidence among consumers. We must always keep in mind that there is such a thing as what we call the ‘informed and responsible consumer’, who can himself find out information about the product, and, if problems occur, make use of the existing legal instruments.

Consequently, I think that improving the quality of the existing instruments (for example, the legal guarantee) and informing consumers about them is the first objective that we should set ourselves, before creating new consumer protection laws.

  President. – That concludes the vote.

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

IN THE CHAIR: MRS WALLIS
Vice-President

  President. The next item is the debate on four motions for resolutions on Cuba.⁽¹⁾

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE-DE), author. – Madam President, the Council has recently recognised that no tangible results have been achieved on human rights in Cuba, despite the goodwill shown by the Council in 2005.

The majority of us, if not all of us, are in agreement that it is necessary for Cuba to launch a process of political transition to multi-party democracy. This is not the Eurocentric position our opponents like to use against us but is about the universality and indivisibility of human rights, including civil, political and economic rights, in which we believe. Today we again urge the Council and Commission to continue to take whatever action is necessary to demand the release of political prisoners and prisoners of conscience.

It is important to give our unconditional support and full encouragement to the launching of a peaceful process of transition to a multi-party democracy in Cuba. We have examples to follow. Twenty years ago the present EU Member States from Eastern and Central Europe were in many ways – including as regards their human rights situation – in a similar situation to that which Cuba is in now. I hope that we will soon witness major changes in Cuba and I look forward to that very special day.

  Marcin Libicki (UEN), author. – (PL) Madam President, Cuba has been ruled by a dictator for almost half a century and human rights are constantly being violated there. It is practically the last remaining bastion of Communism in the world. North Korea is another such bastion, whilst the Chinese regime is somewhat different but often equally cruel.

After the collapse of Communism in 1989 we expected those Communist countries to review their situation and that Communism would collapse there too. Unfortunately, that did not happen, notably in Cuba. It is true that the intensity of persecution in Cuba varied. There were times when it was particularly cruel and other periods when a degree of liberalisation was allowed and when concessions seemed to be made to the opposition. A particularly worrying contemporary development is that Cuba has succeeded in gaining a number of allies. The latter include left-wing governments in Europe.

The support often provided by governments of Member States of the European Union to the Cuban regime, albeit indirectly, is particularly worrying. The current more tolerant attitude to such evil regimes adopted also by the UN is unacceptable. For instance, it is being suggested that human rights are not being violated in Belarus or in Cuba.

I call on the House to adopt an unequivocal approach condemning the Cuban governments, and to follow this up with specific actions aimed at toppling Fidel Castro's cruel Communist regime.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), author. – (ES) Madam President, I would like to begin by expressing my concern at the fact that this item on relations between the European Union and the Cuban Government has replaced, in terms of urgency, another issue that I considered to be far more important and far more urgent: the situation of the refugee population in Iraq.

This is particularly worrying given that, in reality, the fundamental reason for this modification does not so much relate to issues involving that Caribbean Island, but rather to the customary tendency of certain Members from the People's Party to use the European Parliament to express their personal opposition to the Spanish Government.

It is not for me to defend the position of the Spanish Government; I am not a member of that government or of its party, but it does concern me that such an important opportunity as the Thursday afternoon sitting, which is dedicated to situations of violations of human rights in the world, should be called into question by this kind of initiative that goes against the very spirit of these debates.

Furthermore, I would also like to point out that on Monday the Council approved its conclusions on relations with the Cuban Government, in which it once again stated its intention to maintain the dialogue with civil society and offered to restore the dialogue with the Cuban Government on the basis of mutual, reciprocal and non-discriminatory interest.

Cuba must make a lot of progress on issues such as freedoms, rights, political rights in particular, and democratic openness, but I would insist that this is nothing new, it is not urgent. What is more, I believe that the position adopted by the Council on Monday sets the parameters for moving in that direction, particularly insofar as it distances itself from the United States’ strategy based on a sterile confrontation and an embargo that is both ineffective and irresponsible, amongst other things because it actually hinders certain reforms within the island which would allow for a more ordered transition.

Furthermore, as we stated in our resolution, that of the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, cooperation must be an instrument for development, with a view to achieving the Millennium Development Objectives, and not a tool for imposing conditions with a view to achieving political ends.

  Marco Cappato (ALDE), author. – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, for once I do not agree with Mr Romeva i Rueda, because I believe that there is an urgent issue concerning Cuba, and one that actually concerns us as well as the European Union. Otherwise, it would be pointless to treat questions of countries that have been dictatorships and not democratic for years and years, or even decades, as urgent topics.

In this case the urgency concerns us and our policy. A decision has been taken in the Council to invite a Cuban delegation. What can or what should initiating this dialogue mean? In our view, it should mean that any change, reform or strengthening of relations with Cuba must depend on an equally tangible plan to reform the situation of human rights and democracy on the island.

It is true that our strategy as the European Union is not to impose an embargo – and I intend to clarify and emphasise that again in an oral amendment – but it is also true that it must not and cannot be a strategy of unconditional and unilateral openness, because that too would prove to be a disastrous strategy, as it has proved to be in the past.

We must, for instance, give practical support to those dissidents who have come together behind the ‘Unity for Liberty’ declaration – and this is much more urgent for the European Union than for Cuba. One of the problems of Cuba’s dissidents and opposition has always been their internal divisions, but this time there is a joint declaration and document that talks about non-violence and democracy. It is our job to support these dissidents. This has to be taken into account when the discussions and dialogue are initiated, otherwise they will be going against this Union’s policies and principles on human rights and democracy.

  Michael Gahler, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (DE) Madam President, I would like to start by saying to the Spanish rapporteur that I do not need a visit from Mr Moratino to get het up about what the Spanish Government is doing. Within the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, we have enough colleagues from Central and Eastern Europe who work with the people in Cuba out of a sense of solidarity, and the issue is not limited to the Spaniards within the PPE-DE. I do want to assure you of that.

The future for the people of Cuba should not be limited to two alternatives: either continuing with Communism or being taken over by the government in Miami. In the light of the Common Position of 1996 we have a political responsibility to support the democratic and peaceful forces as they work for change. That is why the European Parliament has awarded Sakharov prizes to the Ladies in White and to Oswaldo Payá.

I would have liked to have seen a clear statement in the Council Decision that the Common Position of 1996 still stands, that the Council Decision approved on Monday does not alter that Position, that the 2003 sanctions have merely been suspended, and that we will be reviewing the position again next June (the 17th evaluation of the Common Position). The Council should have made that clear.

  Manuel Medina Ortega, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (ES) Madam President, I would like to reinforce what Mr Romeva just said. The sole motivation for raising this subject is a Spanish domestic political issue that has nothing to do with the situation in the country under discussion. The People’s Party has preferred not to debate a truly urgent issue, which is that of Iraq.

There are currently two million Iraqi refugees within Iraq and a further two million who have been obliged to leave the country. At the moment, rather then taking in these poor people who are fleeing the bombings and killings in Iraq, countries are returning them to their country of origin. In other words, on the one hand, we are bombing the Iraqi population, and on the other we are not allowing them to leave and sending them back to that hell. This is a case of total inhumanity and it is not appropriate at this point for us to forget the situation of these people.

We therefore believe that this urgency is entirely inappropriate and that we have squandered an opportunity to deal with a case of genuine humanitarian urgency at a time when measures needed to be adopted.

There has very recently been a conference on Iraq in which this issue has been debated, a series of resolutions have been approved, and this Parliament is incapable of following them up because it prefers to deal with domestic political issues rather than the genuine problems that are currently of concern to humanity.

  President. Colleagues, I would remind you all that the subject matter of this debate is Cuba, and if anybody else tries to discuss something else, I will be very strict.

  Marios Matsakis, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Madam President, I shall definitely speak about Cuba!

This House has dealt with the situation in Cuba on several occasions. Unfortunately, all our calls for full respect of fundamental freedoms of Cuban citizens have fallen on deaf ears. The utterly anachronistic Castro regime is now so much out of date and out of touch with reality and modern democratic norms that it is highly unlikely, in my view, that any significant change for the better will occur while Castro is still in power. However, he is now elderly, sick and physically incapable of running the country, so we must start thinking about what to do when he has finally gone from the power stage of Cuba.

In the mean time, we once again call for democratic reforms and, in particular, we call for the Cuban authorities to allow the two Cuban winners of the EP’s Sakharov Prize to travel to Europe. Let us hope that some remnants of common sense may have survived in the minds of those ruling Cuba and that we shall soon welcome these Sakharov Prize winners to Parliament.

  Giusto Catania, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, for a few seconds the display for the sitting said ‘Iraqi refugees’. The slip-up has evidently also affected the technology in this Chamber. Indeed, that is the subject that we ought to have been debating: the 4 million Iraqis who are trying to come to Europe but to whom we are not showing any hospitality.

Instead, we are debating Cuba, because an international campaign is under way that led this Parliament to vote against Venezuela in the last part-session and will probably lead it to vote against Cuba today. We now expect that someone from the Spanish People’s Party will put forward a resolution against Ecuador and Bolivia. That is what we are expecting.

The real purpose, in fact, is to combat the economic policy that a large part of Latin America is implementing at the moment, in contrast to neoliberalism and the imperialistic philosophy of permanent war. That is an objective fact in our debate.

Instead, I believe that we should call strongly for a review of the European Union's common position and for a review of the embargo. What the Council did last Monday in inviting a delegation from the Cuban authorities to Brussels was a very significant step that we ought to welcome, so as to initiate a positive dialogue and to give due merit to the progress made by Cuba.

I believe, however, that the content of this resolution, right from its first clause, explicitly states the views of one side of this Parliament. In other words, it is calling for a change to the social, economic and political system of an island and sovereign state. I regard that as unacceptable.

  Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE). – Madam President, Castro’s Cuba is the last polity in the western hemisphere in which there is no pretence of democracy: opposition movements are banned; dissidents are imprisoned; citizens are denied the right to travel abroad. There are few sights so degrading as that of Western leftists arguing that all this is somehow justified because Cuba is good at producing doctors and ballerinas.

Two factors have maintained the Castroist dynasty in power: first, the misconceived American blockade, which has allowed him to sustain the siege mentality necessary to dictatorship, and second, the indulgence of those in Europe – and here I must especially mention the Zapatero Government, which indulges the Cuban Communists by according full diplomatic courtesies.

The way to bring freedom to Cuba would be through economic engagement but political isolation. Instead, we are doing the opposite with calamitous consequences for that unhappy country.

‘Sola mors tyrannicida est’ wrote my countryman, Thomas More – death is the only way to get rid of tyrants. That it should have proved so in the case of Castro says nothing good about the rest of us.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL). – (PT) What ought to have been on Parliament’s agenda was an expression from the EU of a genuine desire for dialogue on the basis of respect for Cuba.

In our view, the establishment of open dialogue covering all issues of mutual interest naturally entails bringing down the barriers that have been created to make that dialogue difficult or impossible. This means calling for a definitive end to the sanctions imposed by the EU in 2003, which are temporarily suspended, and the permanent scrapping of the EU’s common position on Cuba. These measures would pave the way for the normalisation of relations between the EU and Cuba.

This, however, is not an option for those who pushed this debate onto Parliament’s agenda and who have put their names to the motion for a resolution put to today’s vote. Its objective is to encourage Cuba’s isolation, in line with the unacceptable embargo imposed on Cuba by the US Administration. It is also aimed at the blatant, unreserved promotion of intervention in Cuba’s internal affairs and at exerting pressure from outside in order to impose decisions that only the Cuban people have the sovereign right to take. Reality demonstrates that the best response to such plans is the country’s enormous prestige and importance, and millions of millions of human beings showing active solidarity with Cuba and its people.

  Zuzana Roithová (PPE-DE). – (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, I was in Cuba not long ago and the country has not made any progress in upholding human rights; quite the opposite, in fact – things have got worse. I therefore call on the Council and the Commission to protest more strongly against flagrant human rights violations in Cuba; to support organisations that campaign for the very survival of political opponents and their families, or that help NGOs in Cuba to communicate with one another and express their opinions on how to resolve public issues; and to make the Internet available for Cubans in our embassies, because people do not have access to information in Cuba.

The Council must campaign for the release of political prisoners who are physically maltreated and do not receive the medicines they need. Normal Cubans, too, live in destitution and suffer illness. There is a lack of doctors and modern techniques. Health was once Castro’s pride and joy, yet today normal medicines are only for rich Communist leaders or foreign tourists.

Cubans want change and they want freedom. We must not let the Council open dialogue with the Cuban regime without setting out clear conditions on the release of prisoners and on freedom of expression.

  László Kovács, Member of the Commission. Madam President, we have good reason to follow closely the recent developments in Cuba, because after 47 years of ruling Cuba Fidel Castro transferred power to his brother, Raúl, who has been running the island in a relatively calm and organised fashion. It is too early to say whether Fidel will fully recuperate from his illness, but nearly all observers agree that he will never be able to assume day-to-day management again.

Cuba, for the first time since the revolution of 1959, has to face the prospect of a country no longer fully run by Fidel Castro. This is definitely a new situation, which we must take into account. The question is: how can, and how should, the European Union react to this new development?

The Council of the European Union gave its first answer three days ago. In its conclusions on Cuba of 18 June, the EU renewed its offer of an open and comprehensive dialogue with the Cuban authorities and invited a Cuban delegation to Brussels to sound out the feasibility of such an exercise. This open-door approach is consistent with the EU’s overall policy of constructive engagement towards Cuba.

Since 1996, when the European Union adopted its position on Cuba, experience has proved that only a policy of engagement and cooperation, not one of sanctions, has the potential to promote peaceful change in Cuba towards democracy, respect for human rights, the rule of law, sustainable economic recovery and improvement in the living conditions of the Cuban people, as stipulated in the EU’s common position of 1996.

Only the establishment of an open, comprehensive and result-orientated dialogue with the Cuban authorities will enable us to make the best use of the variety of instruments the EU and its Member States have at their disposal to further cooperation in the fields of political relations, human rights, investment and trade, development work, scientific research, educational exchanges and culture.

The European Union is a profoundly value-based entity that makes respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms a key policy priority in its external actions. It is deeply convinced that this commitment towards open dialogue must also involve wider Cuban civil society. Extending a hand to the Cuban Government to enter into a long-term partnership with the European Union only makes sense if, at the same time, the European Union does all it can to maintain and step up its dialogue with those involved in Cuban civil society, including human rights defenders and peaceful political activists.

As long as Cuba denies its citizens internationally-recognised basic civil political and economic rights, the European Union will not stop lobbying for democracy and respect for the rule of law and fundamental freedoms. It should not stop expressing its full solidarity with and support to those peacefully committed to making these universal values a reality in Cuba. This is the true meaning of the ‘two-track approach’: saying ‘yes’ to extending a hand to the Cuban authorities for dialogue and cooperation while explicitly expressing critical remarks and concerns, and ‘yes’ to defending the right of Cuban citizens to decide freely about their future.

It is the Commission’s firm conviction that the Council conclusions of 18 June are a welcome and necessary first step in this direction.

  President. That concludes the debate on Cuba.

The vote will take place shortly.

Written statements (Rule 142)

  Filip Kaczmarek (PPE-DE) in writing. – (PL) Madam President, the proposal that the European Union should depart from the policy of freezing diplomatic contacts with Cuba is totally unacceptable. We can agree to reopening a full and open political dialogue on all areas of common interest with the Cuban authorities with a view to improving relations between the EU and Cuba, but only on certain conditions. To do so unconditionally would be to send quite the wrong signal to the Cuban regime. It would imply that we condone the unacceptable behaviour of the authorities in that country. By its very nature, dialogue is a two-sided process, not a one-sided one.

The Cuban authorities' agreement to include in the discussion issues related to the state of human rights in Cuba must be a sine qua non to reopening a full dialogue. It is also difficult to conceive of an honest dialogue with Cuba as long as the Sakharov prize winners are not allowed to travel to Europe. The current Spanish Government's approach is very ambiguous in this regard. One would expect the Spanish Socialists to demonstrate greater solidarity with European policy towards Cuba. It is our duty to demonstrate our consistent opposition to the flagrant violations of human rights by Castro's regime. For dialogue between Cuba and the European Union to lead to positive changes it must be a genuine dialogue, not a propaganda stunt. In the past, the Cuban side has taken advantage of the Union's openness to launch a propaganda offensive.

  President. The next item is the debate on human rights in Ethiopia.

I have received six motions for a resolution⁽¹⁾.

  Carl Schlyter (Verts/ALE), author. – (SV) Ethiopia is in 170th place out of a total of 177 countries where human development is concerned.

Ethiopia has more important things to do than to oppress opposition figures and put them in prison and to treat people as a collective instead of prosecuting them for specific crimes. As far back as in October 2005, we criticised the way in which Ethiopia treats its opposition, but in 2006 and during this year the situation has deteriorated.

I believe that we have to make more stringent demands of Ethiopia. After all, the African Union’s headquarters are in Ethiopia. Ethiopia must set a good example, and we cannot accept that the country that is host to our cooperation partner, the African Union, should go in for extensive human rights violations throughout its judicial system.

Before we can get to grips with all the issues to do with poverty and poverty-related problems, we must be able to help Ethiopia combat these human rights violations. Without a lively opposition, we cannot solve the problems.

  Marco Cappato (ALDE), author. – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to draw the Commissioner's attention to a contradiction to which we risk falling victim.

In 2005, we, the European Union, encouraged everyone in Ethiopia, including the representatives of the Oromo people, to take part in the elections in order to help introduce a democratic system. We also sent one of the largest delegations of observers to the country. Today, our fellow parliamentarians who were elected to the Ethiopian federal parliament and the parliament of Oromia and who have had the courage to come out into the open are being forced to leave their country. They have appealed to us, because some of their number have been killed for political reasons, while others are fleeing to neighbouring Somalia together with thousands of Oromo refugees and are being pursued by Ethiopian troops.

At this point it is my belief that, as we helped to encourage and initiate this process, we cannot now abandon these people. We must accept our responsibility by immediately adopting a support strategy within the framework of the special measures provided for by the new democracy and human rights instrument.

  Zdzisław Zbigniew Podkański (UEN), author. – (PL) Madam President, respect for human rights, democratic principles, the rule of law and freedom are the foundations on which the structures of a just state must be built.

The Commission and the Council should develop a cohesive strategy of actions to support the democratic process in Ethiopia and introduce mechanisms to counter the deterioration of the human rights situation in that region. In addition to the arrest and imprisonment of people for their views, I find the information on the suffering and exploitation of children particularly alarming. We have to condemn the harming of defenceless and innocent children. I believe this is the most serious crime possible and it must be unequivocally condemned.

Only by acting in unison and with the cooperation of the countries bordering on Ethiopia, and drawing on stronger support from the whole international community can we improve the worrying situation in Ethiopia and return it to normality so that individuals are treated as entities and not as instruments.

  Ana Maria Gomes (PSE), author. – Madam President, I headed the EU election observation mission in Ethiopia in 2005. At that time, Opposition leaders warned the EU that the elections would be another scam by Prime Minister Meles Zenawi to fool the international community and that they all would end up in jail or killed. We, the EU, persuaded them not to boycott the elections, promising to watch and ensure accountability. The Ethiopians believed us and voted massively and in an orderly manner.

However, when people protested peacefully against electoral fraud, government forces resorted to brutal repression. In June and November, hundreds were killed in massacres and thousands were wounded and imprisoned, including the leaders who had warned the EU. They are among the 38 political prisoners found guilty on 11 June of this year in a farcical trial in which they were not able to present their defences. Sentences are due next July, possibly carrying the death penalty, against some of the most representative, articulate and courageous leaders of Ethiopia – elected Members of Parliament, human rights defenders, journalists, activists for development, teachers and other prisoners of conscience. Professor Mesfin Woldemariam, aged 77, the respected founder of the Ethiopian Human Rights Council, is one of them. The EU is the main donor of aid in Ethiopia. I have seen the difference it makes there. It can do it again if the Commission, Council and Member States stop turning a blind eye.

They must act immediately, holding the Government of Ethiopia accountable to human rights commitments under the Cotonou Agreement, holding Prime Minister Meles Zenawi personally responsible and pressing for the release of the prisoners without delay and unconditionally. They must follow the recommendations made by this Parliament in several resolutions, including the one we will approve today, not to further let down the Ethiopian people, not to further discredit Europe’s commitment towards development in Africa and not to further betray our basic values of democracy and human rights.

  Bernd Posselt (PPE-DE), author. – (DE) Madam President, back in the early Middle Ages, Ethiopia played a leading role in dialogue between the Christian and Muslim world. It is the oldest independent state in Africa, an ancient civilisation which fought against fascism and colonialism, and as has already been mentioned, is also the country where the African Union currently has its headquarters.

Given all these factors, it is with horror that we contemplate what Communism has done in the country. The free elections two years ago in Ethiopia were a time of hope. Unfortunately, that hope was immediately dashed, as demonstrators were beaten and scores were arrested. As my fellow Member Mrs Gomes quite rightly points out, it was the best and leading figures in the country from all parties and all walks of life who were the victims of the first wave of arrests, and who have also been affected by the most recent round of arrests, sentences and trials this year. We now need to take a stronger line.

I call on the Council and Commission to provide the long-awaited inspection reports from those observers who attended these unjust mock trials, which were merely for show. In line with the Resolution, I call for an independent fact-finding commission, since the members of Ethiopian Parliament's own investigation board have either been jailed or forced into exile for seeking to expose the truth about these events. The situation is unacceptable and we now need an independent investigation. We urgently need to use our strong position in the country to stand up for the rule of law and human rights.

  Tadeusz Zwiefka, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (PL) Madam President, if more death penalties are handed down to opposition activists in Ethiopia in the near future, it will mean disaster not only for the people of Ethiopia but also for our own democracy. I have followed the development of the situation in Ethiopia, and have concluded that the Ethiopian authorities consider that the elections held in 2005 represent the achievement of an aim, rather than the start of the process towards achieving that aim.

I wonder whether this is not due to the fact that despite the verified and documented abuses by the ruling party, the elections concerned have been recognised as the most democratic elections ever to have been held in the whole of Ethiopia's three thousand year history.

The resolution we are to vote on today in the European Parliament contains many references to cases that must be unequivocally condemned. We note that the situation regarding respect for human rights in Ethiopia remains very grave. The process of democratisation has ground to a complete halt in that country. There can be no justification for the arrest of leading members of the opposition, who are in danger of receiving death sentences after trials that failed to meet internationally recognised standards for free and fair trials.

We simply cannot condone the infringement of fundamental rights, arguing that it is impossible to expect full compliance with the standards of European democracy in Africa. Ethiopia is a country with a long and distinguished history. I believe its people deserve much more, and that it is incumbent on us to assist them.

  Karin Scheele , on behalf of the PSE Group. – (DE) Madam President, on the 11 June, 38 leading opposition figures were found guilty of charges ranging from crimes against the constitution to high treason, all linked to the mass protests following the controversial elections two years ago, in which nearly 200 people were killed. Before the members of the Ethiopian Parliament's investigation board were arrested or forced into exile, the board concluded that the security forces used unreasonable force and that marksmen targeted leading opposition politicians. The sentences are expected in the coming months and there is a danger that most of the defendants will be condemned to death. We call on the Ethiopian Government to release all political prisoners immediately and unconditionally. The Ethiopian courts urgently need to review the rulings and the government must work to ensure an independent justice system and a free press.

  Marios Matsakis, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Madam President, Ethiopia, a country with a population of 75 million, is one of Africa’s poorest states and almost two-thirds of its citizens are illiterate. It has had a traumatic history, passing from colonialism to royal oligarchy to Marxist dictatorship and, recently, to a type of apparent parliamentary democracy, but with serious democratic deficits.

We do not expect Ethiopian democratic norms to be of a European standard. That would be unrealistic on our part, bearing in mind the country’s huge problems, but we expect the Ethiopian Government to show respect for at least basic human rights.

We are currently very concerned about the psychologically paranoid mentality of the regime in Addis Ababa, which is behind a large-scale crackdown on Opposition leaders, journalists and human rights activists. We are particularly worried about the government-controlled corrupt judicial and police systems which operate in the country, and call on the Ethiopian authorities to proceed immediately to drastic changes and corrective measures in order to remedy the currently abysmal situation and to show the outside world that they genuinely care about justice and democracy, instead of simply claiming to do so.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I am sure that we will agree with Mr Cappato this time.

(ES) Madam President, I would like to express my support and acknowledgement of the work that some of our fellow Members have been doing for a long time with regard to Ethiopia and in particular that of our friend and colleague Ana Gomes, not just because of the mission that took place, but because over all these years she has been condemning the situation in Ethiopia and taking it extremely seriously.

I believe that support for this resolution that we are going to approve today may be crucial in terms of changing the situation in Ethiopia.

In my view, it was significant to see both the chairman and the vice-chairman of the committee of inquiry on the events that took place two years ago, having to flee the country, forced out under pressure from the Meles Government in view of the results of their inquiry.

This is something about which we cannot remain silent, particularly in view of the fact that it was the European Union that promoted and legitimised the elections in that country two years ago.

The situation is therefore clearly a worry. It is serious and requires an immediate response.

  John Attard-Montalto (PSE). – (MT) Europe views Ethiopia with ambivalence. It was initially extremely confident that it could help this country progress towards democracy. This is why we sent to Ethiopia one of the largest observation missions we have ever sent.

The West views Ethiopia almost as an ally, and by the West I also mean America. The West also applauded Somalia when it offered aid to the Ethiopian Government. What has happened internally, however? Internally, we have seen that, because this country relies on international assistance, especially from the West, human rights are not respected; minorities are punished in one way or another, and there is corruption amongst the police and judicial authorities. We have also observed that there are just under forty people in prison, who will probably be given the death penalty. Therefore, I believe that Europe must try to re-open negotiations in a collaborative rather than authoritative manner with this country. We must convey the message to Ethiopia that it cannot continue to operate in this manner.

  László Kovács, Member of the Commission. Madam President, I want to assure you that the Commission fully shares Parliament’s concerns with the lack of progress with respect to democratisation in Ethiopia and even the deterioration of the situation since the 2005 post-election crisis.

The Commission, in coordination with Member States and the international community, actively undertook efforts to defuse tensions and urge the Ethiopian Government to take practical steps towards the reconciliation and the democratisation of the country, to restore confidence and to release the imprisoned opposition leaders and representatives of the media and civil society. In its relations with the Ethiopian authorities, the Commission is continuously stressing the importance of reforms, including the implementation of the recommendations of the EU Election Observation Mission in 2005.

As far as the political detainees are concerned, President Barroso and Commissioner Michel have reiterated their concerns on several occasions to Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, requesting a short, fair and transparent trial, asking for the withdrawal of the more outrageous charges and pointing out that they did not consider the trial an appropriate response to the Ethiopian political problems. The granting of an amnesty to the political detainees was also suggested to the Prime Minister of Ethiopia. The presence of an EU lawyer observer at the prisoners’ trial is intended to remind the Ethiopian authorities of the EU’s attention in this regard.

Notwithstanding the recent release of 26 of the 131 initial defendants, for whom some of the initial accusations had been dismissed, the Commission is at present seriously concerned about the guilty verdict pronounced on 11 June against 38 political prisoners, which could lead even to the death penalty.

The Commission, the EU Member States and the international community are following the situation very closely, also taking into account the ongoing mediation efforts between the Ethiopian authorities and the prisoners. The Commission supports the mediation, but expects this mediation to lead to the unconditional release of the political prisoners.

The Commission is aware that the political situation is due to the lack of democratic reforms and extensive human rights violations, like arrests and detentions without charge. I want to assure you that we will never abandon those Ethiopians who are committed to democracy, many of whom have been imprisoned and forced to leave the country.

Notwithstanding some progress made in parliamentary rules, there is a lack of substantial progress in the Prime Minister’s commitments entered into with the opposition after the elections, notably on electoral reforms, independence of the National Electoral Board, media reforms, independence of the judiciary and of the security and military forces.

The Commission remains convinced that we should continue to engage with the Ethiopian authorities in an intense political dialogue on such crucial issues at every possible opportunity. Commissioner Michel, who is personally committed, has given priority to keeping an open and structured dialogue with them within the framework of Article 8 of the Cotonou Agreement on political dialogue, as the most appropriate way to encourage enhanced governance, reconciliation and democracy. The Commission recognises that democratisation will take time and we must remain vigilant as well as ready to support the government’s efforts in that direction.

As regards the death penalty, we made it explicitly clear to the Prime Minister of Ethiopia that the European Union is opposed to its use in all circumstances and considers its abolition a crucial step towards the advancement of human dignity.

  President. Thank you, Commissioner.

The debate is closed, and the vote will take place shortly.

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

  Marios Matsakis (ALDE), author. – Madam President, Commissioner, Burma is a regular theme in our sessions on human rights breaches. If we had a prize for the regime with the worst human rights record, Burma would certainly be a very strong contender. Incidentally, Burma is also a world star with respect to another evil: drugs. According to the International Narcotics Central Strategy Report for 2006, Burma is the world’s second largest producer of illicit opium, accounting for more than 90% of South-East Asian heroin. I do not know how well the breaches of human rights are connected to drug production in Burma, but I know they should both be dealt with firmly, quickly and effectively.

Unfortunately, it seems that the EU’s stance – as well as that of the international community – against the Burmese regime has not been drastic enough to have any good effect. A good example is the recent granting of permission by the Council to the Burmese Foreign Minister to attend the ASEM meeting, only days after the military junta in Burma had extended the deplorable house arrest of Mrs Aung San Suu Kyi. The Council ought to give an explanation for this action. Another example is the fact that an arms embargo on Burma is largely ineffective, since countries like China and India are not taking part in it. Surely pressure must be put on such countries to join in the arms embargo against Burma?

In conclusion, let me reiterate our call for the immediate release from house arrest of Mrs Aung San Suu Kyi. That remarkable lady has contributed enormously to peace and democracy, not only in Burma but internationally, and she has been awarded both the Nobel Peace Prize and our own Sakharov Prize. It is truly outrageous and shameful that she has spent more than 11 of the last 17 years in detention in her own country. International and EU calls for her release have had no effect. Our patience has long run out. We recommend that more drastic action, such as expansion of sanctions and enlargement of the list of those targeted, must now take place.

  Zdzisław Zbigniew Podkański (UEN), author. – (PL) Madam President, the European Union has adopted a firm stance regarding the abuses perpetrated by the military regime in Burma/Myanmar. Europe is pressing for Burma/Myanmar to show more respect for human rights and get back on course towards democracy.

The authorities in Burma/Myanmar are continuing to imprison and persecute activists working for democracy. I believe there are two ways in which the situation in that country could be improved. One is for China and India to stop supplying it with arms and other strategic equipment. The other is for foreign enterprises investing in Burma/Myanmar to respect human rights. It is also important to develop programmes to assist civil society in Burma/Myanmar, notably organisations for women and ethnic minorities.

I represent the Union for Europe of the Nations Group. We support all actions aimed at protecting human rights and respect for the principles of the rule of law and democratic freedoms including freedom of association and freedom of speech. We will continue to do so at all times. We wish to draw attention to the financial situation of the Burmese people. Over 15 million of them are living below the poverty line. This amounts to about 30% of the population. Immediate assistance is needed to protect the life and health of these individuals.

  Marc Tarabella (PSE), author. – (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I have often spoken in this House about the situation in Burma, making frequent use of the terms ‘repression’, ‘military junta in power’ and ‘flouted human rights’.

The resolution that we are going to vote on today is a call for Burma to bring an end to certain actions. Along with my colleagues, I particularly and principally deplore the house arrest since 30 May 2003 of Aung San Suu Kyi, the Burmese opposition member who celebrated her 62nd birthday on Tuesday and has spent eleven out of the last seventeen years in detention, mainly under house arrest. She has only been able to leave her home once, for health reasons requiring urgent attention, and she has little contact with the outside world. Aung San Suu Kyi is the symbol of the Burmese opposition to the military dictatorship, and also received the Nobel prize in 1991. It is absolutely unacceptable for her to be under house arrest. This is why we are calling for her immediate, unconditional release.

Burma must entirely stop persecuting and imprisoning pro-democracy activists and must release those who are already in prison. I am thinking in particular of U Win Tin, a journalist who, now aged 77, has been in prison for nearly 20 years for writing a letter to the United Nations reporting the poor conditions under which political prisoners were being held.

As Vice-Chairman of the ANASE delegation in Parliament, I see the growing role that this organisation can play in the region. May it have a positive influence on the Burmese Government in the near future!

  Charles Tannock (PPE-DE), author. – Madam President, Burma has one of the world’s worst human rights and lack of democracy track records, with people-trafficking for sexual exploitation, domestic service and forced commercial labour. This is compounded by the military junta’s severe economic mismanagement. Burma also remains the world’s second-largest producer of illicit opium.

Despite multi-party elections in 1990, which resulted in the NLD victory, the repressive military junta continues to refuse to hand over power. NLD leader and Nobel Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, who marked her 62nd birthday this Tuesday, has been detained for more than 11 of the past 18 years. In February 2006, the junta extended her detention for yet another year. Her supporters, as well as those who promote democracy and improved human rights, are routinely harassed or jailed in a country with no independent judiciary and brutal law enforcement agencies.

Following the recent UN Security Council refusal to apply sanctions against Burma, disgracefully, the UN Human Rights Council has focused almost entirely and exclusively on one single country – Israel – totally ignoring Burma. The EU, along with neighbouring ASEAN countries, and along with India and China as well, must now do much more to apply pressure to secure Aung San Suu Kyi’s release.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), author. – (ES) Madam President, as other Members have pointed out and as is pointed out time and time again in the reports by the United Nations Special Representative on Human Rights in Myanmar, Mr Paulo Sergio Pinheiro, and in the reports by the United Nations Secretary-General’s Special Representative on Human Rights Defenders, Hina Jilani, the situation in Burma continues to be of concern and is deteriorating every day.

I would like to begin by recalling the appeals that have been made in this House on previous occasions and which we must make once again. Extending the confinement of Aung San Suu Kyi by a year is entirely unacceptable, and we must therefore call upon the Burmese regime to suspend it as soon as possible. It is also important to call once again for the release of all political prisoners and to guarantee freedom of expression and freedom of demonstration, which are currently being violated in that country.

On the other hand, however, I also believe that it is important to point out our responsibility as western countries in relation to that country, in terms of investments, and I say this because there are at least two crucial factors.

Firstly, let us not forget that Burma currently has, if not the most significant, then at least one of the most significant reserves of natural gas in South-East Asia. That is a very attractive thing, naturally. It is therefore essential that, before there is any foreign international investment, we guarantee that there is at least an analysis of the impact of those investments on human rights. That is something that we forget too often.

Secondly, I believe that it is also important to stress that the sanctions currently being imposed by the United States, and the European Union’s restrictions, are not proving to be effective. The fact that many other Asian countries are clearly increasing their investments in that country obliges us also to take a regional approach to the problem in order to ensure that our actions, and those of our allies, are more effective.

  James Nicholson, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – Madam President, I reiterate the condemnation of the Burmese regime, which is so clearly and effectively expressed in the resolution.

The 17-year-long plight of Aung San Suu Kyi is one which few human beings could withstand. She has selflessly withstood indefinite imprisonment and ongoing separation from her loved ones, yet is still showing unshakeable courage and consistency in her cause, and for this she must be applauded. She is, without doubt, a leader of our time, enduring the curtailment of her civil liberties which closely mirrors the suppression of her fellow citizens. The human rights abuses in Burma span religious persecution, forced labour and detention without trial and are elements of political violence which the UN has recently justifiably condemned.

The signatories of this resolution wholeheartedly denounce the economic support given to the regime through investment in the arms trade and the energy industry from other Far Eastern countries, which only shows up this ruthless dictatorship. All democracies should seriously reconsider financing a country with one of the lowest health expenditures in the world.

  Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (PL) Madam President, six months have passed since the last European Parliament resolution that sent out a warning about the serious internal situation in Burma/Myanmar. The military authorities in power in that country have failed to make any progress towards democracy, however.

Burma/Myanmar's economic situation is causing great concern. Thirty per cent of its people live below the poverty line and human rights are openly violated. In addition, forced labour and child conscription into the army are part of everyday life. Opposition activists are persecuted and imprisoned for long periods, as has happened in the case of Aung San Suu Kyi, a Nobel and Sakharov prize winner who has been detained for 17 years.

Against this background, all the political groups in Burma/Myanmar should be urged to take part in the National Convention charged with drafting a new Constitution. Representatives of the National League for Democracy should also participate. Burma/Myanmar's membership of ASEAN is particularly important for its future, as ASEAN members are required to redouble their efforts towards democracy.

China and India should exert political and economic pressure on the Burmese regime by refusing to support the army of Burma/Myanmar. For its part, the international community should implement economic sanctions and freeze the assets of members of the Government of Burma/Myanmar and those associated with them. It is only by taking decisive action of this nature that we can hope to force the Burmese regime to introduce democratic changes.

  Urszula Krupa, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – (PL) Madam President, the subject of today's debate on human rights violations is once again the political and social situation in Burma/Myanmar. Ever since 1962, Burma/Myanmar has been ruled by the military, who have kept an iron grip on the country.

For over 40 years, human rights have been violated in this Asian country, and thousands of individuals have been persecuted and punished for opposition activities. Many have been imprisoned. Forced labour is the order of the day, and children are conscripted into the army. Most people in Burma/Myanmar do not have access to medical care. Many of them die of tuberculosis, malaria, HIV or AIDS and almost half the children do not attend school. Red Cross centres have been shut down and those in need deprived of protection and humanitarian aid. The junta disregards the actions of the UN Human Rights Council and of the ILO. It also fails to respond to European Parliament resolutions and to documents issued by the Council of the European Community.

On 15 May 2007 Aung San Suu Kyi's term of house arrest was extended for a further year. This Nobel Prize winner and opposition activist has spent 11 of the last 17 years either in prison or under house arrest. We appeal for her release and that of other political prisoners. We also call for the National League for Democracy to be allowed to resume its activities, and for the resumption of humanitarian aid to prevent the extinction of the Burmese nation and ethnic minorities.

A particular problem concerning the continued existence of this regime and others of a totalitarian nature is the ineffective actions taken by international bodies. Despite promises to the contrary, the sanctions imposed do not have an impact on the economic structures of the regimes and the embargoes applied hit ordinary people who are already persecuted and living in extreme poverty. Our European Parliament resolutions and all other actions will remain superficial and ineffective until these issues are resolved.

  László Kovács, Member of the Commission. Madam President, the Commission remains worried about the situation in Myanmar/Burma. The biggest worries concern the deep social and ethnic fault lines which divide the country and which result in human insecurity, widespread poverty and lack of progress in economic and social development. It is obvious, that in a climate of human insecurity and ongoing armed conflict in a few border areas, there is little space for respect for human rights.

The authorities of Myanmar/Burma are confronted with a number of challenges, like establishing national unity and political stability, and – most importantly – advancing the development level of their country which remains one of the poorest in the world. For the international community, helping the transition of Myanmar/Burma towards a more open and more developed society – led by a legitimate and civilian government – should remain the paramount goal.

The military leadership’s erratic governance continues, in economic terms and in the political sphere. The military continues to employ practices of forced labour, while civil society faces repression, uncertainty and operational difficulties. The ‘88 Students’ – the then leaders of the 1988 uprising – continue to exploit the minimal space for civil society as much as they can, while the National League for Democracy is marginalised and while the unjustifiable detention of Mrs Aung San Suu Kyi continues.

Transition is hard to imagine with more than one thousand political detainees, among whom Mrs Aung San Suu Kyi sticks out as the icon of peace and reconciliation. Such transition is equally inconceivable without a genuine dialogue with the various ethnic groups, including those continuing their armed battle.

The Commission supports the work of Professor Paolo Sergio Pinheiro, the UN’s Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in Myanmar. He said, in his last statement, that ‘grave human rights violations are indulged not only with impunity but authorised by the sanction of laws’. The Commission also welcomes the appointment by the UN Secretary-General of Professor Ibrahim Gambari as Special Envoy for Myanmar, and expects that the Government will extend its full cooperation to him, in order to allow the good offices of the UN Secretary General to continue.

Regarding the forthcoming session of the National Convention, we call on the Government to listen to the voices of ethnic groups and political stakeholders in opposition. We note progress in the working conditions of the local International Labour Organisation office, which will hopefully improve the situation of victims of forced labour practices filing a complaint. But we deplore the deteriorating working conditions for the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and call on the Government to allow the ICRC to resume its humanitarian mission.

Among most observers, there is a growing consensus that more needs to be done about the political and socioeconomic situation. The European Union, in its common position, has mandated the Commission to engage the Government in a dialogue over its responsibilities to achieve the Millennium Development Goals. The EU has, therefore, been looking for effective policies which may help the people of Myanmar/Burma and which may help to bring them back into the international community. The Three Diseases Fund, supported by the EU and its partners, is an example of this policy.

Our approach focuses on the most basic and immediate human security needs of the population, and it clearly recognises the limits which exist for all external actors. However, withholding aid and contributing to more isolation would only make the population pay the price, that is, the people of Myanmar/Burma who are already suffering. We simply do not believe that through increased sanctions the suffering of the people can be relieved. Moreover, such an approach would not help influence the military leaders.

The Commission is fully committed to stepping up its programmes in Myanmar/Burma, in quantitative and qualitative terms, with a view to contributing effectively to development and reconciliation.

  President. That concludes the debate.

The vote will take place shortly.

  President. The next item is the vote.

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

- Joint motion for a resolution (RC-B6-0250/2007)

Before the vote:

  Marco Cappato (ALDE). – Madam President, I have two oral amendments. One is to insert a recital Ia as follows: ‘regretting the United Nations Human Rights Council decision to discontinue moratorium human rights abuses in Cuba’.

(The House agreed to the oral amendment)

  Marco Cappato (ALDE). – Madam President, I should like to add the following new paragraph after paragraph 15: ‘Condemns any policy of sexual discrimination and repression, such as the one until now effective in Cuba, and welcomes the educational campaigns on sexual discrimination that are currently implemented by the National Centre for Sex Education of Cuba’.

(The House agreed to the oral amendment)

- Joint motion for a resolution (RC-B6-0246/2007)

- Joint motion for a resolution (RC-B6-0248/2007)

  President. I declare adjourned the session of the European Parliament.

(The sitting was closed at 16.10)