Verbatim report of proceedings

Tuesday, 26 September 2006 - Strasbourg

15. Pericles programme Pericles programme extension to non-participating Member States (debate)

  President. The next item is the joint debate on

- the report by Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, on the proposal for a Council decision amending and extending Decision 2001/923/EC establishing an exchange, assistance and training programme for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting (the ‘Pericles’ programme) (COM(2006)0243 – C6-0179/2006 – 2006/0078(CNS)) (A6-0276/2006), and

- the report by Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, on the proposal for a Council decision extending to the non-participating Member States the application of Decision 2006/…/EC amending and extending Decision 2001/923/EC establishing an exchange, assistance and training programme for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting (the ‘Pericles’ programme) (COM(2006)0243 – C6-0180/2006 – 2006/0079(CNS)) (A6-0277/2006).

  Siim Kallas, Vice-President of the Commission. Mr President, allow me first to express my sincere gratitude to the rapporteur, Mr Díaz de Mera García Consuegra, for his support for the Commission’s proposal for the extension of the Pericles programmes. Pericles, a Community programme for exchange, assistance and training in the protection of the euro against counterfeiting, was established by a Council decision in 2001 and is designed to support and supplement the measures undertaken by the Member States to protect the euro against counterfeiting.

With an initial duration of four years – 2002 to 2005 – it had a total reference amount of EUR 4 million. The Pericles programme covers a broad range of actions organised not just within the EU, but also in third or candidate countries. Its action incorporates diversified target groups and participants, covering all the areas relevant to the protection of the euro – law enforcement, judicial, financial and technical – and promoting the creation of networks useful in achieving greater efficiency in the fight against the crime of counterfeiting. In addition, Pericles assists the increased effectiveness of cooperation between law enforcement agents and representatives of the judiciary and financial institutions. Nevertheless, the counterfeiting of euros remains a serious and especially a symbolic problem, even if its proportions are not alarming.

Since early summer 2003, the number of counterfeit euro banknotes detected in circulation has stabilised at about 50 000 a month, a level below the pre-euro levels, lower than the US dollar and extremely low compared to the 9 million genuine euro banknotes in circulation. The number of counterfeit euro coins also remains low by historical standards. Recently police forces have successfully conducted a number of operations to dismantle workshops and seize large numbers of counterfeit banknotes and coins before they enter into circulation.

The Pericles programme is playing a significant role in achieving results in the protection of the euro and the fight against the crime of counterfeiting. There is clearly a need for continued joint efforts to combat this form of crime.

The Pericles programme has recently been evaluated. The evaluators concluded that the programme did indeed improve awareness, its target groups have been reached, especially law enforcement officials, and its activities and information exchanges were considered relevant to the objectives of the programme.

Based on the positive evaluation of Pericles and the continued need, in 2005 the Commission proposed the extension of the programme. Pending an agreement on the Community financial perspectives for the period 2007-2013, the Council initially decided to extend the Pericles programme for one year only, until 2006, but made a political commitment to the continuation of the programme. Consequently, building on the success the programme has demonstrated, in May 2006 the Commission tabled a proposal for a Council decision concerning the extension of the Pericles programme for the period 2007-2013. The yearly amount remains unchanged, approximately EUR 1 million, leading to an overall reference amount of EUR 7 million. The Commission’s proposal for extension until 2013 also reflects the practical convenience of fitting in with the duration of the Community’s financial framework.

Once more I would like to thank Parliament, and in particular the rapporteur, for their attention to the protection of this important element of the common European identity and heritage that is its common currency. The public authorities at national and European level, as well as industry, have to keep up their efforts and continue cooperation and the exchange of know-how. It is through our combined efforts that we will be able to protect the interests of tradesmen, consumers and the economy in general against illicit gain from the counterfeiting of our money.

  Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – (ES) Mr President, the protection of the euro against counterfeiting is very important in terms of maintaining the citizens’ confidence in the single currency. I agree with everything that Mr Kallas has said.

The introduction of the euro as a single currency was a huge challenge. The dollar, as a currency of a transnational nature, a reserve currency and a currency of global transaction, is presently the most counterfeited currency.

Unfortunately, the euro shares these features with the dollar, though to a lesser extent, and that is why, since its birth, we have had to adopt and adapt many measures aimed at preventing its counterfeiting.

The Pericles programme is intended to support and complement the actions introduced by the Member States and by the existing programmes for protecting the euro by means of exchanges, assistance and training with a view to protecting our single currency against counterfeiting.

As we know, the programme was established by means of the Council Decision of 17 December 2001, which stated that assessment reports on the programme must be presented, accompanied by a proposal on its continuation or adaptation.

The first report was published and presented to Parliament and the Council on 30 November 2004. Then, on 8 April, the Commission presented a proposal on the basis of which the Council extended the programme to 2006, providing it with a budget of EUR 1 million and requiring a detailed report on the results of the programme to be presented to Parliament and the Commission.

With regard to assessment, Pericles has made a very clear positive contribution to the protection of the euro and the fight against counterfeiting. Its continuation is therefore fully justified. In particular, the perception of the Community dimension of the euro has been improved and it has given the participants a better understanding of the legislation and instruments available; an overall commitment of 80% of the initial reference sum during the period 2002-2006 has been achieved; 64 projects have been implemented involving 76 countries; the effective complementarity of national and Community actions has been emphasised − 48 of the 64 initiatives emerged from the Member States, while 16 came from the Commission or OLAF; the programme has taken on an international dimension, with the involvement not just of all of the Members States and those about to join, but also of other non-EU countries in which the production of counterfeit banknotes is widespread, such as Colombia; considerable structural improvements have been made, with the creation and establishment in several countries of national central offices responsible for combating the counterfeiting of the currency; and there has been systematic involvement of the European Central Bank and other organisations, such as Europol, OLAF and Interpol.

The results of the Pericles programme so far are hopeful, as indicated in the six-monthly report of the European Central Bank on the counterfeiting of the euro.

It is becoming increasingly difficult to counterfeit our currency. The data corresponding to the first six months of this year show that the proportion of counterfeit banknotes is falling in relation to the increase in the number of genuine notes put into circulation. As the Commissioner has already said, 50 000 notes of our currency are counterfeited each month, while there are 9 000 million genuine notes in circulation.

Between January and June of this year, 300 000 counterfeit notes were withdrawn from circulation. Of all the counterfeit notes withdrawn during the first half of this year, 44% were 20 euro notes and 36% were 50 euro notes, which means that there has been a significant increase in the counterfeiting of 20 euro notes. Twelve per cent of all counterfeit notes were 100 euro notes, while 500 euro notes represented just 1%.

In short, Mr President, I very much agree with the proposal. It is of crucial importance that the Community legislator ensure that the extension of the programme be properly linked both to the financial perspective and to the introduction of the euro in the new States.

The Council is postponing the Pericles decision until a final agreement has been adopted on the financial perspective for 2007-2013; we entirely agree that it should conform to the financial perspective, with an annual budget of EUR 1 million.

For all of these reasons, I recommend that, under these conditions, the European Parliament approve the Commission's proposals, modifying and extending the Pericles programme.

I would like to say one more thing, Mr President. I wish to protest at the change of time for this debate. I have not been consulted and I have not been given any explanation. I should have been with the victims of terrorism from my country, but I am here out of respect for all of you. When I finish my speech, I shall leave to be with them and I would like to offer all of you, and you in particular, Mr Kallas, the apologies that you deserve - apologies such as I, for my part, was not given.

I hope that you understand my reasons for having to leave.

  President. Apparently the actual timetable has not been changed. However, we began the Rapkay report this morning and we then went on with the continuation as foreseen in the original agenda. However, thank you for your observations. I am sorry that it caused you difficulties.

  Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – (ES) Mr President, I am speaking with full knowledge of the facts and I believe that you should be aware of them too.

I have here the agenda, with the timetable and the schedule for voting on the two Pericles reports this morning. The two Pericles reports should have been voted on this morning, and here it is in black and white, Mr President.

I would therefore like to offer my apologies for leaving the Chamber now – apologies such as I, for my part, was not given.

  President. We understand your position. We will write you a letter explaining what has happened, from this perspective. Thank you for your observations and I am sorry that you were put to such discomfort.

  Hubert Pirker, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, in the euro, we have one of the safest currencies in the world, and that is the way it should remain. It should not be taken for granted, however, as permanent measures are needed to keep it that way. By this I mean the technical measures that have been taken and are still being taken in the case of renewal, on the one hand, and training and exchanges on the other. Pericles as a supporting action programme – which has been extremely successful to date, with 64 projects and over 3 000 participants from 76 countries – shows the great interest there has in fact been in this action programme. Counterfeiting and losses have been reduced. I can give an example for my country, Austria, namely that, in the last year, seizures have been down by more than 40% and losses have been reduced by more than 50%. The programme can take some of the credit for this.

Evaluation by OLAF has also revealed certain weaknesses, however. I am obliged to the Commission and the rapporteur for taking the opportunity this presents to set in motion the new Pericles programme, which runs until 2013. I consider it particularly important that new priorities are being set, for example in the field of practical training and of personnel exchanges and, looking ahead to the new generation of euro notes, specific training in the new technical aspects. I also welcome the extension to countries wishing to introduce the euro, that is to say, to the partner countries in which counterfeiting is in fact taking place, and also specifically to groups of people who have not been covered up to now to the same extent as by the first part, when the programme was used particularly for law-enforcement authorities.

We must now appeal to the Member States to make optimum use of the programme, so that we can look to the future with optimism and make the euro the safest currency in the world.

  Donato Tommaso Veraldi, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to endorse the Council decision of 30 January 2006 amending and extending Decision 2001/923/EC establishing an exchange, assistance and training programme for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting, for which I am a shadow rapporteur.

The decision also provides for the extension of the programme to the non-participating Member States. The main aim of the programme is, by means of exchange, assistance and training, to ensure uniform protection of the euro in all Member States while taking account of the individual situation in each country.

In May this year the Commission presented an evaluation document that was generally favourable, because of the major contribution made by the programme in protecting the euro and fighting counterfeiting. The Pericles programme has allowed us to identify geographical areas, such as Colombia, for instance, where false banknotes tend to be produced easily. This has been possible because better structures have been created through the setting-up of national centres committed to the fight against the counterfeiting of our currency.

It is important, therefore, to continue to ensure cooperation among the European institutions – the Commission, OLAF, the European Central Bank and Europol – making it possible to identify those areas where counterfeiting of the euro occurs most.

Extending the programme will make it possible to continue surveillance, training and technical assistance, which are vital activities for maintaining the protection of the euro against counterfeiting. The programme also leads to greater effectiveness by extending technical assistance and even offering financial assistance for cooperation in cross-border operations, thanks to the participation of Europol.

The new Member States deserve particular attention, above all those that are going to introduce the euro as the single currency.

To conclude, I am in favour both of continuing the programme, as proposed by the Council, and of extending it to the non-participating Member States, so that the necessary measures can be adopted to ensure a uniform level of protection of the euro even in the Member States that have not yet adopted it as their official currency.

  Johannes Blokland, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – (NL) Mr President, we are in agreement with the Council’s decision to extend the duration of the Pericles programme. Extending the programme to Member States that are not in the euro zone is necessary and desirable. It is, after all, of huge importance that the trust in the euro should not be undermined by counterfeiting. There are two aspects that cause us to raise questions at the moment surrounding the euro.

The first of these is the use of the euro as legal tender in countries outside the euro zone. The euro is being widely accepted particularly in Montenegro and Turkey. Can Commissioner Kallas indicate in what way those countries are being involved in the programme in order to fight counterfeiting and the bringing into circulation of counterfeit euro coins? In 2004, the European Parliament adopted the report on medals and coins that resemble euro coins. There was a huge increase in fraud involving coins that resemble euro coins. Commissioner, could you say whether the Council’s regulation on this subject has had any impact?

  Marek Aleksander Czarnecki (NI). – (PL) Mr President, ever since a decision was made to create a common currency in the European Union within the framework of the Maastricht Treaty, it has been necessary to contend with the dangers which arise in connection with the project. Counterfeiting has existed ever since people became aware of the value of counterfeit goods. It is extremely important to combat the production of counterfeit euros in order to maintain the citizens' trust in the common currency.

At the moment, it is essential for Community legislation to ensure that the way in which the programme is extended takes account of the deadline for introducing the euro in the new Member States and the entry into circulation of a second series of euro banknotes. It is also necessary to ensure that competences in this important process do not overlap and to make sure that all the joint activities of the various institutions complement each other and are compatible. It seems essential for the European Commission and Europol to jointly assess new projects that are to be funded within the framework of the PERICLES programme.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE-DE). – (PT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we accept that the euro needs to be adequately protected by means of a range of integrated, effective measures involving close cooperation at both European and international level. We therefore welcome the creation of the Pericles programme.

We support this detailed report submitted to Parliament on the implementation and results of this programme, and wish to highlight the fact that the results have clearly been good. In the second half of 2003 the number of false banknotes in circulation levelled off. The figures were favourable in comparison both with those prior to the introduction of the euro and with levels of counterfeiting of the US dollar. Although the number of counterfeit euro coins continues to rise, this figure is still low in comparison with the counterfeiting of the old coins. In other words, the level of counterfeiting is low, a major factor in which is the high level of cooperation among the relevant services. Action has been taken to dismantle counterfeiting operations and to confiscate significant amounts of counterfeit notes and coins prior to their entry into circulation.

This programme has therefore largely achieved its objectives, and has made it possible to identify the places, both within and outside the Community, where production of counterfeit notes is at its highest. It has also led to considerable structural improvements. In a number of countries, for example, central bodies charged with combating euro counterfeiting have been set up.

I therefore endorse Mr Díaz de Mera’s excellent report, the aim of which is to extend the programme until the end of 2013 so as to align its period of validity with the financial perspective. Furthermore – and this is a point I wish to emphasise – it is aimed at extending its application to the non-participating Member States.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI). – (DE) Mr President, the extension of the Pericles programme is undoubtedly important. It is no good praising the euro as unforgeable and giving it various security features, however, if our citizens and cashiers are unfamiliar with these features or unable to use them properly. It is true that there is greater awareness now and EUR 100 and higher denomination notes are tested, but, since counterfeit EUR 20 and EUR 50 notes now make up approximately 80% of fakes, we must increase awareness of the problems still further. Unfortunately, the large size of the area using the euro, in particular, makes the production of high-quality counterfeit coins attractive to counterfeiters. In addition, the progress made in the field of printing technology has made it increasingly difficult for the lay person to distinguish genuine from counterfeit notes. With approximately 600 000 counterfeit notes withdrawn from circulation each year, much work certainly remains to be done, all the more so because, in addition to the rising figures for these, coins are increasingly arousing the interest of counterfeiters.

The only way to tackle the increase in counterfeiting is by raising awareness, which was the idea behind organising more workshops on the subject, including by, or in, the EU information outlets. It would make particular sense to increase the provision of information in each of the regions in which increasing numbers of fakes – counterfeit money – have been found. It may also make sense to extend the search project by means of text-messaging business people to enable the perpetrators to be arrested, which is already being done in Austria with some success.

At all events, making the eurozone an area with an unforgeable currency should be an important preoccupation of all of ours.

  Charlotte Cederschiöld (PPE-DE). – (SV) Firstly, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Díaz de Mera García Consuegra, for his work in this field. It may not be a very exciting area, but it is a very important one. Mr Díaz de Mera García Consuegra has drafted a fine report, as I am keen to point out, as I myself was the rapporteur on this matter when it was one of the topics of the day during the last election campaign. At that time, opinions were a little more divided, especially with regard to which denominations would be counterfeited. The line taken by the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats subsequently proved to be the right one. Many people thought that the EUR 500 notes would be the ones most counterfeited, but we in the PPE-DE Group were of the opinion that the smaller denominations, such as the EUR 20 and EUR 50 notes, would be at greater risk. I am pleased to see that Mr Díaz de Mera García Consuegra is in favour of the idea of careful monitoring also in countries where the euro has not yet been introduced. The risk of counterfeits is, more often than not, greater in these countries, as the populations have not had the same level of preparation as in the Eurozone countries. It is harder for people in these countries to tell the difference between real and fake notes and, in many cases, people are often less suspicious too. Fortunately, counterfeiting has been a much smaller problem than had been feared, perhaps due to the very Pericles programme that we are discussing, and especially due to the large scope that it has been given. This is another example of something good that the EU has done. This is an area where we no longer have so much conflict, but there is every reason to inform people about this programme, which protects us all in our everyday lives.

  Siim Kallas, Vice-President of the Commission. I am grateful to Members for their comments and their support for the Pericles programme, which tries to fight counterfeiting. Counterfeiting is politically a very serious crime, which somehow humiliates the authorities, but the fight against it is eternal.

The fight against the counterfeiting of euro coins in the European Union has been relatively successful. The cooperation between the European Central Bank, Europol and OLAF has also been relatively efficient. Euro notes are of quite a high quality. But that does not diminish the importance of fighting counterfeiting. In my previous occupations I have had occasion to deal with the issue. The main problem is always the streets and dark bars where the counterfeit notes are put into circulation. That explains why EUR 500 notes are not found amongst counterfeit notes.

One specific question was about Turkey and Montenegro. Montenegro is a specific issue. It has the euro as an official currency. It is not so much a question of counterfeiting as of the monetary policy of the European Union. I know my colleagues are thinking about how to deal with that.

Turkey has promised – I have visited Turkey and discussed this with the Turkish authorities – to gradually phase out the coins that are quite similar to euro coins. To change the production process takes some time, but at least they have made a promise to do so.

  President. The joint debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow.