Verbatim report of proceedings

Wednesday, 15 November 2006 - Strasbourg

1. Opening of the sitting

IN THE CHAIR: MR BORRELL FONTELLES
President

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

2. Written statements (tabling): see Minutes

3. Services in the internal market (debate)

  President. The first item is the debate on the recommendation for second reading by the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection on the Council common position for adopting a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on services in the internal market (10003/4/2006 C6-0270/2006 2004/0001 (COD)) (Rapporteur: Mrs Gebhardt) (A6-0375/2006).

  Evelyne Gebhardt (PSE), rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are today reaching the end of a debate that has been going on in this House for more than two years, on the subject of the services directive. I believe that we can be entirely happy with, and proud of, the work we have done on this issue.

I am not, of course, the only one to have worked on this matter. Many of my fellow Members have played their parts in ensuring a constructive collaboration. Allow me to just name a few people I would like to thank as a way of thanking all those who ensured such a positive collaboration. Thus, I would like to thank my colleagues Mr Goebbels, Mr Swoboda, Mrs van Lancker and Mrs McCarthy, as well as Mrs Thyssen from the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, Mr Jonckheer and Mrs Rühle from the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance and Mrs Jäätteenmäki from the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe. All of them have made great contributions to our success.

There is, however, one person I would like to single out, and that is the shadow rapporteur from the PPE-DE Group, Mr Harbour.

(Applause)

I would also like to express thanks on behalf of Mr Schulz, who asked me quite specifically to do this yesterday evening, for the constructive cooperation he has experienced, as it was neither easy to create a common text, given the differences of opinion that are represented in this House, capable of achieving a broad consensus and without leading to divisions between Parliament and the citizens of the European Union, nor could it be taken for granted that this feat could be accomplished.

This constructive collaboration can also be seen in the text that we are debating today. It led to there being a symbiosis between the interests of employees and consumers and those of the economy. We have succeeded, with this text, in making a real contribution towards putting people more in the centre of politics. In my opinion, it is essential to our future work in Parliament that we should make it abundantly clear that we are shaping politics around the people, around the citizens of Europe. The economy is important, stability is important, but the most important thing of all is the people on whose behalf we make policy.

With this common text that we have created we have succeeded, through the removal of the country of origin principle, for one thing, in protecting the rights of workers, namely labour law, social law, consumer protection and other important issues relating to rights, and in ensuring that we have a positive regulation. It was very important for us to have ensured that the rights of employees were advanced, thereby averting an unhealthy competition between the social systems of the Member States.

By deleting Articles 24 and 25 we ensured that the services directive does not affect or jeopardise the Posting of Workers Directive, and that we were able to work well together on this area. By removing quite significant elements of the services of general interest from the scope of the services directive, we have ensured that a solution was found to a truly enormous problem. This is in the light of the fact that this services directive is in fact, of course, a directive for commercial services, a fact which means that health services and social services, which have totally different requirements due to the special interests involved, do not fit within the scope of the directive.

We have not, however, merely done something for employees; we have also ensured that there are gains from this services directive for the economy, the service providers. We have ensured that the free movement of service providers across borders has been made much easier. This we have achieved by means, for example, of having actually codified the principle of the freedom to provide services, of having made it crystal clear that protectionist measures in the Member States must be abolished and that single points of contact are available in order to help service providers to move around the European Union.

There are still a couple of points that we need to debate in Parliament and they are points that we have already debated. I believe that the Commission can provide an important answer to these questions today. Specifically, it can clear up a couple of points that are absolutely fundamental for us, relating, in particular, to labour law, social security entitlements, criminal law and the orientations that the Commission is to provide under the services directive and that the Commission, as far as I am aware, will not be using in order to undertake to provide interpretations of the implementation of the services directive, but rather to ensure that the services directive represents an aid to the Member States. Interpretation of the texts is a task for the Court of Justice and not for the Commission. The Commission has understood this and that is something we can very happily live with.

Mr President, I now very eagerly await the statement that the Commission is about to give.

(Applause)

  Charlie McCreevy, Member of the Commission. Mr President, the vote at second reading on the Services Directive will be a milestone in the history of the European Parliament, not only because of the importance of this Directive for European citizens and businesses, but also because of the leading role Parliament has played in the legislative process.

It is undeniable that the Services Directive is an essential element in our efforts to boost the European economy and unleash the potential of the internal market for services.

The text which is now on the table will provide real added value to the internal market, cutting red tape, removing barriers and improving legal certainty for business and consumers. It lays solid foundations for a new internal market framework with a positive impact on the freedom of establishment and the creation of new business.

This is crucial for fostering entrepreneurship and for promoting growth and jobs. Service providers can be confident that they are dealing with fair and transparent authorisation regimes and swift and simple procedures. They will be able to obtain information and complete administrative formalities through points of single contact in any Member State and, in addition, in electronic form. This will simplify, accelerate and reduce the cost for the setting up of new business and obviate the need to deal with different levels of authorities.

Equally, the Directive will provide a welcome boost to cross-border service provision. The new provision on the freedom to provide services, which was at the heart of the compromise in first reading, strikes a fair balance between guaranteeing the rights of service providers to free access and free exercise of a service activity whilst allowing Member States the right to invoke their most essential requirements in certain clearly defined circumstances. This will definitively improve legal certainty for service providers and consumers.

Importantly, the Directive will be underpinned by obligations on Member States to cooperate among and assist each other, in order to ensure that businesses are properly and efficiently supervised across the European Union while avoiding duplication of controls.

These three elements – simplification of establishment, freedom to provide services and assistance and cooperation between Member States – were always at the core of the Commission’s drive to open up the services market. The position of the European Parliament has been crucial to finding a broad consensus on these issues.

In this dossier, the European Parliament has shown its maturity and capacity to find well-balanced compromises on very complex issues. At first reading you clearly took the lead and were able to deliver the broad consensus we pursued.

Getting a consensus in the Council was not easy. Some Member States had serious difficulties in accepting your delicate compromise on the scope of application of the proposal and the freedom to provide services mechanism. In the end, and after a vigorous defence by the Commission and the Presidency of the compromise reached in Parliament, the common position was adopted. It is a common position that respects and reflects Parliament’s political compromise, with only minor adjustments introduced mostly to provide greater legal clarity.

You are aware that the compromise reflected in the common position is very delicate and fragile. Attempts to reopen the text will inevitably give rise to a new debate in the Council and put in jeopardy the compromise reached. I call on Parliament to recognise that the common position closely reflects Parliament’s first reading, and to refrain from seeking further modifications through amendments. The vote in the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection on 23 October 2006 demonstrates that this is possible.

At this juncture there are no ‘technical’ or ‘minor’ amendments.

I am aware that in discussions leading up to the vote in the committee, certain institutional and legal issues have been raised which are of concern to some Members of this House. In this context, I would like to make the following statements to address the concerns that some of you have raised.

‘Concerning the screening of national requirements which Member States apply to services provided from other Member States, the Council has requested the Commission to provide orientations and analysis and the Commission will use its best efforts to abide with this task. This will not give additional powers to the Commission which may, pursuant to the Treaty, if it considers it necessary, formulate recommendations and deliver opinions on matters dealt with in the Treaty. The orientations will merely consist of assistance to Member States for the proper implementation of the Services Directive. They will neither provide legally binding interpretation of the Directive, which is the prerogative of the European Court of Justice, nor will they amend the provisions of the Services Directive, which is the prerogative of the European Parliament and the Council. The Commission will carry out this task in an open and transparent manner in close cooperation with the other institutions. It will in particular regularly inform the European Parliament about the results and the follow-up of its analysis.

Concerning the need to consider further harmonisation, in the future review of the Services Directive, the Commission will assess whether, in the field of services, further measures are necessary and, if so, what kind of measures are appropriate. The Commission will, in particular, examine whether for certain services or certain issues there is a need for additional harmonisation.

The Commission will thereby take suggestions made by the European Parliament, in particular at the first reading of the Directive, into consideration. Where necessary, and in line with our Better Regulation approach, the Commission will make specific proposals, including proposals for harmonisation, where justified.

Concerning the impact of the Services Directive on labour law, the European Parliament and the Council wanted to avoid that the Services Directive affects labour law or the rights of the social partners to defend their collective interests. The Commission wants to state unambiguously that the Services Directive does indeed not affect labour law laid down in national legislation and established practices in the Member States and that it does not affect collective rights which the social partners enjoy according to national legislation and established practices. The Services Directive is neutral as to the different models in the Member States regarding the role of the social partners and the organisation of how collective interests are defended according to national law and practices. However, Community law, and in particular the Treaty, continue to apply in this field.

Concerning the impact of the Services Directive on criminal law, as is stated in the text, the Services Directive will not affect Member States’ criminal law rules. This means that in general Member States will be able to apply their criminal law rules not only to service providers established on their territory but also to service providers from other Member States providing services within their territory. This is because criminal law rules, in general, apply to everybody in the same way, irrespective of whether a service is provided. However, Member States may not circumvent or prevent the application of the provisions of the Services Directive by making use of criminal law.

Concerning the impact of the Services Directive on Social Services, social services relating to social housing, childcare and support of families and persons in need are a manifestation of the principle of social cohesion and solidarity in society and are provided by the State, by service providers on behalf of the State or by acknowledged charitable organisations. These services have thus been excluded from the scope of application of the Services Directive. It is clear that this exclusion also covers services provided by churches and church organisations which serve charitable and benevolent purposes.’

I have arranged for the text of these statements to be handed in to the secretariat for inclusion in the record of this part-session.

I hope that these statements help to accommodate the concerns raised by some. The Commission hopes that they will facilitate the acceptance of the common position by Parliament.

Before concluding, I note that Mrs McCarthy has tabled three amendments on behalf of her committee relating to the new regulatory procedure with scrutiny. These amendments result from the agreement reached between the three institutions last summer on the revision of the comitology procedure and can be accepted by the Commission.

Next week it will be two years since this Commission entered office and I became Commissioner for the Internal Market and Services. The debate on the Services Directive has been at the forefront of attention for much of that time. I think we should now move to adopting the Directive and start implementing it. I look forward to hearing the view of this House.

(Applause)

  Mauri Pekkarinen, President-in-Office of the Council. (FI) Mr President, Mr Gebhardt, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as earlier speakers have already said, today we are making internal market history.

For almost three years the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission have been engaged in painstaking, ambitious work on the Services Directive. To be perfectly frank, the work has not always been easy and progress has sometimes been slow. We can take comfort in the fact that there is a stronger feeling of consensus here in the House today than ever before during the drafting process.

The directive represents a major European reform. No wonder, then, that there have been numerous obstacles along the road to the agreement. There have been genuine differences of opinion on its content as well as the occasional slight misunderstandings.

Although today we all want to look to the future, I would nevertheless like to raise one or two matters that arose during the drafting process. Firstly, I wish to remind everyone of the vote in Parliament last spring, the result of which might be seen as a historic compromise. Parliament managed to arrive at a compromise, in what was a very challenging political situation, which enabled the proposal for a directive to move on to a subsequent and successful drafting stage.

In this connection, I would like once again to thank the European Parliament for this compromise, especially the rapporteur, Mrs Gebhardt, the Chairman of the Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection, Mrs McCarthy, the shadow rapporteurs and numerous other Members who have worked so hard to find common solutions.

Six presidencies of the Council have been involved in the difficult task of drafting the directive. For Finland, as the country to hold the Presidency now, the situation at present is at once a welcome and demanding challenge. The Finnish Presidency has been able to take advantage of the results achieved by former presidencies, especially the Austrian Presidency. The Council’s common position since last spring has given the Presidency a strong mandate to take this matter forward.

A lot of work also went into the Council’s adoption of its common position and it involved a considerable amount of flexibility and a genuine desire for compromise. I also especially appreciate the fact that the European Parliament has shown sensitivity in the matter of a common decision here too and the added value which comes with that.

The Commission’s role in the drafting process has also been crucial. When the debate in Parliament and in the Council has been at its most vehement, the Commission has, in accordance with its fundamental role, endeavoured to use constructive arguments to take the drafting process in a sustainable direction.

Commissioner McCreevy today mentioned some delicate issues in the directive, on which the Commission has been required to adopt a position. Speaking on behalf of the Presidency, I fully support and acknowledge the Commissioner’s message, and the need for a declaration and its content. The Commissioner’s personal role during the complex drafting process was exemplary in terms of its objectivity and the way it respected the opinions of both institutions.

One result of this lengthy drafting process is that the proposal for a directive has now in many ways changed during the debate. The common objective and intention to develop the internal market has nevertheless remained unchanged. The directive will open a number of doors, both to service providers and, at the same time, the receivers of services, be they consumers or businesses.

The Services Directive does not, however, represent an end to the development of the internal market in services. On the contrary, the directive is a unique step forward in the development of the internal market in viable services. It has become clear over the last few years that provisions in the Treaty are not enough by themselves to regulate with absolute clarity the internal market in services, which is the real heart of the Union. I believe that the Services Directive will provide market actors with just the sort of legal security that they have been waiting for for so long. This is the directive’s greatest added value.

The Finnish Presidency of the Council warmly welcomes the fact that today only some of the amendments are to be voted on. Of these I would like to mention the three amendments relating to comitology introduced in the plenary debate.

I can confirm the Council’s acceptance of these, and in this respect the Council is able to amend its common position. With regard to the other amendments, I hope that the common position will remain unchanged.

Mr President, I hope that Parliament will take a final and definite decision on the Services Directive today in the plenary part-session. Then the objective regarding the agreement shared by both institutions, the European Parliament and the Council, would be realised at second reading.

(Applause)

  Evelyne Gebhardt (PSE), rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, it is my belief that, with the official statement from the Commission, the last legal uncertainties in relation to particular aspects such as, inter alia, labour law and social security legislation, have been cleared up. I now therefore feel able to recommend to the House that it should adopt the Common Position as presented to us by the Council of Ministers without making any amendments, excepting of course the three amendments relating to the comitology procedure on which we have agreed among ourselves.

I think that we, in this House, have performed very well, and I would like, once again, to thank the Commission and the Presidency of the Council for having accepted our text almost unaltered.

There is one more point I would like to make, however, and it is one that is just a little unpleasant. I would like to recommend to the present and to future Presidencies of the Council that they should desist from the sort of behaviour we have seen from them thus far. It is not acceptable for the Presidency to constantly repeat during a second reading that it is not possible to discuss the issue further and for it not to accept amendments that Parliament wants because a fragile compromise has been achieved in Council. A similarly fragile compromise was brokered in this House too, and it is important to ensure that the rights of Parliament, the Council of Ministers and the Commission are given full expression in the course of codecision.

For this reason, the way things have come to pass on this occasion cannot serve as a template for future legislative processes. I have accepted it this time because 90% of Parliament’s text was adopted and because we in this House did not suffer any great losses. This will not always be the case, however. When that happens, the Council must not say ‘no’ and insist that no more discussion is possible on this issue. That is not constructive cooperation and I truly hope that this will be an isolated example and that, in future, we will again be able to enjoy normal cooperation in the codecision process.

(Applause)

  Malcolm Harbour, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – Mr President, Commissioner, this is an important day for European citizens. I emphasise that because sometimes when we talk about concepts like the internal market we forget that we are engaging people at the heart of what goes on and in our political work here. This directive is about improving the standard of living of all citizens in the European Union and encouraging growth and dynamism in the economy. It is as fundamental as that.

What is so important about this directive – and sometimes we perhaps forget this during our big debates – is that it has actually been the result of painstaking work by the Commission, to whom I would like to pay tribute. It addresses the deep frustrations that businesses, particularly small enterprises, have faced in exercising their rights under the single market. That is what this directive is all about. It is extremely detailed in its provisions. It has directed at the Member States no less than 40 specific measures to take down barriers and 65 provisions to improve their procedures. Now it is up to the Member States. It is they that are going to have to deliver and we are going to be keeping an eye on them to make sure they do deliver.

I particularly want to single out the fact that for the first time we have a specific requirement on Member States to promote the single market in relation to their businesses, to encourage businesses to take advantage of the single market in the services sector and go out and trade crossborder. The single market is a shared project of all of us. It is not decided here, it is actually decided out there in the Member States. We can do our best and this directive is a major step forward in achieving that.

A notable thing about this directive is that it has been good politics. Why do I say that? Because it has been the product of a lot of constructive and detailed argument: long debates and votes in committee, because different sides want to reinforce their position, negotiation and compromise.

It has been good politics, and at the heart of it has been Mrs Gebhardt. She was generous enough to pay tribute to me and I want to say to her that it has been a pleasure to work with her. It has been a challenge, sometimes, because she has been a very determined leader in pushing this forward, but I think that what we have done together will be good for European citizens. However, it is not just we who worked on this, but all the members of our committee, and others as well. I particularly want to thank my own team on the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, many of whom will be speaking shortly, but we also worked very closely with our Liberal colleagues, particularly in the crucial vote that the Presidency was kind enough to mention earlier on. They will speak in more detail now.

I want to conclude with my thanks to the Federation of Small Businesses in the United Kingdom and say two things to the House today about the importance of this directive. The first one is that small and medium enterprises represent nearly 90% of the services sector. They are crucial to this proposal. Secondly, if every small business in Europe created one more job, we would have dealt with the problem of unemployment in the European Union.

(Applause)

  Hannes Swoboda, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (DE) Mr President, naturally, I should like to thank Mrs Gebhardt on behalf of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament – and particularly Mr Goebbels, who unfortunately cannot be here today. As rapporteur, Mrs Gebhardt has steered the ship of the Services Directive skilfully through many stormy waters.

I should also like to thank my fellow Members from the other political groups, however, particularly the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats. Although, of course, our differences of sociopolitical view remain, I believe that we have fulfilled our responsibility to present a tangible solution that is acceptable to the European public.

I am particularly obliged to Commissioner McCreevy, without whom this process could not have been structured so well, and to the Council Presidencies – particularly the Finnish, but also the Austrian Council Presidency. I would ask the Council to bear in mind that the Austrian Presidency created a precedent when it invited us MEPs to a Council meeting. This should not remain an isolated case; the possibility should definitely be left open in other contexts, too.

I also wish to thank the European Trade Union Confederation for holding such intensive consultations with us and also making it possible to arrive at a compromise on this.

I was born at the point where the former East and West met – between Vienna and Bratislava – and so I am aware of the fears, but also the hopes, associated with an internal market for services. If nationalism and protectionism are now gaining ground once more in many of the transition countries, and also many of the ‘old’ EU Member States, one of the reasons may be that people are overwhelmed by the speed, sometimes even the brutality, at which this internal market is being established. That is why it was so important to find a way to establish this internal market – which is needed – whilst also doing justice to social considerations.

After all, politics at EU level consists not only in removing the obstacles to an internal market – that is part of the story – but also in creating the political framework conditions for rendering this internal market acceptable to the people. For these reasons, my group will give the Directive its wholehearted support. Naturally, we have some reservations – which will be presented later – but, on the whole, my group supports this good compromise that has been reached.

We should have the courage to endorse this compromise today and champion it externally. Once again, sincere thanks to Mrs Gebhardt.

(Applause)

  Anneli Jäätteenmäki, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (FI) Mr President, I wish to thank my colleagues Malcolm Harbour and Evelyne Gebhardt, and many others, for their excellent levels of cooperation. In particular I want to thank Commissioner McCreevy, as, without his rational approach to cooperation, there would certainly have been no progress.

Services are a crucial source of growth and jobs in the EU. During the period 1997-2002 approximately 96% of new jobs were in service sectors. It is therefore important that there should be no unnecessary barriers to growth at national level. The Services Directive is a step in the right direction.

I know that there are people in this House who are dissatisfied, because they think that we have not gone far enough, but there are also those who believe that Parliament and the Council took too great a leap. This proposal now before us is a compromise; it is what it was possible to accomplish given the situation.

The European Parliament has been accused of nibbling away at the Commission’s original proposal. At the same time, however, nobody has bothered to mention the large number of areas to which the directive still applies. The Services Directive covers such sectors as the construction industry, business services, fitting and installation, trade and distribution, and travel and leisure services. The spectrum is very wide.

The purpose of this proposal is thus to liberalise services, thereby reducing their cost. The demand for various services relies on price, but confidence is just as important. If a service provider does things on time and well, confidence grows and so, then, does the market. It is not the directive that will determine that: the responsibility lies with the service provider.

The free mobility of the workforce is just as important as the Services Directive for a viable EU internal market. At the time of enlargement to the east, only Sweden, Ireland and the United Kingdom allowed free and immediate access to their job markets to nationals of the new Member States. Now that a new round of enlargement is to take place, once again there are Member States which are erecting barriers. These new potential barriers are very troublesome, and cause problems for the liberalisation of the internal market. They are a step backwards. If we are to take a step forwards with the Services Directive, it is to be hoped that progress will be made in the same way as regards the free mobility of labour.

(Applause)

  Heide Rühle, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs Gebhardt, we are disappointed at the refusal of the three largest groups, the majority of this House, to conduct a proper second reading of the Services Directive today.

Mrs Gebhardt fought to the very end, but this makes it all the harder for us to understand how she can describe as a great triumph for Parliament an outcome she recently said contained some points that were legally imprecise and unclear. Admittedly, the Council put us under great pressure by stating from the outset that any amendment of its text would result in the failure of the whole Directive – but this was the same Council that stated at its first reading that it had followed Parliament’s text virtually in its entirety. Sadly, however, it had not followed our text in its entirety, and a lack of clarity has crept into some points, mainly on issues surrounding social Europe.

This lack of clarity relates to the definition and exclusion of services in general and services of general economic interest in particular. It relates specifically to the exclusion of social services, and it relates to the recognition of the collective agreements negotiated by the social partners. These are not trifling matters; they are the fundamental issues that were used by the opponents of the Constitution to obtain a ‘no’ vote in the French referendum. We could have taken the Council at its word when it emphasised time and again after the referendums that the new version of the Services Directive would fully respect social rights. Sadly, however, this is not the case.

It makes a difference whether I give the example of social services or content myself with an incomplete list, which leaves large gaps in the case of some Member States and thus ends up having to be decided by the European Court of Justice. It is incomprehensible how this could be accepted in the Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection. After all, the rapporteur for this committee, Mrs Rudi Ubeda, who is incidentally a member of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, stated in her report on social services that these services differed greatly between Member States and that, consequently, a definition was needed. How is it possible to exclude in a way consistent with legal certainty a sector that is not properly defined?

Sadly, however, the committee paid no further attention to this issue, but instead merely reaffirmed its reluctance to cause the Council any problems. Consequently, in its haste to show obedience, it dispensed with its traditional right to conduct a proper second reading of the Services Directive. This is certainly no triumph for Parliament; on the contrary, it is a defeat – one that we shall regret for a long time to come.

Even the Commission statement does not change this. At best, it is binding on the present Commission, but it is not legally binding, since the interpretation of the law rests with the Court of Justice – as Commissioner McCreevy has reaffirmed today.

  Francis Wurtz, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (FR) Mr President, in Parliament's relations with the Council, we are familiar with codecision and conciliation. Today, with the Services Directive, we can add capitulation to that. What other word is there for the incredible decision taken by the majority groups to yield to the Council's urgings by agreeing to withdraw all the amendments examined in the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection and to adopt the Council's common position without opposition, even though it is indubitably a backward step from their own compromise of 16 February this year?

I would remind you that the European Trade Union Confederation felt it necessary to amend this text on certain points that it regarded as being 'of major importance', notably with regard to the 'clearer exclusion of labour law and social services, and clearer respect for fundamental rights'.

In fact, the Council's text makes the preservation of labour law in the Member States subordinate to compliance with Community law – a vague wording that refers to the rules on competition. Some of you are consoling yourselves with Commissioner McCreevy's reassuring statement. This really is very odd reasoning. Dare I remind you that it was in fact Mr McCreevy who, just a year ago, used Community law to justify preventing a Latvian business from recognising collective agreements in Sweden, in the Waxholm affair that caused such a stir?

On the other hand, the Council has restored to the Commission an incredible level of power to monitor – both before and after the fact – the legislation of the Member States; it was precisely this power that Parliament wanted to restrict. Mr McCreevy sees this change as a crucial improvement, and that is perfectly understandable, but what does Parliament see in it? Nobody is saying anything.

Finally, the ambiguities and grey areas in the text of the directive – which I criticised at first reading on behalf of my group because, as I said at the time, they leave the door open for uncontrollable interpretation from the Commission and the Court – have already started to be exploited as we feared they would be. For example, the Commission's communication on social services sets out an extremely simplistic vision of these services, which, by the way, Commissioner Špidla was keen to stress would increasingly fall within the scope of Community law on the internal market and competition.

Another Commission communication, dealing with the posting of workers, attacks regulations in certain Member States with respect to service providers from other EU countries that it regards as disproportionate. Here, too, the Commission is leaning on the inexhaustible case-law of the Court. Where, then, are the safeguards that the directive was supposed to provide against this slippery slope leading the whole of social life into anything-goes competition?

In general, the President-in-Office put it very clearly: 'the Court's interpretation will be needed in many cases'. Well, my group will not support this massive deregulation exercise. Above and beyond the issue of services, there is, in my view, the issue of the concept of European integration. Do we want to use the law to harmonise protective rules and push them upwards, or are we going to accept the harmonisation through the market and competition of standards that will consequently inevitably be dragged downwards? Do we want to promote parliamentary and citizens' democracy, or are we going to allow ourselves to be governed by case-law and interpretative communications?

A few weeks away from the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome, these are perfectly legitimate questions, and I am willing to bet that many of our fellow citizens will soon be asking them quite forcefully.

(Applause)

  Adam Jerzy Bielan, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (PL) Mr President, the services sector is responsible for almost 70% of the European Union’s GDP and is the main source of economic growth. There are, however, thousands of administrative obstacles to the development of this sector.

The main aim of the Services Directive is to cut this red tape, which would then facilitate the provision of cross-border services on the markets of the 25 Member States. The European Commission has identified over 90 obstacles which service providers, such as mechanics, accountants and IT specialists, have to overcome in order to carry out their activities in another Member State.

As a rule, these difficulties are deliberately created by countries which fear competition from entrepreneurs from other states and want to protect their own markets at any price. This is usually at the cost of the consumer, who is offered services that are more expensive and of lower quality.

Even in its watered down form, the Services Directive is a step in the right direction along the long and tortuous road of making the European economy competitive and making life simpler, especially for small businesses. The years ahead will show whether it will, as Commissioner McCreevy claims will be the case, become a milestone in terms of removing the obstacles to the provision of services on the internal market. We will only know the outcome when the Member States integrate the Directive into national law in a way which really will minimise these obstacles, which are incompatible with the principle of the free provision of services enshrined in the Treaty, and which are damaging to European consumers and entrepreneurs.

The European Commission should play a significant role in this matter and should act as a guardian to ensure compliance with the Treaties and with European legislation. Fortunately, we have managed to avoid further corruption of the Services Directive by rejecting, at the sitting of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, all the amendments tabled by the rapporteur, Mrs Gebhardt. Further watering down the Services Directive, which was ratified by the Council and is a difficult compromise anyway, would not only be harmful for the free services market, but could also result in the entire project being scrapped and in three years of hard work being wasted.

  Jens-Peter Bonde, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – (DA) Mr President, what Parliament is endorsing today is a directive for lawyers and judges. It is the judges in Luxembourg who will determine what has been decided. The rules are very unclear. I tried in vain to remove the worst of the imprecision by means of three unambiguous amendments.

1. The Member States shall be able to require compliance with local agreements by all parties delivering services. 2. The Member States shall be able to decide for themselves which services are to be performed under the public aegis, and what is to be decided by the market. 3. The Member States shall also be able to levy VAT and taxes on services delivered from abroad. These are three important questions to which I have not received clear answers. The June Movement is in favour of there being a common market for services too, and we welcome, in particular, workers and companies from the new Member States, but Danish rates of pay must apply. Competition must not be on the basis of lower pay, more relaxed working conditions or lower rates of VAT and taxes.

  Marine Le Pen (NI). – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, nine months after it was adopted at first reading, the European Parliament is tying up the Services Directive, known as the Bolkestein directive, by approving the Council's common position with no amendments. This is a victory for social democracy, won over to economic ultraliberalism.

With the exception of non-commercial services of general interest, nothing escapes the liberalisation of services: even social services are not completely excluded from the Gebhardt report. Ladies and gentlemen, you are deceiving the people. This directive will not put an end to social, fiscal and wage dumping. Clever, dishonest service providers will continue to exploit national legislation, and to use the weak points in the directive by relying on the sectoral directives.

For example, more than 100 000 construction workers are posted in France on temporary contracts, most of them undeclared. There is lawful social dumping going on with regard to responsibility, because posted workers remain part of the social security system in their countries of origin. In such cases, labour law is being flouted legally.

Finally, we are opposed to the mechanisms to assess national restrictions on the cross-border provision of services, as they represent an unacceptable monitoring of the Member States by the Commission, and an excessive level of Community bureaucracy.

That is why we will vote against the Gebhardt report.

  Marianne Thyssen (PPE-DE). – (NL) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we have managed to turn a proposal that was far too horizontal in scope, far too radical in its drive to deregulate and unrealistic in its enforcement, into a directive that does exactly what it is supposed to do, namely remove obstacles to businesses that wish to establish abroad and to service providers to enable them to carry out cross-border activities, and thus enable everyone, including SMEs, to avail themselves of their fundamental rights under the Treaty.

Despite the very different starting positions, not only between, but also within, the groups, clearly also between the Member States, and despite many widespread misconceptions about the content and repercussions of the proposal, we managed to produce a balanced and justifiable end product, partly by listening carefully to each other, to the people and by working together in a constructive manner.

Economically and socially, we are providing a better opening of the internal market for the benefit of services, for more growth and for jobs without affecting consumer and other social protection. Institutionally, we have proved that European democracy works and that Parliament is taking its responsibilities seriously. Legally, even if the wording leaves something to be desired, we certainly look to add value by affording more legal certainty.

I therefore hope that we will maintain this course when we vote and that we will manage to back the common position by a very broad majority, for it is, after all, a good reflection of the compromise that we ourselves hammered out. I too should like to express my appreciation for all those who, during the course of those two past few years, have managed to work together, not only those with political responsibility in the three institutions, but also the staff.

  Arlene McCarthy (PSE). – Mr President, today, as Chair of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, I am immensely proud of the work and commitment of both our rapporteur and the members of the committee in enabling Europe to finally give the go-ahead to open up the market in services. It was the MEPs and Parliament who found the compromise to save the services law from national deadlock and paralysis in Council.

In the British press, surprisingly, Parliament has been praised for coalescing as ‘a serious and effective institution’. The article goes on to say that the key to the services law’s success has been forged here in Strasbourg. I agree with the journalist who says that it is time to pay more attention to the European Parliament.

I want to thank the Council and the Commission for paying attention to Parliament’s right of regulatory scrutiny in the new procedures and accepting our three amendments. This has been the single most controversial but also the most important piece of legislation in the EU. Despite our ideological and national differences, we MEPs have managed to find a way to open up the market, to boost jobs and growth and give our citizens the trust and confidence to use and access those services across Europe.

The law has been controversial in cutting red tape and bureaucracy for business, but we need to ensure high quality standards and choice for consumers, while safeguarding employees’ conditions and health and safety. Parliament listened to people’s concerns and fears, so that the freedom to provide services is not the freedom to undermine consumer or employee rights. Each Member State must now ensure free access to its territory and it must be equally clear that the right to maintain national rules, to protect public policy, public health, security or the environment, must not mean that legitimate protection turns into negative protectionism. It must be justifiable and proportionate and must not discriminate against other operators.

Let us look to the future. The litmus test will be whether we can deliver and open up the market for businesses and give the benefits to our consumers. We cannot shout about the benefits if we do not deliver.

Our work is not yet done. We must continue to work together as three institutions to make good on our commitment to deliver. Certainly I, as Chair of the Internal Market Committee, stand ready to make good on our commitment to assist the Commission and the Council in making sure we respect the rights of consumers and employees and deliver for business across Europe.

IN THE CHAIR: MR FRIEDRICH
Vice-President

  Toine Manders (ALDE). – (NL) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we have now reached a historical moment, because we in this House, as a political body, have taken a decision of our own about one of the basic freedoms. We will leave the rest for the European Court of Justice to deal with, because last night, we were anxious – this is with reference to gambling – about tackling the really dirty work. We will get the judges of the European Court of Justice, who are not elected, to do this instead. I am pleased that now, at long last, the politicians, the elected representatives of the citizens of Europe, have taken a decision about the free movement of services. I am particularly indebted to Mrs Gebhardt for ensuring that her group has not tabled any amendments.

I have also noticed that the atmosphere, now that the compromise is on the table, has improved a great deal because this issue was the source of much tension. In my view, however, this is not about the tension between Poland and France, between the Netherlands and the Baltic States or whatever. This is about Europe, China and India. We, as Europeans, must therefore, keep the momentum going where the different peoples are involved.

  Pierre Jonckheer (Verts/ALE). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Pekkarinen, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to make two comments. I would like to emphasise the fact that the eight amendments tabled by our group were adopted by Parliament at first reading by an adequate majority, which clearly demonstrates that the Council's common position does not fully reflect Parliament's text.

The second comment I would like to make is this: before we start waxing lyrical about the historic importance of this directive, it would be worth exercising some caution. I would remind you that this directive will be transposed by all Member States by 2009 at the latest, and that the Commission's initial assessment report will not be presented to the European Parliament until 2010. That, therefore, is when we will see what impact this text really has in the various Member States, at the end of the assessment procedure laid down in Article 39 of the directive. I would call on those who are promising us a brighter future and talking about millions of new jobs to be cautious: we must not make the people of Europe promises that we might not be able to keep.

I would like to conclude with a few words on the general philosophy that underlies this proposal: our group supported the free provision of services, and in particular of cross-border services. At the same time, however, we have always stressed that we must have every guarantee with regard to working conditions and the prohibition of illegal labour, and that these conditions must be respected throughout the territory of the EU. From this point of view, Mr McCreevy, I welcome your statement, but in political terms it only commits the current Commission – and in 2010, there will be a different Commission.

  Sahra Wagenknecht (GUE/NGL). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, from the word go, the Services Directive has been the project of those wanting to see capitalism without any social safeguards prevail in Europe. The Directive will goad liberalisation, deregulation and privatisation and also wage and social dumping on an unprecedented scale. Companies will be pleased, but for the majority of people it will be a disaster. In spite of all the protests and all the opposition, Parliament is to pass this Directive today, and those who stand to gain from it owe particular thanks to those in the Socialist Group in the European Parliament who have done their best to throw dust in people’s eyes with lies and deceit.

The compromise due to be adopted today is not one that keeps alive the remains of a social Europe. It is a neoliberal hammer designed to obliterate all social aspects. Those who support it have to do so with their eyes open. We shall continue to oppose this neoliberal onslaught.

  Guntars Krasts, (UEN) . – (LV) It is customary to believe that new laws improve, reinforce and otherwise contribute to the success of the European Union’s activities. Such is not the case with the draft directive to be debated today. The previous European Commission based the draft directive on the state of origin principle – a principle which the European Court of Justice has developed and which has been consolidated in the case law of international private law. The current Commission rushed to place the draft directive, based on the state of origin principle, within the principles of European Union strategic documents, including the Lisbon Strategy. This key to the opening of the European services market, however, broke off in Parliament’s hands. The state of origin principle has disappeared from the directive’s text, and the wording of the provisions of its Article 16 resembles the mutual recognition principle — a principle which in practice may prove to be too subjective and unwieldy to open up the services market. Today the European Parliament will delegate to the Member States full responsibility to decide whether, when and how the European Union’s services market will develop. We can only hope that this will, in fact, occur.

  Patrick Louis (IND/DEM). – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, on the eve of the referendum in France, the UMP swore that the Bolkestein directive had been withdrawn, and the socialists said that it had been consigned to the dustbin of history. Not only did both parties lie, but they are now making things worse for themselves in at least four respects.

Firstly, there is the country of origin principle. We are giving free rein to the Court of Justice, which is the inventor of this concept in its judgments in the 'Cassis de Dijon' and 'Säger' cases. We can hardly imagine that it is going to sacrifice its own creation.

The second point relates to the protection of employees. Labour law, which is a national competence, is being made subordinate to compliance with Community law, with no treaty and no ratification. How far are we prepared to go in substituting commercial law for labour law?

Thirdly, there is the issue of monitoring service providers. We are putting the Member States in an untenable position by preventing them from exercising any control. What can they possibly know about the working conditions in a Polish company that they know nothing about?

My fourth point relates to the services covered. The scope of the directive has once again been extended, and will now affect some 6 000 occupations, and perhaps even more, given how ambiguous the text is.

In conclusion, I think that, in this compromise that was wanted by all 25 Member States, the Court and the Commission are gaining an enormous amount of power to complete the internal market, without worrying about the social dumping that is crushing our workers and will continue to aggravate unemployment. The people have been deceived on the accession of Turkey and duped on the VAT affair, their rejection of a super-State has been scorned, and now they have been betrayed on the Bolkestein directive. Quite frankly, how many of us are now able to look the electorate in the eye?

  Mario Borghezio (NI). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, not least in the light of the widespread interests of the system of small and medium-sized enterprises, especially those of Padania, we feel that the aims – in relation to the Commission’s original project, which was already just as dangerous – of imposing one regulation on all of the Member States of the European Union are still very dangerous, because they lead to cut-throat competition in the services sector, which, let us remember, represents 70% of the GDP produced within the European Union.

It is reasonable to wonder whether, on such a sensitive issue as this, the remarks made by civil society have really been heard and taken on board, and whether the dangers of social and economic dumping have actually been eliminated from this new, sugar-coated version of the Bolkestein Directive. Unfortunately, everywhere you look these days, unscrupulous entrepreneurs are competing unfairly, to the detriment of the system of small and medium-sized enterprises, which, unlike these entrepreneurs, work fully within the law. This is the outcome of liberalisation, which both the Commission and the European Court of Justice wanted. We are against this bureaucratic centralism of the European Union.

  József Szájer (PPE-DE). – (HU) Mr President, along with many other MEPs from the new Member States, I did not vote for the Services Directive at first reading last year. At this vote, however, I will support it. At that time, I did not support it because I wished to send a warning that in the newly unified Europe it is not permissible to disregard the interests of new Member States when passing important new legislation. That warning has served its purpose. Indeed, that is what helped Council to make progress for instance in the much-debated areas of criminal and labour law that hampered free provision of services.

I should like to underline that the new text requires each Member State to review those of its current statutes that prevent the free provision of services. All these are steps in the right direction. In the proceedings since the first reading, the involvement of the new Member States and of MEPs was more actively sought. I am confident that the end of the often difficult and bitter debate about the Services Directive will help the Union leave behind that period of crisis, add new impetus to the internal market and give a chance to small and medium-sized enterprises to create more jobs and contribute to the faster economic growth of the Union.

Yet we also need to learn from this process. We have to work harder to restore the trust between old and new Member States. To that end, there must be a stop to the scaremongering that the new members’ cheaper labour and services will threaten the social model of the older ones. This is unfounded, and is a betrayal of the principle of free competition that forms the basis of the Union’s economy.

The new members opened their markets for goods and capital long ago, and that was not always easy to do. Now it is the turn of the old members to open their markets to services. The Service Directive that is about to be born is a step forward. We would have preferred to take a bigger step, but everyone gave up something. Now the Services Directive has to meet the tests of practicality and of the European Court of Justice. I wish it a lot of success in both.

  Harlem Désir (PSE). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, thanks to the hard work and determination of our rapporteur Mrs Gebhardt, and thanks to the mobilisation of the European trades union movement, at first reading Parliament removed the main dangers from the initial version of the Services Directive, the version put forward by Commissioner Bolkestein. In particular, Parliament managed to remove from the directive all social services, including social housing, healthcare, audiovisual services, transport and temporary employment agencies. Likewise, the directive on the posting of workers and labour law could not be affected, thus removing the main dangers of social dumping, and the country of origin principle was also deleted. Nevertheless, two major problems remained: firstly, not all services of general economic interest were removed from the scope, due to opposition from the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats and the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe; secondly, the new version of Article 16, whilst removing the country of origin principle, was not clear in establishing the country of destination principle.

These problems have not been solved in the Council's common position, which, although it has indeed incorporated the essence of the conclusions from Parliament's first reading, has taken a backward step on several other points, in particular social services and labour law, as the European Trade Union Confederation has underlined. Everyone has acknowledged the need for clarification of these points, and of others, such as the effects on criminal law, the direction taken by the Commission's guidelines and the need for future harmonisation, and you have made a statement to that effect, Commissioner. It would, however, have been more logical, given that the codecision procedure has not been completed, to adopt amendments to clarify these elements within the articles themselves. Unfortunately, I note that the PPE has neutralised the second reading by rejecting all the amendments proposed by the rapporteur during the debate in the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection. In a way, this group has deprived the European Parliament of its right of amendment, and I find that deplorable.

The French Socialist delegation has therefore tabled a number of amendments, because it feels that the compromise is not satisfactory in its current state, and that it leaves the door open to too many uncertainties with regard to the Court's interpretation. I think that, when it comes to distinguishing between liberalisation, on the one hand, and social and fundamental rights, on the other, the role of the legislature is to clarify, and not to leave the door open for case-law.

  Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE). – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, 50 years ago the founding fathers were already considering the possibility of having the freedom to provide services throughout Europe, in order to create the internal market. In the service sector, which makes up a major proportion not only of our economy, but also of our employment and our competitiveness, a revamping and revision were not only logical, but essential.

I should like to make two comments. The first is political in nature, and is that the Bolkestein proposal, which was presented by an old Commissioner to an old Parliament, was unacceptable, and many of us here fought against it. Today, following the huge amount of work that has been achieved, we are a very long way away from the Bolkestein proposal.

My second comment relates to the background: this text reaffirms the principle of the free movement of services, whilst maintaining the prospect of further harmonisation within the Union. I am delighted that the current draft incorporates 90% of Parliament's requirements, by excluding from its scope non-economic services of general interest, certain social services and healthcare services.

To conclude, I would like to stress that the examination of this text has been an excellent example of the democratic exercise of Parliament's powers and has allowed it – whatever the view of the extreme right and left of the House may be – to demonstrate its maturity.

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (Verts/ALE). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, there is no doubt that Parliament has done a huge amount of work on this directive and that this text bears very little relation to the directive proposed by the Commission two years ago.

However, as we have just heard in this House, the fact that the European Council changed a number of important sentences after first reading means that the second reading does not go far enough, which is a pity. Thus employees, our fellow citizens and consumers no longer really see the need for a directive on services. It is difficult for them to understand today that liberalisation is taking place without there being anything precise on social services and health services. There is still too much vagueness, too many grey areas, in this compromise proposed by the Commission and the European Council.

  Kartika Tamara Liotard (GUE/NGL). – (NL) Mr President, Parliament is about to vote on the European Services Directive, probably for the last time. It seems like a fait accompli because the largest groups have already given me to believe that they intend to support the compromise and not table any amendments. They seem to think the directive in its current form is so perfect that they are prepared to waive their democratic right to submit proposals for improvement.

My group is less enthusiastic. The Services Directive continues to form a threat to the quality of the services and the achievements of workers across Europe. The text remains unclear and open to different interpretations. In addition, improvements made at previous reading are now at risk of being undermined by, for example, the fact that the Posting of Workers Directive is being cut down to the bone. For this reason, my group will be voting against the Gebhardt report.

  Nigel Farage (IND/DEM). – Mr President, I have been told by some people that this is one directive that UKIP can vote for. It is about free markets. It is about helping small companies trade across national boundaries. It is going to be good for business.

Well, we have been here before, haven’t we? Because we joined a common market that led to a single market, and what has the result of all that been? Well, it has been regulation, cost and missed opportunities overseas.

Just last month, there was a poll of a thousand British businesses. Sixty per cent of them said that they want the UK to renegotiate our relationship with the European Union to a simple free trade agreement and no more than that. But this was not just a cry from a few Poujadists. I will quote Michael Spencer, the Chief Executive of ICAP and recently voted the most powerful man in the City of London, who said that people in business are fed up with the volume of costly regulation the EU is producing. In the City, people are becoming more and more sceptical about the value we are getting from it all.

It is clear that British business now recognises that the cost of directive upon directive upon directive produced by institutions like this is now having a negative effect. The single market is not fit for the 21st century global economy and I believe that it will be British business that leads us out of it.

  Jana Bobošíková (NI). – (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, if this directive on services is adopted in its current form, which is a poor compromise, we might cynically observe that we have at least partially complied with the Treaty of Rome. Given that the Treaty was signed almost 50 years ago, this is a rather meagre result. It is an indictment of politicians that, in the discussions on the directive, fear of international competition and fear over what are referred to as social standards prevailed over visions of a Union prospering from the free movement of people and services. It is also an indictment of politicians that they have forgotten that competition is one of the instruments of economic development and that social standards are the fruits, and not the seeds, of prosperity.

I firmly believe that by removing one of the pillars of the directive, the country of origin principle, a populist and indeed cowardly move, we have thrown away any chance of decisively improving the citizens’ standard of living. We have thrown away the chances of improving the provision of services, of cutting prices and of creating new jobs.

  Jacques Toubon (PPE-DE). – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, my speech will, on this occasion, be devoted to a short assessment and a few tributes. The European Parliament has joined forces in order to draw up the directive on the internal market in services. It bears its hallmark. This is a victory for the European Parliament, a victory over European moroseness, a victory over fixed ideas, a victory for the European model, which is all about balance: the balance between necessary reforms and the preservation of the acquis that bring us together.

The directive actually opens up the internal market in services and makes it compulsory for the Member States to do away with any obstacles to the free provision of services. This is a major prospect in terms of growth and employment for all. At the same time, the directive preserves existing Community laws, does not permit any breach of social rights, rules out the liberalisation of public services and takes account of the public interest. This compromise – as I can testify, insofar as I have followed its development since summer 2004 – stems from the proposals made by my political group and from the agreements concluded within the group between what, at the outset, were differing national and ideological positions. The statement that Mr Szájer made just now testifies to this. This directive has its origins in dialogue, which is the very substance of our parliamentary life.

That is why I should like to begin by thanking not only our principal overseer, Mr Harbour, but also Mrs Thyssen, with whom I worked hand in hand, Mr Karas, Mr Szájer and Mrs Handzlik, Mrs Gebhardt, who has mastered the matter from start to finish and who has been so kind as to take me, the inexperienced MEP that I am, into consideration, and Mrs McCarthy and Mr Whitehead, whom I should certainly not like to forget. Outside Parliament, my thanks go to Mr McCreevy, who has fulfilled his promises to Parliament since the start, and also to Mr Bartenstein, who has played a decisive role.

I did nonetheless hear some incredible remarks made just now. Ladies and gentlemen, it is better to let well alone. The common position represents 95% of our text. Mr President, would we really be exercising our power if we entered into a conciliation procedure, which we know will result in our having no directive? The role of Parliament, our right, is, on the contrary, to shoulder our responsibilities. That is why the French members of the UMP are going to vote in favour of the common position, by choosing what is truly important.

  Lasse Lehtinen (PSE). – (FI) Mr President, two years ago I voiced my concern in this House that in some countries the debate on the Services Directive has also brought to the surface feelings of xenophobia and a call for economic protectionism, neither of which are a credit to this Community. The Prime Minister of Luxembourg recently wondered why we are now more afraid of people coming from the east than of the missiles that were in position there 20 years ago.

We have nevertheless achieved a compromise, through discussion, and one with which we can live, since this directive will finally open up the market in services, albeit only partially.

This directive appears to protect highly educated professionals and exposes less well educated professional groups to competition. Doctors and pharmacists remain outside its scope, but carpenters and hairdressers are included in it.

Fear and prejudice, however, will be dispelled with time, because practice will eventually overcome theory. Furthermore, in the future the directive will obviously be made more workable and open as far as all the citizens of Europe are concerned.

We need to learn that we on this continent cannot successfully compete with other continents if we do not even have the courage to compete amongst ourselves.

  Ona Juknevičienė (ALDE). – (LT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to welcome Mrs Gebhardt, who has drafted this elaborate document. Some of us have proclaimed it a great achievement that we were able to reach a compromise. I partially agree with this. Nevertheless, I think that our objective has yet to be achieved.

Our objective is to liberate the market, since its potential is crucial to the economic growth of the Community and to job creation. Today it is stagnant.

The proposed directive may boost the emergence of new services by laying the legal foundations. The good thing is that the directive’s second part clearly defines the actions that may not be directed against service providers. However, I do not agree with the decision to reduce the type of activities list to such a great extent, as the target countries are still given the opportunity to create barriers to service provision.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the liberation of the services market presents an opportunity for choice. Therefore, we must ensure that high-quality services at competitive prices are available throughout the Community. The Services Directive should guarantee that. However, this one does not yet do that.

  Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, I recognise that this compromise is something of an improvement on the Commission’s original proposal. I also recognise that it is necessary and desirable to remove the remaining barriers to the cross-border provision of commercial services. However, I believe that we should, in the process, provide legal certainty – and I mean ‘certainty’ – to providers of essential public services and, more importantly, provide reassurances to the many citizens who depend strongly upon locally-provided social services.

Verbal assurances given in good faith, I fully accept, are not what will be used by judges in the event of court challenges in the future. It is the text of a directive that will be important. That is why I have signed a number of amendments, such as Amendment 31, which make it absolutely clear that it would be Member States who define services of general interest in their territory. I would ask colleagues to accept that this is a reasonable amendment and should be adopted, amongst others.

  Eoin Ryan (UEN). – Mr President, I believe that the Services Directive is one of the most important pieces of legislation we will adopt in this Parliament. I should like to congratulate Commissioner McCreevy, Mrs Gebhardt and Mr Harbour for all their work. It is definitely a step in the right direction.

The directive will make Europe more competitive and thereby create jobs and give better value to its citizens. People are saying that we are pulling the wool over the eyes of our citizens. On the contrary: if we do not make changes in our economy, as we are doing today, then we really will be pulling the wool over the eyes of our citizens.

Whether we like it or not, it is a fact that we are living in a globalised world and Europe must become more competitive if it is to compete on a global scale. About 50% of all world trade is now in emerging economies and if we want to compete with them and hold on to the European social model, we need a vibrant economy to invest in the sort of services that we feel are important for the citizens of Europe. This directive is a step in the right direction; it is the sort of reform we must make at a European level if we want to hold on to the values that we believe are right for our citizens. I very much welcome this directive.

  Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM). – (SV) Mr President, the Council’s common position is a victory for reason. Competition within the services sector will be intensified, at the same time as the national independence of the Member States is respected. That is a good compromise. The June List is opposed to national protectionism, bureaucracy and the remnants of the guild system in Europe. Such restrictions impede competition, development and growth within the services sector. The June List welcomes the fact that the Council, in common with Parliament, chose to reject the country of origin principle. It would certainly have facilitated increased competition within some services sectors, but the disadvantages were out of all proportion. The country of origin principle would have forced the Member States to give up national self-determination in some of the most important areas of social life. It is self-evident that the laws, rules and traditions that apply within a country have come about through a due democratic process and must be observed by all who operate in its territory. The June List welcomes, then, the Council’s common position on the Services Directive.

  James Hugh Allister (NI). – Mr President, the abandonment of the country of origin principle and the reduction in the services covered, particularly the omission of social services and non-economic services, makes this directive a more palatable proposition than when it was last debated. However, I retain some concerns, not least the rush to timetable harmonisation of national legislation on the provision of services, with its inevitable avalanche of regulation and the fear that insecure jobs will result from foreign service providers paying low minimum wages, thus creating worse conditions in host nations, particularly if they are allowed to have temporary status and then escape national host controls.

On one specific point, I welcome the fact that gambling activities will be outside the ambit of this directive. Their inclusion would have fed the growth of that destructive industry and added to the misery and social instability which it so often spawns.

  Othmar Karas (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this year began with demonstrations against the Directive, and is ending with a triumph for parliamentarianism. We have not stood in each other’s way, we have not allowed ourselves to be used; instead, most of us have surpassed ourselves and taken on responsibility for the European public.

This European law is a triumph for Parliament and for dialogue, and should encourage all parliaments. We are legislators, not governments. We have shown leadership and cut the Gordian knot. Long may this continue. Freedom to provide services is a fundamental right; today’s decision represents an important step in dealing with this freedom.

This decision has also dispelled many prejudices about the EU. First of all, the Directive is a triumph for the European system of social market economy, in which the market is not played off against social security. We must realise the four freedoms consistently but, equally, we should involve the public to an increasing degree.

Secondly, we have held dialogue with the social partners. We have made ourselves part of the negotiations in the Council. In this connection, I am obliged to Minister Bartenstein and Chancellor Schüssel for taking our side. This has enabled us to achieve more market, a stronger internal market, and also growth and employment, and to ensure social security.

I should also like to thank all my fellow Members, however, especially those who refused from the outset to support efforts to achieve a qualified majority at first reading, because a compromise is always harder to champion than an individual position. We have simplified many things, provided legal certainty and presented a model of parliamentary work to the public.

(Applause from the right)

  Manuel Medina Ortega (PSE). – (ES) Mr President, I think the speeches so far have made the position quite clear: a large majority of this Parliament is going to vote in favour of the text adopted, and there is therefore no reason to fear that the proposal for a directive will be rejected.

It will not therefore be necessary to go to a conciliation procedure. This is thanks not only to the great work by Mrs Gebhardt, but also to the great work by Commissioner McCreevy. I would like to congratulate both of them very warmly.

I would like to thank Commissioner McCreevy for his statement on behalf of the Commission on the exceptions for employment, social and criminal law, which, as he has said, were necessary because they are laid down in Union law, but which also clarify the situation.

Despite what some sceptics have said, this represents great progress. For example, we cannot say, as some Members have done, that we cannot look to our electors. On the contrary. On the contrary, my electors are delighted that Parliament has played this role at this time.

Neither can we criticise the excess of legislation. Without legislation, society cannot be organised. Those of us with knowledge of what is happening in the developing world, for example – where countries have no legislation – know that legislation is necessary. Through the legislation that we have adopted, Parliament, the Commission and the Council are going to provide European society with a system of freedom, in the provision of services, which, at the same time, is going to safeguard the high level of working, social and also environmental conditions that we have at the moment.

I believe that the three institutions have made a great effort.

The amendments that are going to be approved in the field of comitology were necessary. I am also delighted that both the Commission and the Council have taken them up, and we hope that the subsequent development of this Directive, by means of the comitology procedures and by agreement between Parliament, the Council and the Commission, will enable it to be fine-tuned and improved and enable any difficulties that it may present to be cleared up.

In conclusion, Mr President, I believe that this is a great day for the European Parliament, for the Council, for the Commission and for all of the citizens of the European Union.

  Alexander Lambsdorff (ALDE). – (DE) Mr President, the leap taken today by the Brussels grand coalition, largely excluding its members in the new Member States, went nowhere near far enough. It was in the right direction, but simply fell short. It is true that the establishment of one-stop shops will help to concentrate administrative formalities, at least. Another improvement is that small or medium-sized enterprises can no longer be forced to maintain a permanent establishment in another Member State.

When we celebrate in 2006 the fact that restrictions on foreign service providers have to be justified and national measures against them proportional, however, we are actually celebrating the achievement of something that should have been taken for granted by 1994 at the latest.

We have forgotten along the way where and why we started work on the Services Directive – we were aiming to kindle palpable momentum for growth and thus provide real momentum for employment. The failure follows a familiar pattern. Alliances of employers and inter-branch organisations rail against change, against competition and market opening. In a way scarcely seen in any other debate, risks have been exaggerated out of all proportion and opportunities played down. The organised scaremongering about Eastern European workers has done its worst, and the losers are the unemployed throughout Europe.

Even the Commission has to ask itself why it lacked the courage to defend its protégé against the attacks by demagogues. It is now called upon to follow implementation in the Member States attentively, so that new burdens are not imposed on SMEs, in particular, through the national back door.

  Irena Belohorská (NI). – (SK) The directive we have in front of us now only contains a fraction of the original text, as almost all areas, including the main principle of country of origin, have been deleted.

We have cut out medical and social services and services of general interest, as well as all references to the temporary posting of workers. These are to be addressed separately on a sectoral basis. However, the question remains as to when and if at all. An empty directive may do no harm, but at the same time it can do no good.

This directive, I would say, is completely useless and does not resolve anything in its current watered-down form. The country-of-origin principle means that a small business from Bratislava may apply Slovak law when serving a customer in Vienna. However, the host Member State will insist on the application of its own legislation if, for example, it is in the interests of public policy, public safety, health protection, environmental protection, etc. This wording of the directive leaves the application of the original principle to the discretion of officials.

It has been proven that the old Member States benefit from cheap and high-quality labour from the ten new Member States, and our nurses, au-pairs or IT experts have proved their worth. However, they are afraid that a nurse providing her services as a small business would generate too much competition and are disguising …

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Andreas Schwab (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I shall not repeat one by one the thanks Mr Toubon expressed to all MEPs, but they echo my sentiments. I believe, as Mr Karas said, that we have seen a great convergence of the positions of all MEPs, and that MEPs have played a positive part in helping to allay the fears on the part of the countries of origin. The fact that they have been allayed is at least partly attributable to the opening up of a path towards the completion of the internal market for services.

These negotiations, on which Parliament exerted particular influence, also demanded a great deal of our staff and, as has already been pointed out, Parliament showed itself to be influential and a driving force, but at the same time conciliatory as an institution. Mr Harbour, our shadow rapporteur, described this as a good day for European citizens. It only remains to say that the path of reality that this Framework Directive brings to European citizens has yet to be trodden, and the Member States must tread it carefully and constructively, as the Directive lays only the foundations for the future completion of the European internal market for services.

The country of origin principle has become the principle of freedom to provide services. The internal market must be completed but, as the Bruegel institute recently made clear, it also needs to be highlighted even more strongly by Member States, civil society actors, and even the Commission and Parliament, including for the purposes of public understanding. This represents another great challenge for us.

Personally, I consider the criticism levelled by some respected Members of this House that too many tasks would be transferred to the European Court of Justice in the course of the follow-up to be rather petty as, in any case, the main responsibility under a framework directive remains with the Member States. I address to the Minister, as Council representative, my appeal for the Council to face up to this main responsibility, in particular.

  Edit Herczog (PSE). – (HU) Mr President, it is good to be a member of the European Parliament today. It is good, because we can report great results. It is a great achievement that after the logjam of the Constitution, and before the closing of the fifth phase of EU enlargement, we will have succeeded in creating the free movement of services, likely with a huge majority. Do you remember? A year and a half ago, the case of the Polish plumber was the embodiment of a xenophobia that is condemnable in all its forms. A year and a half ago, we saw no hope for an agreement between employer and worker, between old and new Member States, between left and right.

It is an enormous achievement that today MEPs are categorically rejecting discrimination. Today discrimination between old and new Member States is gone. It is an enormous achievement that we are creating new opportunities for all 476 million inhabitants of the Union. It is an enormous achievement that we are creating a legal opportunity for those who at present are compelled to work in the black-market economy. And it is a great achievement that workers with rightful grievances have another option than lawsuits that go on for many years before the European Court of Justice in Luxemburg to validate their rights.

It is an enormous achievement that employers and employees, small and medium-sized enterprises, big businesses as well as consumers will benefit, and come closer to meeting the Lisbon objectives set by us all. It is a considerable achievement that Parliament has succeeded in formulating the political message of the Directive, and similarly, that between the two readings many have decided to switch to supporting the proposal after all.

If Member States transpose the law properly, ten years from now we will be able to look back with pride and say that we did what our country and what Europe demanded. Thank you for your attention, and congratulations to all participants for their contribution.

  Luigi Cocilovo (ALDE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is impossible to say everything that needs to be said in the space of a minute, so I shall select what is possible. Firstly, I am convinced that the adoption of this directive in its current form can help Europe. The directive helps to get rid of the dead wood and to overcome obstacles and barriers that have hindered unification of the services market and the initiative of professional service companies, both inside and outside national borders.

At the same time, however, the directive provides guarantees and enhances the prospect of a structured, Europe-wide market, where freedom of movement is possible not only for competition, crushed as it is by cost competition and the risk of social dumping, but also for good rules and practices, which are aimed at safeguarding inalienable principles and interests, such as those relating to the guarantee of universal services, of general interests – including in areas of economic importance – of business quality objectives, of environmental protection, of safety and of basic social safeguards. To conclude, Mr President, I hope that, in future, we will have not just more Europe, but a better Europe.

  Ryszard Czarnecki (NI). – (PL) Mr President, let us be honest and say that the Bolkestein Directive was better, as it truly opened up the services market, and that the objections expressed in this House run contrary to the spirit of solidarity in the European Union. However, this very difficult compromise clearly is of some value, and is better than having no directive at all. That is a fact.

Are there any causes for concern? Well, to call a spade a spade, the large number of exceptions are a problem. I would hesitate to call this a success, and would also refrain from saying that this is a historic moment. Let us wait to see what happens in practice. These exceptions may create a situation where the ubiquitous Polish plumber becomes an unwelcome guest. To conclude, the Devil is not as black as he is painted, and the Polish plumber is not as terrible as has been suggested, even by some Members of this House.

  Małgorzata Handzlik (PPE-DE). – (PL) Mr President, the Services Directive is not simply a legislative document about services. It is not simply a step towards liberalising services making life far easier for European service providers. The services directive is, first and foremost, proof. Or proof to all Europeans that we can work in common in a united Europe, and that this brings notable benefits for the average citizen. It is proof that together, we can achieve important things in the European Union and that, based on our combined experience, it is possible to achieve a widely accepted compromise.

Work on the Directive has proved that we can overcome divisions along national, party and historical lines and draft a balanced legislative document for the 450 million-strong consumer market which serves the interests of both service providers and consumers.

I am satisfied with the current proposal for a compromise, although I had expected a greater degree of openness and I had expected the country of origin principle to be retained. Many people criticise the Directive for being too liberal, too social. However, in my opinion, thanks to the hundreds of hours of work that went into it and the involvement of many people, the Directive has become a compromise legislative document for a united Europe where, whilst opening up and liberalising the services market, we are also ensuring that consumers and service providers obtain an adequate level of protection.

In the Member States, including Poland, the Directive provides much hope for better job opportunities, which is something that many service providers and consumers have been eagerly waiting for.

I am convinced that, as representatives of the citizens of Europe, we have done our duty and we can today vote in favour of the Directive with a clear conscience. It is an important step towards the integration of the single market, although a lot of work remains to be done in order to open it up completely. It is also a milestone which implements the principles set out in the Treaty of Rome, which we have not managed to implement any sooner, and whose 50th anniversary we will be celebrating next year.

Work on the Services Directive has been particularly important for the new Member States. During the first reading, we saw many examples of national selfishness, protectionism and opportunism, but we were also able to work out a common denominator that serves the interests of all the European Member States.

  Anne Van Lancker (PSE). – (NL) Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, it goes without saying that I wish, first of all, to extend warm thanks to Mrs Gebhardt and all those of my fellow Members with whom I have worked on this directive for so many months, because thanks to this cooperation, and thanks also, of course, to the mobilisation by the trade unions and NGOs, we now have before us a Services Directive in which labour law, collective labour agreements, social rights and consumer rights are fully respected. We should be pleased with this outcome.

I am also pleased that quite a number of sensitive areas, namely social services, health services and temping agencies, do not fall within the scope of this directive because they, of course, need stricter rules if they are not simply to be at the mercy of the free provision of services. I am grateful for the fact that Parliament has closely followed the Council’s common position in this.

Those Members who have said that there are a number of ambiguities in the Council’s common position are, of course, right, Mr President-in-Office, and along with a few fellow Members, I would have wanted to eliminate these by means of a number of amendments. I still believe that our job as legislator is about producing clear, intelligible legal texts that are not open to interpretation. The content of these texts, seeing as it touches upon subjects such as the autonomy of labour law and the definition of excluded social services, is not unimportant, and I share the rapporteur’s sense of regret that there was no willingness at all on the part of the Council to put this right with amendments.

Whilst I do believe that the legal meaning of the Commission’s interpretation is limited, I am very grateful to the Commission for its interpretation nevertheless, because I think, Commissioner, that the interpretation has a very strong political meaning – one of commitment by the Commission, about which my fellow Members and I are sure to remind this Commission and its successors. It is up to us, therefore, to provide more legal certainty for social and health services in future legislation.

  Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE). – (NL) Mr President, some people have called this a birthday present to mark the Union’s fiftieth anniversary. If I were to get that sort of present from my friends, then I think I would look for new friends. Whilst I do not want to take anything away from all the work that has been done, I have voted against for the first time, and I am afraid that I now cannot support the compromise either.

Unfortunately, feelings of fear, conservatism and protectionism have pervaded the whole of this debate. This compromise adds little to what is already enshrined in the Treaty. This may, in itself, not be a good enough reason to vote against, but what is is the fact that this directive appears to create grounds of justification for exempting public services from the rules of fair competition. I find this a very dangerous precedent and moreover – legal clarity was mentioned a moment ago – the definitions used are remarkable for their legal ambiguity.

The reason why I see this debate as being pervaded by hypocrisy is that when Western Europe bought the Eastern European businesses in the early 90s, there was no discussion whatsoever. Mr President, this is an incredible missed opportunity for Europe.

  Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE). – (EL) Mr President, the directive we are debating today is a success for Europe, a success for development and a success for the workers.

It is very important that, after a very long period of debate, the right balance has been struck and thus we have, on the one hand, the opening of the services market and the facilitation of investments by eliminating bureaucratic, legal and technical obstacles and, on the other hand, full respect for workers' rights – as the European trades union accepted in February – and, at the same time of course, exemptions for certain particular sectors.

The OECD, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, says in one of its reports that 2.5 million new jobs which will be created thanks to this directive. It would be a pity, while safeguarding workers' rights, not to take advantage of this opportunity. We would be failing in our duty towards the citizens, especially the workers.

The Commission's initial proposal gave rise to objections and misunderstandings. It is particularly positive that this procedure is closing with very broad agreement in the European Union. We have unanimity in the Council and we have an overwhelming majority of members in the European Parliament who support the Council's common position. The Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, the liberals and the socialists have together all arrived at a common approach and this proves that Europe can still dialogue, compose and arrive at solutions needed for the citizens, specially for the most financially and socially weak.

I think that we should all be very satisfied that the European Parliament had a particularly important role in this successful procedure.

  Joseph Muscat (PSE). – (MT) Why has the discussion about this directive turned out to be successful? For two reasons, I would say. Firstly, we have not treated workers like numbers; rather, we have placed workers’ and other people’s rights above all other considerations. The second reason is that we have removed obstacles to the movement of persons not by playing workers off against each other, but by attempting to make use of this freedom of movement to enhance workers’ rights. We have not made it easier to offer services on the worst possible conditions, nor have we encouraged workers to do so. This vote should send out a strong signal that there should no longer be any exploitation, nor any attempt to exploit foreign workers by offering poorer conditions. Nor should workers in a particular country be pressurised, through this stratagem, into accepting poorer conditions. Moreover, workers should be given full information about conditions being offered to other workers. I should like to thank Mrs Gebhardt, Mr Harbour and also Commissioner McCreevy for the excellent work that has been done.

  Karin Riis-Jørgensen (ALDE). – (DA) Mr President, thank you for giving me the floor. At last, the preparation of the services directive is coming to an end. At last we can let out a sigh of relief after more than 12 years of fun and frolics and at last we can look forward to an internal market in services, which may be one that has had a limb cut off, but it is better than nothing. I would like to use my brief speaking time to put the spotlight on the problems involved in having an amputee of a directive. Gaming was removed from the scope of the directive. What happens, however? The Commission, with Mr McCreevy at the fore, is in the process of investigating the pools monopolies of no less than 10 Member States. Health services were likewise excluded from the scope of the directive, yet less than a month ago the Commission put forward an ambitious plan relating to patient mobility. In other words, the consequences of having a watered down directive are that we get legislation in dribs and drabs rather than getting clear and precise rules relating to services for all the industries and areas of the EU. I find this vexatious, but I will nonetheless vote ‘yes’ today, because if you cannot get what you want you must want what you get.

  Zuzana Roithová (PPE-DE). – (CS) The directive we are adopting today will, I believe, relieve the service industry of the kind of bureaucracy and discrimination that has resulted from the considerable levels of mistrust between countries and from a lack of confidence in national competitiveness. The debate has shown how deep the chasms between countries have grown. Today we will build a bridge that represents a hard-won compromise following three years of negotiation between Parliament and the Council. I believe we should reject the proposals of the Left, which would undermine the foundations of that bridge.

So many types of service have been dropped from the directive that it appears to have lost all meaning. Yet this is not entirely the case, as it will bring fundamental changes to the rules. States will have to repeal all discriminatory service industry rules. Integrated contact points will be set up, which will oversee all formalities for long-term and temporary provision of services in another state. Authorisation must be transparent and accessible to all. Refusing permission without grounds for so doing or failing to respond for several months will no longer be possible. If the authorities fail to answer within the deadline, permission will be granted automatically. Businesses will be saved time and money because they will not be submitting superfluous documents in the original language or certified copies along with translations. Nobody will need to obtain insurance in the country of business or to have unrealistic amounts of capital. Appropriate documents for authorising businesses at home will be accepted. Mandatory information may also be provided electronically. It will be prohibited to force businesses to register or set up an office where services will be provided only temporarily. Authorities will begin to cooperate across borders in monitoring activities and systems will be interoperable.

We could have gone further, but this will make a significant contribution to completing the internal market. After years of procrastination, a bridge has finally been built across the chasms of European mistrust. This bridge will lead to free services without discrimination, to the provision of hundreds of thousands of new jobs for Europeans and to improvements in the quality of services. This is, after all, one of the Union’s raisons d’être. To conclude, I should like to thank the rapporteurs, especially Mr Harbour.

(Applause from the right)

  Richard Falbr (PSE). – (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, under the moniker of Bolkestein, or should that be Frankenstein, even the European trade unions protested against the original proposal for a directive inherited from the Prodi Commission. Now, after more than two and a half years of negotiating and searching for a compromise, I can raise my hand in favour of the proposal before us, and I am a former trade unionist. Mrs Gebhardt, and those who contributed to achieving the final outcome, must take great credit for the fact that an acceptable directive has emerged from the original mess.

I should like to say that while I am not satisfied, it could have been worse. I am pleased to observe, however, that with everyone’s good will, this directive will be a success. The proposal that we have adopted is not without its faults but in life – and especially so in political life – one cannot have everything. My gratitude for the outcome goes to the European Parliament. To many dissatisfied Czechs this may seem like window dressing, yet I remain optimistic.

  Šarūnas Birutis (ALDE). – (LT) I believe that today Parliament will demonstrate its maturity in moving the Lisbon reforms forward. Mrs Gebhardt and Parliament have already done a great deal of work on this Directive since its first reading. We still remember assertions in the press that the whole Directive had been turned upside down. Sad, but true.

Ladies and gentlemen, the Commission and the Council have shown their respect for Parliament and, therefore, today we have a text which represents the opinion of more than 90% of its Members. We must ensure feedback. We are the ones responsible to European citizens for the reliability of common decisions and preservation of a true European compromise. Parliament will set a good precedent and give a sign of welcome to European businesses and consumers.

I urge all Members to approve the directive by a 70% vote; it is time to liberate the potential of the sector, which ensures our wellbeing, from a bureaucratic grip and take a firm, even if a small, step forward.

  Alexander Stubb (PPE-DE). – Mr President, may I start with an observation as a francophone, which is that when Mrs Le Pen of the French extreme right and Mr Wurtz of the French extreme left spoke, they both drew exactly the same conclusions. Perhaps they should get married!

Today we have cause for celebration, a little bit of sadness and a little bit of hope. The reason for celebration is that we have actually got a services directive, which is indeed a step forward. I too would like to congratulate both Mrs Gebhardt and Mr Harbour on the work they have done. I think it should be called the Gebhardt-Harbour directive.

I am also happy that the European Parliament played a very strong role in this, and would like to congratulate the Finnish Presidency, Mr Pekkarinen, and especially Mrs Satu Mäkinen, who has redefined what a tough Finnish negotiator can be.

The reason for my sadness is the following. I think the atmosphere in which we conducted the debate on the services directive was a little bit poisoned. It showed traces of nationalism and protectionism, and a hint of xenophobia, much as Mr Lehtinen has said. We talked about the Bolkestein directive and the Polish plumber etc., and at many times were working to reduce the scope of the directive instead of pushing it forward. That may be a little sad, because it meant we had lost a little bit of mutual trust.

Why hope? The reason for hope is that we can live with this directive. I think the key is that the Member States can now start implementing the directive and the European Parliament can follow up this implementation. I also hope that the European Court of Justice will interpret this directive in a liberal sense.

I would like to end by saying that we should re-establish the trust there has been between the Member States, and remember that in 1957, 50 years ago, we defined this Union as being based on four freedoms, which are the free movement of services, goods, money and people.

(Applause from the centre and from the right)

  Jan Andersson (PSE). – (SV) Mr President, I too want to begin by thanking all those involved and, most particularly, the rapporteur, Mrs Gebhardt, who has done an incredibly good job. In my one minute’s speaking time, I shall concentrate on labour legislation. I did think that the wordings from Parliament’s first reading were better. I thought that the wordings that Mrs Gebhardt tried to get through in the Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection were better than what we are seeing today. I am completely satisfied, however, with what is said about labour legislation, collective agreements and such like, because there is also a statement from the Commission.

I heard Mr Wurtz mention the Vaxholm case, and I know that lawyers specialising in labour legislation in Sweden were extremely critical of Mr McGreevy in connection with that case. I have spoken with the same lawyers today, and they believe that the Commission statement is quite excellent on the subject of labour legislation. I share their view and believe that the statement, combined with the report itself, is sound.

In conclusion, I want to say that these matters are important and that what we have here are Parliament’s proposals. Parliament has seen all its important points of view taken into account. It is therefore easy to vote in favour of the report today.

  Zita Pleštinská (PPE-DE). – (SK) At this moment we are deciding the fate of one of the most important pieces of legislation to come from the European Parliament.

Together with MEPs from the new Member States, we did not in all political sincerity view the Bolkestein Directive as a 'scarecrow' but rather as a clear opportunity for the enlarged European Union. From the very outset of our term in Parliament, we have actively participated in stormy discussions and explained that services market liberalisation is needed in order to create new jobs, increase the rate of growth in the European Union and fulfil our ambition of becoming the dominant player in global competition. We have tried to persuade our colleagues that the Polish plumber is not a threat but a benefit to the European internal market.

The European Parliament has accepted a compromise that partly liberalises the market but retains protection for it in a number of areas. Although this is not an ideal solution, one can be content with the fact that the key principle elaborated by the PPE-DE – the freedom to provide services – ensures a balance between a social and a liberal Europe as regards the opening up of the services sector and, at the same time, provides sensible procedures for small and medium businesses, as well as high quality of services and consumer protection.

I would like to express my appreciation for the work of Mrs Gebhardt, Mr Harbour and all the shadow rapporteurs, and I am pleased that the Commission and Council have accepted the compromise achieved by the European Parliament in the sensitive areas. The good news is that the Council’s Common Position Paper is similar to the position reached by the European Parliament in the first reading.

Ladies and gentlemen, through today’s historic vote the European Parliament may become the architect of the EU’s common market for services. I expect the Member States to behave with a similar sense of responsibility and to implement the Services Directive in their national legislation in less than three years. I am sure that the Services Directive will be just the right gift to mark the European Union’s anniversary.

  Dariusz Rosati (PSE). – (PL) Mr President, today, after two years of difficult negotiations the Services Directive will be finally adopted by the European Parliament. It is a good day, not only for the Polish plumber, but also for European consumers and enterprises. The service sector accounts for 70% of the European economy. That is why it is so vital to open it up to competition and to give companies the opportunity to freely source and provide services throughout the whole of Europe.

Of course, the compromise reached is by no means ideal and does not meet all of our expectations. During the discussion, there were many misunderstandings and ideological disagreements, there was too much propaganda on the subject of social dumping and too little thought was given to the interest of Europe as a whole. Rational fear of competition from other Member States has also meant that rational arguments and elements of economic logic were not given sufficient consideration. Meanwhile, the liberalisation of the services market will result in growth in GDP of all the Member States and is a powerful stimulus for the creation of hundreds of thousands of new jobs.

Although the draft Directive debated today is not perfect, it is an important step forward and I call for it to be adopted without amendment.

  Roberta Angelilli (UEN). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, if Europe is to support growth and employment, it needs to expand the market and eliminate the excessive bureaucratic red tape that exists in this sector. However, this must not prejudice workers' rights or lead to exploitation or social dumping. Despite the fact that, after a hard-fought parliamentary battle, a series of socially important services have been excluded from the original directive, the text on which we are about to vote remains ambiguous and still does not clearly set the boundary between this directive and labour law and national social safeguards.

Despite this morning’s reassurances, it is for these reasons that we call for the directive, when it is actually implemented, to respect national conciliation practices and not to bypass sector-wide collective agreements. Above all, we call for the application of the directive to be strictly monitored, so that the rules protecting employee and consumer rights and health and safety at work are not breached.

  Stefano Zappalà (PPE-DE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, back in the last parliamentary term and part of this one, I worked on other directives and initiatives regarding the implementation of the internal market, alongside Mrs Gebhardt and Mr Harbour. It is only right that I formally congratulate Mrs Gebhardt this morning, because, in addition to the Supplies and Services Directive, we also worked together on the Professional Qualifications Directive during the last parliamentary term.

The directive in question, which, as has been pointed out, is a fundamental part of the implementation provided for by the treaties on the internal market, is also, in the end, the outcome of other legislative activities that we have carried out with Mrs Gebhardt and Mr Harbour. This fundamentally important directive will certainly bear the name of Mrs Gebhardt, whom I should like to congratulate on the skill with which she has managed, not now but back at the stage of first reading, to bring the directive in question to a successful conclusion in such an important sector as this.

I am not sure whether it is clear to everyone that the legislation that we are adopting is aimed at harmonising the national systems and not at imposing itself on them: this is a concept that, in my view, should be clear to everyone. While we prepare to take another step on the road to completing the internal market, it must be acknowledged and clearly pointed out once again – having heard a name that no longer exists still floating about in this Chamber – that, in comparison with the national self-interests represented by the Council and with the other kinds of self-interest represented by the Commission, the European Parliament is the institution that succeeds in resolving highly significant issues.

  Maria Matsouka (PSE). – (EL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the majority in the European Parliament considers that the Bolkenstein directive has not existed since last February. The initial proposal has in fact been improved and some of its dangerous provisions have been abolished. This was done after a hard battle by the socialists and the left. The neoliberal spirit, however, remains in the Council's common position, in that crucial issues about European workers' rights are not clarified. In addition, services of general economic interest are not exempted from the scope and, in the article at issue about the principle of the country of origin, the principle of ambiguity prevails. The Court of Justice of the European Communities will be called upon to plug the loopholes by creating, as it has done in other sectors, liberal case law which favours undertakings on the pretext of completing the internal market.

We tabled amendments together with the French and Belgian socialists and we shall support any which can further improve the text. However, over and above the texts themselves, which are governed by this deliberate ambiguity, there is reality and this reality is determined by unemployed, poor, disillusioned workers. Do not ignore them or, at the very least, do not make fun of them.

  Charlotte Cederschiöld (PPE-DE). – (SV) Mr President, a major step in terms of principle is being taken in the European Parliament today. As I see it, the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats and the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe are perhaps those who have been best able to keep the compromise alive. I wish to extend a special thank you not only to Mr Harbour, who I think has made a major contribution, but also, of course, to Mrs Gebhardt. The European Parliament has conjured broad support out of a political conflict. The Services Directive is desired by many. I would point out how very strongly the right of establishment features in the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Sweden’s new government is now trying to simplify the rules in the labour market and make it more profitable to work. Additional impetus is now being given to these efforts by this directive, which makes European markets more accessible. Companies will now encounter fewer obstacles in one of the world’s largest markets with great opportunities for growth. According to some estimates, some 600 000 new jobs will be created. For the Swedish labour market, with 70% of jobs in the services sector, this means big improvements.

What, however, the Services Directive provides is a basis. It is a first step, and not the last. Certainly, much more might be wished for, but I believe that the other steps will also be taken when the time is ripe. The unduly large number of excluded areas - for example, health - are, of course, still covered by the rules of the Treaty, something of which the Commissioner too is, fortunately, aware. The work in this area continues, then. I would thank everyone who has contributed. I would also thank the Commission for its efforts to improve matters for companies and consumers – efforts that will hopefully benefit people by leading to better quality at lower prices in the case of certain services.

  Proinsias De Rossa (PSE). – Mr President, I wish to congratulate Mrs Gebhardt on her enormous tenacity and political wisdom. Others have obviously played a key role, but I am afraid that she has carried the greatest burden.

This outcome is a success, given all the circumstances for citizens as workers, consumers and service providers. The outcome demonstrates that it is possible for effective and fair outcomes to be achieved between 25 Member States, despite all our differences. Those who ignore that diversity continue to reject this compromise, particularly the kamikaze GUE/NGL Group, which ignores the fact that the principal demand it has been making – the deletion of the country of origin principle – has, in fact, been achieved.

The Council must now stop playing games with labour rights in Europe. Last week’s farce on the Working Time Directive was shameful. Give us a working time directive that is workable and working and an effective posting of workers directive. Unless the Council does that, it will continue to preside over citizens who fear for the quality of their working lives and fear the race to the bottom, and those fears are eating at the heart of Europe.

  Simon Coveney (PPE-DE). – Mr President, today is a good day for the European Union. The process to reach an agreement on the Services Directive has not been an easy one. While no political group in Parliament has got exactly what it wants, we have managed to reach a workable compromise acceptable to the vast majority of Members. Most importantly, this Parliament is sending a strong signal today to the Commission and Council to move forward and make this directive a reality as soon as is practically possible. For that reason my group has taken the approach not to amend the directive at this stage, in recognition of the fact that it would not be helpful to reopen the debate in Parliament or Council.

The implementation of the Services Directive will give the sluggish EU economy a much needed kick-start at this stage. The services area is crucial to Europe’s economic growth and prosperity, contributing nearly 70% of GDP across Europe. Businesses and consumers alike should benefit from the creation of a more open common market for services. At the moment services account for only 20% of trade between Member States. The directive aims to remove many of the barriers to cross-border trade and services and to reduce the red tape that businesses, especially small to medium-sized enterprises, encounter when they try to expand across borders into new EU markets. Europe’s small and medium-sized enterprises with the capacity to grow have been particularly disadvantaged by the costs attached to administration and legal requirements in the past. They can look forward to the benefits of this directive, which dramatically reduces that burden for future cross-border trade.

This directive is of huge importance to my own country because it is a net exporter or goods and services. Irish companies and service providers will now, I hope, take advantage of the simplified environment for providing services across the European Union.

The Services Directive will facilitate growth, job creation and increased economic activity in the services sector across the EU, while ensuring social and worker protection.

As Parliament’s last speaker in this debate, I wish the Commissioner well in ensuring that this directive becomes a reality without delay.

(Applause)

  Charlie McCreevy, Member of the Commission. For the record, I confirm that the Commission will accept Amendments 40, 41 and 42, which relate to comitology and introduce the regulatory procedure with scrutiny. The Commission rejects all other amendments.

Concerns raised in these amendments have been addressed in the statements I made at the beginning of the debate. Various Members have commented on legal certainty and whether or not this directive will lead to a long list of disputes that will need to be settled by the European Court of Justice. I do not share this concern. There is broad consensus among Member States on this text. I recall that no Member State voted against the common position. The vast majority of Members of this House indicate that they will support it in the vote that will take place in a short while. Given this broad consensus, I do not see why Member States would seek not to respect the directive. Everyone agrees that we need to give the services sector a boost. This is exactly what this directive will do.

At yesterday’s debate on the Commission’s work programme, Mr Harbour and others made a very valid point about implementation and the resources to be attributed to that. At the Commission, we will start to focus immediately on the transposition and implementation of this directive. Simplifying life for service providers and their customers is hard work. Member States have three years to implement the directive. They should start immediately, not because I say so but because their economies need this directive, and the Commission will hold the Member States accountable.

The broad level of consensus that has manifested itself today is the result of a number of important innovations in our approach to lawmaking in the European Union. Firstly, Parliament took on its role as co-legislator and, instead of taking the easy option of rejecting a very controversial proposal, MEPs rolled up their sleeves and reached agreement on essential modifications to the text that made it acceptable across the political divide. For me this was an important signal of the maturity of this institution.

Secondly, the Presidency is building on your approach and it worked hard to build on this consensus. As well as bringing MEPs to the informal Competitiveness Council, which engaged directly in discussions with ministers, the Presidency organised a series of meetings with the social partners. All of this greatly contributed to the agreement that you will vote on later today. It is appropriate that it was under the Finnish Presidency that some of these innovations were introduced because that is the motto of the Finnish Presidency.

Finally, two points. In thanking Mrs Gebhardt and Mr Harbour and everybody else – many MEPs from all sides of this House were involved in achieving the broad consensus that we reached and an enormous amount of hard work was done and great tribute has been paid to the MEPs here – I would also like to note that various Commission officials worked extremely hard to effect the changes and to get from the text Parliament produced at its first reading to the text that went to the Council. I want to acknowledge that as well.

For those of us who occasionally engage in the odd wager – not that this would be something that most Members of this House would want to do! – I do not think that one year ago you would have wagered a lot of money on our reaching the position we are going to reach today. That is thanks to a large number of people, both here in Parliament but also in the various Member States and in the Commission. I want to pay particular tribute to that.

Lastly, there has been at least one additional, unplanned benefit for me personally: I have got to know a very large number of Members of Parliament across all groupings over the last two years. This would not necessarily have been the case if I had not had to deal with this very controversial Services Directive. So I thank you for that.

(Applause)

  Mauri Pekkarinen, President-in-Office of the Council. (FI) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would briefly like to thank you for a very interesting and constructive debate. The European Union’s common goal is to improve our economy in terms of its productivity and competitiveness, and to increase employment. The establishment of a more viable internal market in services is very important if we are to attain these goals.

I would like to thank you all. I eagerly await the forthcoming vote.

  President. The debate is closed.

The vote will take place today at 12.30 a.m.

Written Statements (Rule 142)

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL). – (PT) As far as UNICE (the European employers’ association) is concerned, the agreement reached in the Council on the Bolkestein Directive is an ‘important’ and ‘promising’ step forward. The Directive must therefore be ‘correctly and quickly transposed and implemented’ so that UNICE and its national Members – in Portugal, the Portuguese Industrial Association (AIP) and the Confederation of Portuguese Industry (CIP) – ‘will contribute actively'.

So say the representatives of the major economic and financial groups. They see this ‘step’ as a fresh opportunity to exploit the workers and for economic domination. The Directive will serve to undermine the national sovereignty of Member States as regards defining, protecting and funding public services and as regards defining standards on how services as a whole should be provided. It will also strengthen the power of supranational bodies such as the Commission and the Court of Justice over the Member States. The accent will be placed on competition, which will have disastrous consequences for workers’ rights and for the services provided to the people.

This is an unacceptable proposal, which must be rejected.

Lastly, I should like to highlight the role of the social democrats (the Socialist Group in the European Parliament), who, by means of their ‘tactical’ chicanery, helped to water down the objectives and the scope of the proposed directive before us. They originally proposed the directive, made (cosmetic) amendments to it, only to reaffirm support for what they previously claimed to have rejected.

  Katalin Lévai (PSE). – (HU) The Directive is undoubtedly an important step that will make it possible to move beyond the theoretical principles of the Treaty of Rome and provide the practical conditions for the free movement of services. It is my hope that by putting into action one of the four freedoms, it will be possible to eliminate the bad practice whereby Member States have prevented, through numerous methods, the implementation of that principle.

At the same time, in view of the amendments concerning exclusions, it is questionable which areas shall in practice fall outside the Directive on the free movement of services, and whether in its present form it fulfils its original purpose. I think Parliament has missed a great opportunity to stand up for a proposal that would effectively promote improved EU competitiveness by creating a unified internal market.

On the other hand, I find it commendable that the Directive fully respects the rights as regards collective bargaining and the signing, broadening and implementing of collective agreements, as well as the right to strike and to take industrial action in accordance with the regulations of Member States governing industrial relations.

In sum, I think that although we cannot be completely satisfied with the result, since the list of exclusions and limiting conditions is perhaps too long, the Directive nevertheless covers a wide spectrum of economic activities and will impose a certain discipline on EU members. I consider it also of great significance that thanks to the Directive, enterprises will be better informed, more knowledgeable and less dependent.

  Georgios Toussas (GUE/NGL). – (EL) The directive on the liberalisation of services promotes the reactionary ambitions of European capital. It strengthens the monopoly of services markets with particularly unfavourable repercussions on the quality, security and cost of services. It gives monopolies the facility to enjoy 'low cost' services from service providers in other Member States. It takes advantage of the single internal market to reduce the price of labour and exploit it, thereby reaping excessive profits. It promotes the liberalisation and the penetration of big business into a series of public services and utilities. It throws into doubt rights which have been hard fought for. It exerts pressure on the working class in every Member State, by discriminating between workers, in order to reduce employment relations to the lowest common denominator. It introduces legislative changes at the expense of the working class and its rights. It accompanies reactionary changes to labour law which are already being processed in the wings of the tripartite association between the ΕU governments, the plutocracy and the reconciled trade union forces.

The Greek Communist Party calls on the working class and the grassroots class to step up their fight against the entire anti-grassroots policy of the ΕU and of the governments of the Member States, to help to change the power ratio at political and trade union level and to make their action more effective, in order to satisfy the modern needs of the working, grassroots family.

(The sitting was suspended at 11.30 a.m. pending voting time, and resumed at 11.45 a.m.)

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

4. Voting time

  President. Mr Rack has the floor for a point of order.

  Reinhard Rack (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, if I have understood correctly, the President should preside over the vote. He has more than a dozen deputies. If he is really unable to attend, one of these deputies should at least be present.

  President. No, Mr Rack. It was I who was responsible for chairing Voting Time. The reason I was slightly late was that I was at the airport receiving the Emir of Qatar, and there was a slight delay on the journey there and back.

The next item is the vote.

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

4.1. A new framework strategy for multilingualism (vote)

− Before the vote on paragraph 20:

  Zbigniew Zaleski (PPE-DE). – (ES) Mr President, in the event of paragraph 20 not being rejected, I propose an oral amendment:

‘Otherwise, lesser-used languages and less-recognised languages, particularly in Western Europe, of the new Member States, will be left behind with their linguistic social space taken over by the more widely spoken languages, especially English.’

(Parliament rejected the oral amendment)

4.2. The European Union's Generalised System of Preferences (vote)

5. Welcome

  President. I would like to welcome Mr Olexander Moroz, President of the Verjovna Rada, the Ukrainian Parliament, who is in the gallery, and the delegation accompanying him.

(Applause)

We wish Mr Moroz a happy stay with us and we hope that he will be able to lead the parliamentary work in his country through the difficult situation it is facing at the moment and towards a democratic, prosperous and stable future in which he will always be able to count on our friendship and support.

I would also like to welcome to the official gallery a delegation from the Algerian Parliament - headed by Mr Abderrezak Bouhara, Vice-President of the National Council - which is currently visiting our Parliament.

We hope that Mr Bouhara’s meetings with members of the Delegation for relations with the Maghreb countries, as well as with other Members of this House, will help to strengthen our many links with the Republic of Algeria and will enable us to make progress in the common quest for peace, prosperity and democracy for the countries located on both shores of the Mediterranean.

IN THE CHAIR: MR BORRELL FONTELLES
President

(The formal sitting was opened at 12.05 p.m.)

6. Formal sitting – Qatar

  President Ladies and gentlemen, your Highness, I would like to welcome the Emir of Qatar, Sheikh Hammad bin Khalifa al-Thani. I would also like to point out that we have a visit from the President of the Parliament of Ukraine, who is in the official gallery.

It is an honour for us to welcome you today, as the first Head of State of a Gulf country to address the European Parliament.

In fact, this is the first time we have had the pleasure and honour of receiving a Head of State from the extremely important region of the Gulf.

You have been a pioneer in your region's process of democratisation. You have promoted a written Constitution, approved by means of a referendum, which guarantees a whole series of democratic reforms, including, of course, recognition of freedom of expression and opinion, the granting of universal suffrage to all adults, men and women, and the creation of a Parliament that will be elected in elections to be held next year.

Furthermore, your Highness, you have played an important role on the international stage. You and your country. A small country with just 200 000 citizens, as well as more than 600 000 immigrants. A country that organised the conference in Doha that launched the WTO round that is still taking place.

It is the only Arab State that is currently a member of the United Nations Security Council.

It is a pioneer in the granting of financial aid and the sending of troops to the peace-keeping force in Lebanon. Its troops are there together with our troops.

It has provided significant impetus in the search for a peaceful solution to the conflict between Palestine and Israel, being one of the very few Arab States with trade relations with Israel.

You also took an important decision, which has had great worldwide repercussions, ten years ago now, in 1996, when you authorised broadcasting by the television channel, Al-Jazeera, significantly transforming access to news and information in the Arab world.

That channel now broadcasts in English and contributes to dialogue and understanding amongst civilisations. Perhaps we too will one day recognise the importance of a channel in Arabic and English and perhaps we will also one day have a European television channel broadcasting in Arabic.

Your Highness, we are extremely interested to hear what you have to say to us this morning.

We wish to hear your views on the development of democracy in Qatar. We would also like, however, to hear your ideas about how we can promote peace in Palestine. And peace and stability in Iraq. And how to reduce the tension with Iran.

Throughout my term in office – which will come to an end soon – I have insisted on the importance to Europe of our relations with the Arab and Islamic world. I believe that this is one of the most important geostrategic challenges facing us Europeans: our relations with the Islamic world, which must go much further than our relations with our immediate neighbours, the countries of the Mediterranean.

This Parliament is therefore pleased that the negotiations have begun on a trade agreement between our Union, the European Union, and the Member countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council. Let us hope that these negotiations can conclude shortly so that we can have relations with Qatar and its neighbours with greater strategic and political content. This makes your visit to the European Parliament today all the more significant and relevant.

Your visit, your country’s visit, is important to us for many reasons, and furthermore it is taking place on a symbolic day, because, also today, the United Nations working group on the Alliance of Civilisations has just presented its recommendations to the Secretary-General, Mr Annan, in Istanbul.

This is a good time for you to be here amongst us in Strasbourg, in the heart of Europe, so that your views and the views of the Arab world can bring us closer together and make it possible for us to move forward into the future in a more united fashion than has been possible in the past.

  His Royal Highness Sheikh Hamad Bin Khalifa Al-Thani, Emir of the State of Qatar⁽¹⁾.

In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate, Mr President, Ladies and Gentlemen, I should like to express my gratitude to you for your kind invitation to me to address your Parliament, which represents 450 million Europeans and is one of the most successful examples of regional integration in the whole world. I would also like to thank you for your hospitality and warm welcome and the friendly feelings that you have shown to me.

When addressing the European Parliament one has no choice but to express great admiration for the diligent work accomplished on the European continent for many decades. During those decades, your countries, with reason and willpower, have been able to forget the painful pages of the past and to open a new promising chapter that includes many instances of success. The high international status that the European Parliament enjoys today represents a beacon of inspiration which many other countries are trying to emulate. We, in the Arab world, have the experience of the League of Arab States, which makes us hope that we will accomplish what you have accomplished. I would like here to emphasise that democracy is not a mere necessity for every state in the world, but it is a precondition for achieving regional economic integration and for the stability of international relations in any region of the world, because it prevents any one country from arbitrarily making decisions which is up to all nations in all countries to take.

The State of Qatar, as you well know, has chosen democracy as a means to protect human rights and to achieve the participation of the people. Our choice of democracy is in accord with our obligation to practice the principle of Al-Shoura, which is one of the basic rules of Islam, a rule that cannot be disregarded and which was put in place to enlarge the people’s participation. Therefore democracy must not be limited to the few, but should include all people. That principle cannot be applied selectively. It is a fundamental right that cannot be ignored or trespassed. Sometimes the reality in our region shows a practice different from the principles of Islam. That is not due to a problem with the principle itself, but because it is misinterpreted and not accurately practiced.

Islam does not only urge its people to participate in public affairs: it also urges them to respect minorities and to protect their rights. It encourages people to learn about the cultures of others, to interact with them in a relationship of give-and-take. It has pleased me very much that many of my European friends know this about Islam and know a lot about the history of their neighbours. This shows that they have a desire to engage in fruitful relationships and dialogue with their neighbours.

I would like to mention that the Arabs were the bridge on which the Greek civilisation crossed to Europe, by the translation of Greek works into Arabic. Many famous Greek philosophers and thinkers were, in that way, transferred to the European intellect and consequently triggered the Renaissance.

Many people came into contact with Islam and converted to this religion with their full conviction and acceptance through interaction with Muslims and cultural communication with them. Islam spread through dialogue and flourished by conviction. It was never imposed by force on anyone. There are those who say otherwise, but those people are wrong and they have wronged Islam.

It is necessary here to emphasise the importance of dialogue between the followers of various religions and to exert efforts for continuity between those religions in order to avoid any artificial and useless clash. Unfortunately, there are individuals and groups from both East and West, who have called for such a clash. Those people are ignorant and have become the enemies of those who are different from them in race or colour. They have not seen in the diversity of the world a source of wealth and they have not heeded the call for rapprochement and dialogue in this world.

I take this opportunity to call upon all reasonable, wise and honest people, both in the East and the West, to stand up together to block those cries for division and intolerance, which threaten peace and the respect for religions and holy places.

(Applause)

We must call for respect for religions and holy places so as not to endanger them. It is equally important to cooperate in order to fight against the distortion caused by troublemakers, ignorance and extremists, of the perceptions fabricated by each party about the other. The State of Qatar continuously exerts its efforts for this purpose and hosts many fora with the aim of encouraging dialogue between civilisations, amongst them the Annual Forum for Dialogue between Religions.

Middle Eastern affairs have always been of significant importance to Europe, because of the geographical proximity of the two regions and their political, economic and cultural continuity, which has never ceased to exist throughout history. That proximity makes it in the undoubted interest of Europe to support comprehensive reform in the countries of the Middle East, and to encourage them to continue these reforms with seriousness and with no turning back on democracy and without abusing the concept of democracy with empty words. Comprehensive reform and real democracy are the way to a better Middle East, in order that its countries may experience stability, its people may enjoy freedom, its institutions become stronger and its states may progress on the basis of the respect for law; a Middle East whose people have all the basics and scientific and economic means to deal as equals with their neighbours and the rest of the world; to be partners with them and not be alienated from them.

In this respect, we know, and probably Europe knows even better, that immigration from or through the Middle-East has become a huge challenge. Although Europe has worked very hard for years to address this challenge, successful solutions always need to go back to the roots of the problem and to deal with its causes, not only its symptoms. Therefore, when the reform process succeeds and the culture of democracy stabilises in the Middle East, and when its peoples are able to fight all forms of corruption, many of those who were seeking a decent life outside their countries will no longer emigrate, provided they can meet their aspirations in their own countries.

The consolidation of democracy and achieving peace in the Middle East are goals of equal importance. Lack of democracy and not reaching a just solution for the Palestinian problem has produced various forms of violence, which some people consider as terrorism to be fought against with the most severe means, without differentiating between one form or another, or considering ways to remove the causes that nourish it. We denounce all forms of terrorism and work together with the international community to fight it. However, we are keen to differentiate between the unjustified frightening of innocent people under whatever pretext, which is something that should be denounced, and what is the legitimate right of people to resist occupation according to international laws and customs.

We believe that a just solution to the Palestinian question should be based on the implementation of all international resolutions by both the Israeli and the Palestinian side, with the support of the international community to both sides. This will avoid the complexity that the relations between the two sides have reached recently. The Palestinian Government, constituted by the Hamas movement, in accordance with the free will of the Palestinian people in recent months, should have been given the opportunity to work for the people who elected it.

Instead of rewarding the Palestinian people for practicing democracy – something rarely witnessed in our region – they have been punished for it. I do not understand how an embargo can be imposed on a government that has been democratically elected and how collective sanctions can be imposed on the people as a whole, just because it practiced its democratic right to elect the people who will govern it.

(Applause)

Is it not a double standard to demand free elections and then object to their results?

Settling the Palestinian question is linked to the readiness of Israel to fulfil all its obligations by implementing international resolutions, which stipulate the withdrawal from the Arab occupied territories, the establishment of an independent Palestinian state with the Holy City of Jerusalem as its capital, the immediate ending of the destruction of Palestinian infrastructure and the killing and torturing of civilians, as a result of which tens of innocent Palestinians in the occupied territories have lost their lives, the last instance being the massacre of Beit Hanoun. This is the way out for the Palestinian question from the impasse that it has reached, and we think that the international community ought to exert more diligent efforts to reach a quick solution to this problem, because this would be beneficial not only to the Middle East, but to the whole world.

There is a need to find a comprehensive settlement to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This was reconfirmed by the recent destructive war waged by Israel against Lebanon. Now that the fighting has stopped and now that the UNIFIL forces – in which Qatar decided to participate – have started to perform their tasks, we hope that Lebanon will be able to exert its sovereignty on the whole of its territory and that Israel will respect that sovereignty.

As for Iraq, we hope that country will overcome the crisis it is in now, that it will preserve its sovereignty and the unity of its territories, and that the Iraqi people will recover security and freedom. I am confident that the European Union, which is aware of the dangers imposed by the Iraqi situation on the regional stability in the Middle East, will redouble its efforts to help Iraq to overcome the dangerous situation it is in now.

Stability in the Middle East also requires that the European Parliament continue its efforts to reach a peaceful solution to the Iranian nuclear programme, which will confirm that its goals will remain solely peaceful and under the supervision of the International Agency for Atomic Energy. Here we would like to repeat our call to make the Middle East a region free of nuclear weapons and to oblige Israel to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

(Applause)

Before I end my speech, I would like to refer to the strength of the cooperation relationship between the European Union and the State of Qatar specifically, and with the Cooperation Council of the Arab Gulf States in general. The State of Qatar, ever since it signed the Cooperation Treaty between the countries of the Cooperation Council of the Arab Gulf States and the then EEC in 1989, has developed its relations with the European Union in various fields. In the field of energy alone, Qatar has signed contracts with a number of countries of the European Union, amongst them Italy, Belgium, Britain and Spain, to provide those countries with their needs in terms of natural gas. We also have cooperation in other fields such as the cultural, political and economic fields. Qatar and the European Union will thus be able to strengthen their ties further.

I would like to thank you once again, and may the peace and grace of God be upon you.

(The House rose and accorded the speaker a standing ovation)

  President. Thank you for your words, your Highness. I am sure that they will have helped to create greater understanding of the views of the Arab world, of the Islamic world, on issues which are of common interest, to both Europe and yourselves.

It has been an honour for the European Parliament to receive you. Thank you very much.

(Applause)

(The formal sitting was closed at 12.30 p.m.)

(1) The Emir spoke Arabic. This is a translation.

7. Voting time (continued)

  President. We shall continue with the vote.

7.1. Services in the internal market (vote)

  President. That concludes the vote.

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

8. Explanations of vote

  President. The next item is the explanations of vote.

- Joan i Marí report (A6-0372/2006)

  Josu Ortuondo Larrea (ALDE). – (ES) Mr President, the European Union’s fundamental motto is ‘United in diversity’. Since its origins we have been trying to build a common area, and not just an economic area but, above all, an area of life opportunities and freedom. We are doing so amongst people and nations that have many things in common; I am not just referring to the strategic, political and social interests that we share, but also to our values, habits and ways of looking at life.

We have a common cultural background based on Greek thought, Roman law, Christianity, the Reformation, the Enlightenment, the Renaissance and even globalisation. At the same time, however, there is no question that we still have cultural differences and special identities and, in particular, our own languages. This diversity, though it could be seen as just an obstacle, is in fact a source of great wealth and vitality.

Although it has not been approved, I have therefore voted in favour of the proposal that the European Union Treaty be modified, so that there can be Community legislation in the field of respect and protection for languages, particularly minority languages, as well as the creation of a European Agency for Linguistic Diversity and Multilingualism.

I have also voted in favour of promoting the learning by all European citizens of at least two other languages in addition to their own, since I believe that that is the best way to bring about mutual understanding, co-existence and unity.

  Michl Ebner (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, on the subject of multilingualism, I welcome the adoption of this report by Mr Joan i Marí. Indeed, I voted in favour of it, albeit with a number of reservations, which I still have. I believe that neither the European Commission nor Members during the vote in this House – the majority, at least – showed sufficient courage on a number of amendments. Multilingualism is a precondition for tolerance and acceptance, and, in the interests of understanding within the EU, more must be done in this field.

It is a fact that Parliament decided the Commission should study the issue of the creation of an agency and present a report to Parliament on this, and it is equally true that the Commission has been found wanting in this regard. This omission must be rectified.

The procedure in this House is that a report is presented before the relevant debates are held and decisions taken.

  Tomáš Zatloukal (PPE-DE). – (CS) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is good news that the new framework strategy for multilingualism has been adopted. The individual Member States will be responsible for implementing this policy. Some Member States are currently carrying out changes to their education systems. The teaching of foreign languages, as a means of both communication and recognising cultural diversity, forms a substantial part of these changes.

We must give unequivocal support to the European Indicator of Language Competence if we are to make the best possible use of individual systems of current language knowledge in educational planning. The motivation for teaching foreign languages is also increased by the transparency of language examination and certification, which is of benefit to those who have them in their future careers.

The report represents an important contribution towards strengthening the teaching of foreign languages, improving the competitiveness of workforces and enhancing communication between the citizens and the European institutions. This a further reason why I voted in favour of this report.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI). – (DE) Mr President, I voted in favour of this report. Amid all the euphoria about multilingualism, we must not forget the deficits that ever declining results of PISA studies have revealed.

The number of non-nationals in school classes should be limited to 30% as a matter of course, however, in order to facilitate integration, maintain quality standards and reduce the potential for cultural conflict. In my opinion, therefore, sufficient command of the local language before the start of normal education and, if necessary, increased linguistic support, for example in the form of an additional year in kindergarten or pre-school, should become the norm in the EU.

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI). – (FR) Mr President, I would add my reservations to those of my colleague, Mr Mölzer. There are some excellent things in this report, in particular the fact that it points out that English teaching does not need to be subsidised by the European Union.

It includes an extremely ambitious position, which is aimed at making all sixty or so minority languages official languages, but this is somewhat to the detriment of the 21 national languages of the Union, some of which are already, to some extent, under great threat: Latvian, Lithuanian, Estonian, Hungarian and Slovenian are not languages of international communication. Even the status of Italian, German and French is of some concern.

It is somewhat illogical for the report to propose making savings on the grounds that these official EU languages are not necessarily regarded as working languages in all of the delegations, and this so as to release funds for the benefit of regional languages. Yesterday, we had the rather regrettable example of the Head of a State that has recently become fully independent, who felt obliged, rather than to speak in his mother tongue, to speak in English, even though he had been a student in Strasbourg! That does not bode very well, in my view, for the development of multilingualism in the European Union.

  Edite Estrela (PSE), in writing. (PT) I voted for the Joan i Mari report on a new framework strategy for multilingualism, although I have some reservations as regards some proposals and amendments that have been adopted.

I feel that the European multilingualism strategy should cover the teaching and promotion of ‘European world languages’, a term that applies to Portuguese, which is the third most widely spoken EU language in the world (behind English and Spanish, and ahead of German, French and Italian). Owing to its uniqueness and to the fact that it is spoken by some 200 million people in eight countries spread over five continents, the Portuguese language should be one of the EU official languages. The report fails to acknowledge this, as it ought to.

Portuguese is the most durable link between the continents, as it is a means of communication, the raw material used by great poets and writers, and has a dignity born of eight hundred years of history.

  Glyn Ford (PSE), in writing. I will be supporting this report with a degree of reluctance. It seems to me that the endless addition of further languages to the cocktail of the EU's official languages is not necessarily of benefit to the efficient working of the institutions. I agree that it must be possible for MEPs to speak and listen in their own languages, but that is not necessarily true for Commission or Council officials.

We now have the anomalous situation whereby Gaelic will be available for those from Scotland, Spanish for those from Gibraltar, but not Welsh for those from Wales. Yet, if we are to add new languages, I would plead that amongst these must be the language of one part of my constituency, namely Cornish. It is a minority language, but its potential speakers are at least as numerous as those speakers of Maltese, an official language of the Community.

  Hélène Goudin and Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM), in writing. (SV) Multilingualism is important for freedom of movement within the European Union. We have therefore voted in favour of the report as a whole.

However, we have voted against certain proposed wordings, including those concerning language legislation for the EU, the setting up of an Agency for Linguistic Diversity and/or Multilingualism and the establishment of an interinstitutional EU working party charged with bringing about an amendment to the EU Treaty with a view to creating a legal basis for the concept, ‘respect for linguistic diversity’.

As always, the European Parliament’s tendency to grow like Topsy enters the picture. We would point out that the Member States are exclusively responsible for the organisation of teaching and for ensuring that the content of education systems is fully respected. Consequently, it is the responsibility of each Member State to make sure that people are given a proper linguistic education.

  Sérgio Marques (PPE-DE), in writing. – (PT) I wish to congratulate Mr Joan i Mari on his important and timely report on a new framework strategy for multilingualism, to which I lend my full backing. I welcome the proposed measures to promote multilingualism in Europe.

The existence of various languages in Europe is a characteristic that is peculiar to the process of European integration and a key component of European culture. The learning of various languages, which is the objective known as ‘mother tongue + 2’ established in the Lisbon Strategy, should be encouraged with a view to facilitating communication between people from different countries and to fostering acceptance of the differences between them.

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. I voted for this report and warmly welcome measures to protect and enhance the use of minority languages. However, encouraging multilingualism should not spill over into the excessive (and unnecessary) provision of interpretation and translation into regional languages.

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of the report before us because multilingualism is a subject that is close to my heart and because I feel that the EU should send out a loud and clear message promoting linguistic diversity in its territory.

As regards the European Indicator of Language Competence, mentioned in the report, I shall reiterate the arguments I put forward in my written statement on the issue.

The adoption of an Indicator of Language Competence is needed to redress the lack of verifiable data on the EU citizens’ language skills. This Indicator must not, however, be restricted to the five most widely spoken languages in the EU. Among other factors, we must take into account the profile of other European languages around the world. This is a key aspect of the issue, and one which the EU must incorporate into its policy of openness towards, and cooperation with, the rest of the world.

For this reason, my vote in favour of Amendment 4 is a way of emphasising the call for the Commission to set out a specific timetable for extending the Indicator to all of the official EU languages, as I proposed in my written statement.

  José Ribeiro e Castro (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) In the new framework strategy for multilingualism, I welcome the fact that Parliament has taken on board my contribution to the recognition of the strategic importance and global relevance of European world languages.

Around the world, 350 million people have English as their mother tongue; Spanish is the mother tongue of 280 million people; Portuguese is the mother tongue of 230 million people, and 125 million have French as their mother tongue. These figures and the geographical spread of speakers of these languages are indicative of the importance of European languages with a worldwide profile. These languages enhance our capacity to sustain and strengthen direct relations and contacts with other parts of the world, without the need for an intermediary.

Turning to another aspect of the issue, I am aware that those opposed to the European promotion of multilingualism cite cost as one of the reasons for eliminating it or replacing it with one working language, or just a few.

It is undeniable that it costs money. It must be remembered, however, despite the financial arguments that are trotted out, that of the costs incurred in the construction of modern Europe, this one is in a very good cause, the promotion of our tradition. Multilingualism certainly costs less than war, and is a powerful cultural activity.

  Catherine Stihler (PSE), in writing. Multilingualism is an important concept. We need to recognise the uniqueness of the European Parliament in having simultaneous interpretation in 21 different languages, soon to be 23. However, if we are going to achieve the aim of all EU citizens having competence in their mother tongue plus two other languages, we need support at Member State level.

In Scotland, fewer people are choosing to study foreign languages at school and university. We must reverse that trend. I am pleased that all 10-year olds in Scottish schools are learning a foreign language. Their efforts should be encouraged and supported. The Scottish Executive support for Gaelic medium education should also be commended.

- European Union Generalised System of Preferences (B6-0578/2006)

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI), in writing. – (FR) The desire to make the granting to certain countries of the generalised system of preferences – that is to say, privileged access to the European market for their exports – dependent on those countries’ complying with the minimal rules of the International Labour Organisation, is a good thing.

However, as is usually the case with this type of resolution, I fear that we are still at the stage of pious hopes. Despite the clauses demanding respect for human rights and the basic ‘social’ rights with which the Europe of Brussels peppers its international trade agreements, I do not believe that it has ever punished any violation of these rights or enforced these clauses. It agrees to trade with China and has supported its entry into the WTO, despite what we know about the working conditions in that Communist country, about the existence of Laogai camps and forced labour, about the political repression and lack of freedoms, and even about the systematic violation of the right of ownership, by the large-scale counterfeiting and copying that is practised there.

The problem here is one of credibility, and, on this point, Europe has none.

  Richard Howitt (PSE), in writing. More trade union activists are murdered each year in Colombia than in the rest of the world combined. In 2005, 70 trade unionists were killed, while 260 received death threats, 56 were arbitrarily detained, seven survived attacks in which explosives or firearms were used, six were kidnapped, and three disappeared.

The Commission has taken great pride in touting its credentials in matching GSP benefits with rights standards. Even the ILO itself has stated that Colombia is not in full compliance with ILO core labour standards, which should be necessary to afford GSP+ benefits. Ratification of an ILO convention is not the same as implementation, as trade unionists in Colombia will readily testify.

I therefore welcome this resolution and the statement made by Commissioner Mandelson during the debate and urge the Commission to review Colombia's GSP+ status. Otherwise a country which murders its trade unionists will continue to appear to be rewarded for doing so.

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. I welcome this vote. In far too many countries that get GS preferences there are repeated violations of workers' rights. The Commission must through regular and transparent evaluation ensure the implementation of the relevant ILO conventions.

- Gebhardt report (A6-0375/2006)

  Oldřich Vlasák (PPE-DE). – (CS) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to explain why I voted in favour of the proposed recommendation for a directive on services in the internal market. I should first like to say that I am convinced that it is a good thing that after three years of protracted negotiation the European institutions have reached a decision on progress towards liberalising the free movement of services. This will lead to the creation of more than half a million new jobs and will support economic growth in our countries.

Although the directive in its final form does not correspond entirely to my original idea of the liberalisation of services in the EU internal market, it will still bring added value to all stakeholders, and this is why I voted in favour of it. It will allow traders and small and medium-sized enterprises easier access to the markets of the other Member States. The compromise reached in the Council is a very fragile one, however, and there is no point in putting it at risk. For this reason I did not vote for certain amendments relating to sensitive issues, such as compliance with labour or criminal law, the definition of social services and screening obligations. These issues will certainly form the subject of future debates.

  Péter Olajos (PPE-DE). – (HU) As an MEP from one of the new Member States, I have fought hard for the rights of our businesses and our workers, and have put questions to the Commission on several occasions both orally and in writing concerning the protection and respect of workers’ rights.

In the process, we have often come up against legal, political and economic problems. We have frequently been accused of social dumping, of lowering the standards for safety in the workplace and other similar absurdities. By now the majority of the issues – including the SoKo Bunda and Pannonia affairs involving Hungarian workers in Germany – have been resolved, court decisions have stopped the German authorities’ action and there are even lawsuits for damages underway.

The acceptance of the Services Directive today is a giant step in the direction of clarifying the various uncertainties. It is a compromise, which means no one is really fully satisfied, but it is a good compromise that will advance our cause, namely the achievement of the fundamental freedoms of our Union, the free movement of services.

  Michl Ebner (PPE-DE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of Mrs Gebhardt’s report, mainly because I come from a border area, where these difficulties are experienced on a daily basis. I therefore believe that these are positive measures, which will specifically benefit border areas.

I rather regret the years of controversy that have surrounded the draft Services Directive with which we are dealing today and which, in the end, has received very strong support even in this House, support that I feel is well deserved. I hope that, in future, pro-active and positive proposals will prevail over controversies.

  Danutė Budreikaitė (ALDE). – (LT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the freedom to provide services is one of the four freedoms of the European Union guaranteed by the EEC Treaty. Treaty prohibits restricting the establishment of nationals of one Member State in another Member State and creating barriers to the free movement of services.

Fellow Members, it has been two years since we started working on this document enabling the freedom which has been our fundamental right for as long as 50 years. The principle of country of origin (a prerequisite for the free movement of services), services of general interest, healthcare, social and other services have all been excluded from the proposal for a Directive.

Lithuania was the only country to abstain in the Council’s voting for the Directive. I believe that it will not be long before we see that implementation of the Directive will not fulfil our expectations. Consequently, I oppose this Directive, just as during the first reading.

  Bernadette Vergnaud (PSE). – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, even though many advances have been made in comparison with the initial text presented by the European Commission, the directive on services in the internal market that has been submitted to the vote today differs from the European Parliament’s first reading. I therefore voted to reject the common position.

Indeed, services of general economic interest are still part of the scope of the directive, as are some services of general interest. The scope of the exclusion of social services of general interest is also far more limited. The fundamental rights guaranteed by the European Charter now only feature in a recital. Finally, the text remains ambiguous as regards the exclusion of labour law.

While the written statement presented by the European Commission provides some of the necessary responses to these issues, which I consider to be essential, it does not have any legal value, and, in the event of a legal dispute being brought before the courts, the Court of Justice will be unable to take it into account. It would have been different if this statement had come from the Council, as colegislator with Parliament.

  Richard Corbett (PSE). – Mr President, the deal brokered here, which has achieved such a large cross-party majority, has shown Parliament at its best. We have looked at and reviewed Commission proposals, made sure they are workable and politically acceptable across our countries, and got a solution which I am sure will bring huge benefits to the EU economy.

I am particularly pleased with the last-minute adjustment that was made to this deal on the issue of comitology. It was only a few months ago that we signed an agreement with the Council to give Parliament enhanced rights of scrutiny over the implementing measures that will flow from this directive.

It was unacceptable for the Council initially to say that the new deal would not apply to this directive. Part of the deal was that it would apply to all new legislative measures which empower the Commission subsequently to adopt quasi-legislative implementing measures. That has now been accepted, fortunately, as part of the deal, which means that no implementing measures of a quasi-legislative measure flowing from this legislation can come into force if Parliament rejects them.

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE-DE). – (PL) Mr President, I voted in favour of adopting the modified version of the draft Services Directive. In other words, I was against rejecting it. I am generally an optimist, and that is why I think that it will contribute to cutting red tape, increasing economic growth and creating new jobs.

Let us be honest, however, and admit that the original version of the Directive, put forward by the European Commission three years ago, was much better and could have made a better contribution to achieving the aims of the Lisbon Strategy.

The current directive has been significantly watered down and it is difficult to describe it as a great success. It seems that some old Member States are afraid of the free provision of services and of competition with new Member States, using fear of social dumping as a justification. This attitude is difficult to comprehend, as I imagine that we all want Europe to become more competitive and dynamic.

  Hubert Pirker (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, I am convinced that the proposal for a Services Directive on which we have voted represents the achievement of a good compromise between freedom to provide services on the one hand, and the need to impose restrictions in the interests of workers and of small and medium-sized enterprises on the other. Indeed, that is why I have voted in favour of this report.

It is now up to Member States to monitor compliance with the provisions. Only then will we be able to count this Services Directive a complete success. I would appeal to the Council Presidency, to the Council – which is now absent – to put pressure on Member States to indeed prepare the appropriate monitoring mechanisms for the implementation of the Services Directive.

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) The adoption by the European Parliament of the Services Directive enables general provisions to be established that will make it easier for service providers to exercise their freedom of establishment and that will facilitate the free movement of services, the high quality of which is guaranteed, and also excludes the risk of social dumping contained within the initial concept of the country of origin principle, which has been removed.

The scope of the directive has been considerably reduced and excludes, in particular, health services, non-commercial public services and certain commercial public services. Service activities represent 70% of the European Union’s GDP and offer significant growth and employment potential. Looking back, I should like to point out that the President of the French Republic, Mr Chirac, was strongly advised to stop the initial text, which was presented, at the time, by the Prodi Commission.

This matter shows the growing influence of the European Parliament, for which this is a great political victory, and symbolises the concept of the social market economy as it is expressed in the draft Constitutional Treaty for Europe. We must now turn our attention to the Member States, which are responsible for transposing this text into national law in a fair, equitable and sincere manner.

  Graham Booth (IND/DEM), in writing. I voted, as one of UKIP's MEP's, for most of the amendments put forward by the EUL/NGL and Greens/EFA, because, within the limits of their understanding of the dangers of supra-nationalism, these amendments nevertheless recognised, and sought to obviate, the harm, which a lack of democratic, national control over the provision of services can wreak upon ordinary people and especially upon the less well off.

  Gerard Batten, Derek Roland Clark, Nigel Farage, Jeffrey Titford and Thomas Wise (IND/DEM), in writing. We voted for most of the amendments put forward by the GUE/NGL and Verts/ALE Groups because, within the limits of their understanding of the dangers of supra-nationalism, these amendments nevertheless recognised and sought to obviate the harm which a lack of democratic, national control over the provision of services can wreak upon ordinary people and especially upon the less well off.

  Françoise Castex (PSE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the motion to reject the Council common position on services in the internal market. The vote at second reading was cast on a backwards-looking text in comparison with the vote at first reading. There remain too many uncertainties regarding the application of the country of origin principle. The text in no way clarifies the ambiguities that remain concerning the protection of public services and consumers.

Even more serious is the fact that, even though labour law comes under national powers, the Council has just subordinated respect for labour law to Community decisions, insofar as respect for labour law will now be subject to the judgments of the European Court of Justice.

The European Union is turning its back here on its initial ambition to create a united European area. With the downwards harmonisation of social, environmental and consumer protection rules, the European social model has been jeopardised.

  Brigitte Douay (PSE), in writing. – (FR) The French members of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament have refused, this Wednesday 15 November, to endorse the report on services in the internal market, in other words the Services Directive.

Indeed, despite the very important advances made by the PSE and the Socialist rapporteur, Mrs Gebhardt, at first reading – not least the rejection of the country of origin principle – Parliament has not obtained any guarantees from the Commission regarding a draft framework directive on public services.

With this being the second reading of a text whereby there is no final vote on the complete text, we endorsed the amendment tabled by several groups (the Confederal Group of the European United Left/Nordic Green Left and the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance) aimed at rejecting the text. Furthermore, we tabled several amendments aimed specifically at guaranteeing respect for the freedom of the Member States to define what they mean by social services of general interest.

As Mr Poignant pointed out on behalf of the French Socialists, ‘the definition, formulation, organisation and actual funding of services of general interest, whether economic or otherwise, must remain a duty of the Member States and of their regional and local authorities’.

  Anne Ferreira (PSE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the amendment aimed at rejecting the Council common position on the Services Directive. The directive is unsatisfactory because it introduces more confusion and legal uncertainty and further weakens the amended proposal adopted by the European Parliament at first reading, which I voted against.

This is particularly the case as regards labour law and the social and public services that have been excluded from the scope of the Services Directive. Above all, however, the Council text gives the Commission the power to oversee the application of the directive.

While the country of origin concept has disappeared from the text in the text amended by the Commission, it has not been replaced by the country of destination or host country concept. I find this very harmful, all the more so because it will be the European Court of Justice that settles any disputes that may ensue.

It is therefore a liberal Services Directive that has been adopted this 15 November.

Three years of debates will not have made it possible to avoid a conclusion with dangerous consequences for political and social Europe. This is a harsh blow to European integration – one that it scarcely needed.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The adoption of this directive, which has just taken place, is an extremely worrying development. We are bitterly disappointed at the rejection of the proposal to reject the Council common position that our group tabled and to which we put our name.

What happened today was tantamount to a capitulation, on the part of the two biggest groups in Parliament, the Socialist Group in the European Parliament and the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, in relation to their positions at first reading last February. They did nothing to promote the agreement that they had made and voted for, following the protests and demonstrations in Strasbourg. They have now returned to some of the most damaging aspects of the original, notorious Bolkestein Directive.

What they are seeking is the liberalisation of services, including in the area of public services, thereby caving in to pressure from the large economic and financial groups, which have seen this ‘step’ as a fresh opportunity to exploit the workers and for economic domination. Not only will it undermine the sovereign right of States to define, protect and fund public services, it will also remove their ability to define funding standards and to protect services as a whole. In so doing, it will strengthen the power of supranational bodies such as the Commission.

We believe that each country should continue to have the sovereign right to make decisions on the public services they want, their public property, their form of funding and organisation, and on the rights of workers and end users.

  Jean-Claude Fruteau (PSE), in writing. – (FR) Despite the significant progress made in relation to the European Commission’s initial text, the text on services in the Union that has been proposed today at second reading does not offer guarantees that are sufficient to prevent any risk of the European social model falling apart.

Certain sensitive social services, such as social housing, family support services and public health services, which were initially excluded from the scope of the future directive at first reading, have thus been reintegrated by the Member States.

The legal vacuum accompanying, in particular, the abolition of the PPO has not been removed, leaving it to the arbitration of the Court of Justice judges – and not to the legislator – to define the future characteristics of European policy via the case-laws that this situation will most certainly generate.

It is clear, in this context, that the Commission’s written statement, which is aimed at clarifying some of the gaps in the text, such as the exclusion of labour law, does not present any real legal value, and that makes its influence and usefulness particularly uncertain.

For all these reasons, I voted to reject the proposal for a directive on services.

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI), in writing. – (FR) If the new version of the Bolkestein Directive had not already suffered from serious shortcomings, particularly that of not being fundamentally different from its predecessor, one reason alone would have prompted us to reject it: the suspicious consensus between the Socialist Group in the European Parliament and the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats and, what is more, their adoption of the compromise drafted at the Council.

The real revolution would have consisted, among other things, in explicitly stating the priority for a Member State to apply its national law, and particularly its national labour law and its national social, criminal and fiscal laws, in its territory. That is to say the country of destination principle, as opposed to the country of origin principle. This would not have prevented service providers from another Member State from being able to offer services in another country; this would have simply meant there being fair competition with national operators. The revolution would have consisted in agreeing to the Member States’ being able to introduce conditions regarding access to certain activities, such as the situation of the labour market, or reasons justifying territorial planning. They do not have this possibility.

After competition with the rest of the world and competition among businesses, Europe is now establishing competition among European workers, whether self-employed or salaried, and thus competition among social systems. It is heading for disaster.

  Hélène Goudin and Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM), in writing. (SV) The June List welcomes the Services Directive and believes that services companies, irrespective of the country they come from, should not be discriminated against in any EU country.

The key issue in the debate on the Services Directive has been that of whether the country of origin principle should underpin the directive or whether the host country’s legislation should apply in full. The country of origin principle affects significant, but strictly limited, areas such as construction, installation activities and consultancy services. We welcome competition in these areas but believe that it should take place on conditions that are fair to all the parties. We believe that Swedish rules should apply on Swedish territory. It is therefore gratifying that, in its common position, the Council rejects the country of origin principle.

The Council’s position is mainly a victory for those views that the June List represents. Competition within the services sector will be intensified. At the same time, the national independence of the Member States will be respected in that the country of origin principle does not form the basis of the directive. It is a good thing that the national monopolies on services will not be affected and that national labour legislation, collective agreements, union rights and legislation on social security remain untouched.

  Mathieu Grosch (PPE-DE), in writing. (DE) The Council common position largely takes account of the fundamental amendments adopted by Parliament at first reading. The exclusions are clearly explained and relate in particular to fields such as healthcare services and audiovisual services.

The country of origin principle has been deleted, and labour legislation and social agreements in the countries concerned have been respected.

Market access for our enterprises has also been facilitated by the dismantling of many arbitrary barriers.

In addition, Commission opinions have provided greater clarity. Consequently, the overall result of the negotiations can be considered a success for Parliament, but also for economic and social policy. Of course, every compromise has its weaknesses, and some of the Council’s amendments are not quite clear, but it would be wrong to question the overall result – which is on the whole very positive – by reopening the debate in the Council.

  Ambroise Guellec (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) The Services Directive has just been adopted, by a clear majority. This is to the European Parliament’s credit. This is a victory for the European Union. Why? Services represent over half of the European economy, and are the main source of jobs. The free provision of services features among the founding principles of the Union, and the creation of a genuine internal market in services is key to economic growth in Europe, and thus to the creation of jobs.

The text adopted today in Strasbourg commits us to this path, while providing the necessary guarantees regarding the safeguarding of public services of general interest and the continuity of our social acquis and of our labour law. By excluding the country of origin principle, it prohibits social competition and constitutes an effective barrier to social dumping. It does away with the unjustified protectionist obstacles, while permitting the Member States to apply their national rules when the public interest warrants it. The scope of the text has also been reduced, with the exclusion of sensitive sectors such as the audiovisual sector, the health sector, part of the social services sector, the gambling sector and even the notary sector. This is a good compromise, which will take Europe forward in line with the interests of its population.

  Benoît Hamon (PSE), in writing. – (FR) I voted against this directive because I feel that, despite the improvements obtained in the parliamentary debate and under the pressure of the trade unions’ and citizens’ involvement, it remains profoundly liberal.

No prospect of genuine harmonisation, aimed at benefiting consumers and workers, is envisaged in return for the fearsome deregulation of the services sector in Europe, which is mainly aimed at benefiting businesses.

As for public services, while the Commission refuses to make progress on the framework directive on services of general interest, the Services Directive helps to weaken public services, some of which will suffer its effects in the same way as simple commercial services.

Finally, the ‘prohibited requirements and requirements to be evaluated’ in Articles 14 and 15 make it impossible or, at least, extremely difficult, to carry out any public regulation in the services sector. There will be a maximum price for basic services; a minimum number of employees in order to guarantee the quality of certain sensitive services; territorial planning, for example for the opening of supermarkets; and so many rules that were considered until now to guarantee respect for the general interest and that are now regarded as so many unacceptable barriers to freedom of establishment and to the freedom to do business.

  Jean Lambert (Verts/ALE), in writing. I consider that the closed list of services of general interest is too limited and will leave many services in limbo. Are they in or out? We have no framework directive on these areas, which are essential in combating poverty and encouraging social cohesion and are of particular importance to women. They are key EU policies. The Commission statement this morning cannot bind the future Commission which will be holding office when the directive comes into force. The statement has no legal standing before the ECJ, which will now be making decisions that Parliament chose to duck. We have seen in today's vote that the majority of this House prefers not to make clear statements on labour rights and the protection of public services. How will they explain to their councillors at local and regional level that they are weakening their role in determining the provision of services of general interest and safeguarding the public interest? Parliament has achieved positive changes in the original proposal. We could have done more.

  Carl Lang (NI), in writing. – (FR) Despite a few improvements, despite a few additional sectors being excluded from the scope of application or, rather, of annoyance, of the first version of the Bolkestein Directive, this text, in its new draft, remains fundamentally unacceptable. It remains an open door to social dumping and to unfair competition among workers.

It does not, in fact, resolve any of the problems raised by the original directive. It does not exclude public services and does not safeguard the right of the Member States to determine the way in which these services are defined, organised and funded. It denies the legitimate, economic, social or other requirements that these very Member States can impose on access to an activity, and only acknowledges the possibility for them to invoke ‘overriding requirements of the general interest’, a vague concept that the Court in Luxembourg will take it upon itself to interpret in the most restrictive way possible. It subordinates respect for the labour law of the Member State in which the service is provided to respect for Community law and, more specifically, for the free provision of services principle laid down in the Treaties, a move that amounts to denying the application of this national law.

Several million Europeans rejected this ultraliberal Europe, which scorns men and nations and prioritises market laws, financial interests and sacrosanct competition. Listen to them before it is too late!

  Marie-Noëlle Lienemann (PSE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the amendment to reject this directive. The directive is a step back in comparison with the vote at first reading because it leaves the application of the country of origin principle open and in no way excludes public services – SGIs, SGEIs – from this ‘free competition’, with the result that they will become very destabilised.

The European Commission explains that the text does not clearly establish which law will apply and thus that private international law, which is closely related to the country of origin principle, will apply most of the time. The room for manoeuvre that the Member States have to act on the social field will be extremely reduced. In spite of the formal progress made, little by little, the liberal reality will impose itself with this text, and our social model will be jeopardised.

  Patrick Louis and Philippe de Villiers (IND/DEM), in writing. – (FR) In an attempt to obtain the consent of the people of France during the referendum on the European Constitution, the ‘Yes’ camp, particularly within the UMP, made them three promises: that the Bolkestein Directive would be withdrawn; that VAT would be lowered for the catering sector; and that the plan for Turkey to join the EU would be abandoned. The people of France are finally going to end up with Turkey, the Bolkestein Directive and an unchanged VAT rate.

The compromise on which we are voting today is a seemingly watered down version of the original text, which includes, as a double whammy, full powers for the Commission and the Court of Justice to re-establish the initial text. How can Mr Toubon say that, by adopting this compromise, he hopes to ‘avoid the worst’?

The worst would therefore mean there being no directive, but that was precisely the promise made to the people of France in 2005 by the UMP and the Head of State!

  Astrid Lulling (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) It is without enthusiasm that I am voting today in favour of the Services Directive. This text has been far too distorted and manipulated. Crucial provisions such as those on the posting of workers have disappeared, and I regret that.

We were told that these provisions have been removed in order to prevent social dumping, but there is no truth in that. Those provisions would have clarified the ground rules and controls within the European Union regarding businesses and workers. Equally, we very much celebrate and welcome the fact that the country of origin principle – which was accompanied with the necessary safeguards – has disappeared.

Yet, how can we, at the same time, look forward to taking a great step forward for the internal market? What do we offer our businesses and our citizens? Not, at any rate, the clear rules that they need in the internal market.

Too many lies and fears have marred the debates surrounding this matter, to the detriment of the internal market and the integration of our Europe.

With this directive, we have missed a great opportunity to integrate ourselves more. Let us learn lessons from it for the future and let us not make the same mistakes.

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. I welcome the Gebhardt Report and effectively the adoption of the Services Directive. Parliament has played a significant role in allowing freer movement of services across EU borders without undermining social services, trade union rights or environmental laws. Parliament will have to monitor the implementation of the Directive closely to ensure that the commitments made in the Chamber by the Commissioner are adhered to.

  Mary Lou McDonald (GUE/NGL), in writing. The Services Directive will have a profound impact on the lives of workers and consumers, lowering the standard of service provision and increasing the risks of social dumping. It gives exclusive prominence to the freedom to provide services across borders, whereas freedoms such as social rights and collective bargaining are excluded or dismantled.

The directive puts downward pressure on wages and provides companies with numerous loopholes which they can exploit to pay less than the minimum wage. It provides an incentive to service providers to establish themselves in low-wage, low-tax countries, and encourages a race to the bottom in relation to wages and employment conditions.

Regulatory requirements are an integral part of the functioning of all services, and the need for such requirements increases with the amount of private-sector involvement. The directive challenges the right of Member States and local authorities to regulate services.

Finally, Parliament has capitulated to the Commission and the Council in its refusal to uphold its already inadequate first reading position.

Unfortunately I was unable to vote on this occasion due to the hospitalisation of my son.

  Joseph Muscat (PSE), in writing. – (MT) I voted in favour of this directive for two reasons.

Firstly, we have not treated people like numbers, at the service of the market, but, rather, we have placed workers’ rights above all other considerations.

The second reason is that we have removed all restrictions on the movement of persons, not by playing workers off against each other and thus having a contest that is won by those who offer their services on the worst conditions, but by showing that we want to use freedom of movement to enhance workers’ rights.

This vote should send out a strong signal that no one should continue to abuse foreign workers by offering worse conditions than those offered to local workers. Nor should it be admissible to pressurise local workers into accepting lower wages and conditions through such methods.

Over and above this, workers should be given full information about conditions being offered to local and foreign workers and should not be left bereft of information. Lack of information leads to suspicion and antagonism, just as is happening, for example, at the Malta Drydocks.

Savings on expenditure should not be achieved by abusing workers’ rights, but by raising the quality of services. This is what the directive should accomplish.

  Dimitrios Papadimoulis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The Coalition and the European left as a body voted against the amended Bolkenstein proposal adopted by the European Parliament because it will bring the position of workers under pressure and is a serious blow to social Europe.

The compromise between the European right and the socialists moderates but does not eliminate the neoliberal logic and huge negative social impact of the proposal. With its ambiguities, it leaves the door open to further unfavourable interpretations, by both the Commission and the Court. The reworded Commission and Council proposal adopted today by Parliament without any amendments strengthens all these dangerous ambiguities.

The Court of Justice of the European Communities systematically protects the undertakings that provide services in its case law, using the principle of the country of origin. It always rules against the rules of the host country, with the argument that they hamper the activities of the undertakings in question.

The dangerous relocation of undertakings to countries with minimal social and environmental legislation is strengthened with the adoption of the directive.

The fight by the European left against social dumping will continue even after the vote on the directive, both at national and at European level, in cooperation with the trade unions and non-governmental organisations.

  Frédérique Ries (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) I did, of course, vote in favour of the Services Directive. The fruit of broad compromises, it is an amended, revised and revisited text that opens up the services market in Europe. I voted in favour of this text, as did the vast majority of Parliament – as did almost four-fifths of its Members.

The opening up of the services market will be positive for our economies; it will help in the fight against illegal labour and will guarantee better social protection for all European workers. According to the OECD, the directive is going to create two and a half million jobs in Europe and, until proven otherwise, is going to create jobs; this is still the best social policy there is!

Demonisation is the tactic used by those who are deprived of it: it is, I might add, amusing to note that, in the Socialist camp, only a last handful of diehards, including the French-speaking Belgians, are still rejecting this compromise, which has been accepted by everyone, including the trade unions!

Parliament and the Council have played their part and proved those who constantly demonise this text wrong. This text, in its current form, preserves the best parts of the European social model and recognises the specific nature of services of general interest. The colegislators have put an end to the lies and given Europe a chance of growth!

  Martine Roure (PSE), in writing. – (FR) In line with my vote on the Services Directive at first reading, I voted to reject the common position. Indeed, the Council has not taken up all of the amendments tabled by the European Parliament. I had to reject the Council common position because it clearly excludes labour law and social services of general interest.

That is why I co-signed and voted in favour of three amendments tabled by the French Socialist delegation providing for the clear and total exclusion of labour law and social services of general interest from the scope of the Services Directive. Indeed, it is a question of protecting Europeans’ fundamental rights. These must not be governed by the rules of the internal market.

Although the Commission statement clarifies its aim on several points, it is not enough because it has no binding force.

I finally voted in favour of the amendments aimed at completely excluding services of general interest from the scope of this directive.

  José Albino Silva Peneda (PPE-DE), in writing. – (PT) It has taken 50 years for the EU to achieve the free movement of services enshrined in the 1957 Treaty of Rome. It is now about to become a reality.

The EU is taking another step in the right direction with the Services Directive, which will facilitate the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services in the EU Member States offered by the internal market.

Controversial since its beginnings as the Bolkestein Directive, the final text is rather less forthright.

I believe, however, that this report has struck the right balance between the crucial need to open up the services sector to competition, whilst preserving the European social model.

I voted for this Directive because I feel that Portugal has much to gain, as it will accordingly derive maximum benefit from the internal market.

Adopting the directive was the right thing to do if only because a series of administrative and legal obstacles imposed by the national, regional and local authorities have been removed. Portuguese companies, and in particular SMEs, will be the main beneficiaries.

Furthermore, the adoption of the Directive will contribute to achieving the objectives of the Lisbon Strategy aimed at more growth, more jobs and greater freedom for consumers to choose services.

  Bart Staes (Verts/ALE), in writing. (NL) Although the Council’s common position on the Services Directive, on which we are to vote today, may be an improvement on the original Commission proposal, a few aspects of it still remain unacceptable.

The document creates legal uncertainty. It is, for example, left unclear what legislation applies and to what extent Member States can impose national provisions. The possibility for upward harmonisation has not been included. Moreover, the review clause leaves the door open to the reintroduction of the country-of-origin principle and to the addition of services currently outside the directive’s scope. Services of general economic interest fall within the directive’s scope and since there is no framework directive for services of general interest, this directive is at risk of forming a horizontal framework for services of general economic interest.

I also regret the fact that the list of social services that fall outside of the directive’s scope has – having originally been indicative – been changed into a limitative list. In addition, the absence of any reference to the Charter of Fundamental Rights is disappointing. I am, finally, particularly disgruntled at this House’s capitulation in respect of the maximum enforcement of the achievements that were attained at first reading. As a result, the future of a democratic and social Europe is being undermined.

  Catherine Stihler (PSE), in writing. I welcome the vote today on the Services Directive and support the compromise reached.

  Konrad Szymański (UEN), in writing. (PL) The only benefit of the present compromise on the Services Directive is the fact that its adoption will not worsen the basis on which the services market operates. That is the only reason why we can support this compromise in today’s vote. The European Court of Justice will provide the litmus test for this Directive, as it will certainly, be called upon frequently to rule in disputes concerning the Directive’s contradictory contents.

On the one hand, we have the stipulated freedom to provide services. On the other hand, this Directive does not apply to the fields of vaguely-defined public and social services and temporary work agencies. It has no influence in terms of regulating labour legislation and collective agreements and its scope is limited in terms of the work carried out by posted workers.

As a result, no real barriers to the provision of services in the EU will be removed when this Services Directive is adopted. It is a compromise that has been achieved entirely at the cost of the new Member States, who have a competitive advantage on the European Union market, especially in the services sector. None of the social reasons put forward for introducing these above-mentioned exceptions and restrictions fulfil their declared social objectives. They are merely evidence of economic chauvinism on the part of the trade unions and other interest groups in the old Member States.

Hitherto, the debates on the draft have been the greatest example of European hypocrisy that we have witnessed during this term. The European Parliament and, with it, the entire European Union, is pretending to introduce the principles of a common market to the services sector. In doing so, we are not only fooling ourselves, but our citizens as well.

  Salvatore Tatarella (UEN), in writing. – (FR) I should like to begin by highlighting the effective work done by the rapporteur, Mrs Gebhardt, who has ensured that the adopted text is markedly better than Mr Bolkestein’s initial draft.

Nevertheless, even though her work was remarkable, I voted in favour of the amendment to reject this directive and of the amendments that I co-signed, together with those tabled by the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance and the Confederal Group of the European United Left/Nordic Green Left, because the text at second reading does not go as far as the one at first reading.

Many grey areas remain in the text, and they would have needed to be clarified before we were able to accept such an important text as this, which involves the future of the people of Europe.

Furthermore, certain services, such as services of general interest, have not been removed from the framework of this directive, and this could lead to wayward paths being taken.

I feel that the Court of Justice and the Commission have been given too much influence over the control of the Member States and the interpretation of the directive. The legislator gives more than its due to the government of the courts.

  President. That concludes this item.

9. Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes

(The sitting was suspended at 1.10 p.m. and resumed at 3.00 p.m.)

IN THE CHAIR: MR MOSCOVICI
Vice-President

10. Approval of Minutes of previous sitting: see Minutes

11. Situation in Gaza (debate)

  President. – The next item is the Council and Commission statements on the situation in Gaza.

  Paula Lehtomäki, President-in-Office of the Council. (FI) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union is deeply concerned about the violence in Gaza in recent weeks. During a military operation by Israel, several people died in Beit Hanoun on 8 November, and in a disastrous barrage of artillery fire almost 20 Palestinians, women and children included, lost their lives as they were leaving the area. In addition, several people were injured. Military action also caused destruction to the town’s infrastructure. The European Union profoundly regrets the violence and injury that resulted from these violent acts.

At the same time, the Palestinians have continued to fire Kassam rockets indiscriminately at Israel, at the cities of Ashkelon and Sderot, for example. These strikes have now also resulted in one death, several injuries and material damage. The Union has called on Palestinian leaders to do all they can to end these attacks.

The European Union cannot accept the use of violence. Every country has the right to defend itself, but that does not entitle it to use unreasonable force on a large scale or take the sort of action witnessed in Beit Hanoun. Israel must adjust the scale of its action to the situation. It has to comply with international humanitarian law. Security does not just apply to one side, but to everyone in the Middle East region. The European Union has called on Israel to cease its military action in Gaza.

The Union has also urged the Palestinian leadership to halt the rocket strikes that have continued to varying degrees throughout the autumn. The purpose of the strikes is probably to increase fear and insecurity, which is obviously wrongly aimed at the civil population. The Israelis should no longer be living in a climate of continued fear: they too have a right to peace. The Palestinians must stop using violence for political ends.

The deepening spiral of violence is threatening to destroy any chances of restarting the Middle East peace process. Events like those described here only serve to estrange the parties from the opportunities available, especially right now when a peace process aimed at negotiating the establishment of a two-state model is needed. The aim is still the creation of a viable Palestinian state, one which exists in peace alongside Israel. The European Union hopes that the events in Beit Hanoun will not discourage the parties and the international community or prompt them to abandon the pursuit of lasting and equitable peace.

The European Union also hopes that the strikes at Beit Hanoun will not discourage the Palestinians from continuing the quest for mutual harmony and the formation of a government of national unity which could fulfil the conditions set by the Quartet. The entire international community needs a noteworthy party as its partner. The Palestinians have a right to a government that represents the interests of all citizens.

At the same time, the humanitarian situation among the Palestinians has been a big worry for the European Union. The economic and humanitarian situation in the Palestinian territories is intolerable. The situation would be considerably improved if Israel kept the border posts at Rafah and Karni open and improved Palestinian mobility. What is more, the European Union has urged Israel to recognise as income the customs duties and taxes which they have collected and which belong to the Palestinians. This could make the Palestinians’ economic situation considerably easier.

The EU itself has tried to help the Palestinians. More than EUR 650 million has been given in aid through various channels this year, and that is around 25% more than last year. The Temporary International Mechanism has been a functional means of aiding the Palestinians, and we hope that Israel and other parties can also make good use of it.

The situation in the Middle East is thus not very promising in the light of the events of recent days, but in spite of this we have to continue to believe in a better future. The European Union will do all it can to support the peace process.

  Margot Wallström, Vice-President of the Commission. Mr President, thank you for inviting me on this symbolic date, 15 November, which is Palestinian National Day, to speak on the situation in Gaza.

The escalating violence in Gaza recently culminated in the attack by the Israeli Defence Forces on Beit Hanoun on 8 November, which resulted in the death of 18 Palestinian civilians. In response, my colleague Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner made a statement saying that she was ‘profoundly shocked by this particular event’. Our thoughts now go to the Uthamina family in particular, who lost six women and eight children, killed in their sleep, and to all the innocent Palestinians and Israelis who have lost their lives in this spiral of violence.

After the attack, Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner called on all sides to stop violence and give dialogue a chance. Palestinian factions should stop firing rockets into Israeli territory. Whilst we recognise Israel’s right to self defence, this should not come at the price of innocent lives.

The Beit Hanoun attack is the latest in a series of incursions into the Gaza Strip which started on 28 June. Military operations have caused damage to vital infrastructure, especially in Gaza – including the power plant, major roads and bridges, and government buildings – and killed almost 300 Palestinians, mostly civilians. In response, the Commission has this year stepped up its assistance to meet increased emergency and humanitarian needs.

In June 2006, we launched the Temporary International Mechanism, which channels Member State and European Community Budget resources to contribute to relieve the socio-economic crisis in the Palestinian territories. This Temporary International Mechanism has supported the delivery of basic services to 1.3 million people living in the Gaza Strip and social allowances to 100 000 vulnerable Palestinians. The operation is now increasing its outreach to 150 000 cases.

The Commission, through ECHO, has allocated EUR 84 million to help vulnerable Palestinian households through the provision of food, water supply and sanitation, healthcare and social protection. The European Commission is also providing a EUR 26 million package of food aid. Food and cash subsidies are channelled through the UN Relief and Works Agency to Palestinian refugees registered as special hardship cases, while food packages are distributed to non-refugees via the UN World Food Programme.

The Commission is also a major donor to the UN Relief and Works Agency. In 2006 we provided EUR 64 million to its General Fund. It manages health, education and other social services for Palestinian refugees. In Gaza these services constitute the only element of stability in an insecure environment.

Our efforts can alleviate the humanitarian crisis for the Palestinians. However, its root cause, which is the lack of hope in a peaceful solution for Israelis and Palestinians, must be tackled urgently. There is an urgent need to return to a comprehensive peace process with a clear political perspective.

The process of reconciliation between Palestinians must be given a chance. We should encourage President Abbas to continue efforts to form a national unity government, with a platform reflecting the so-called ‘Quartet principles’ of non-violence, recognition of international agreements, recognition of Israel as a state and allowing for early engagement. This will contribute to restoring hope for a viable and independent state for the Palestinians.

That is why the General Affairs and External Relation Council, which met on Monday, has welcomed the Commission’s proposal to provide additional support to the Palestinians as soon as a national unity government is formed. In order to provide this support before the end of the year, we will have to resort to the emergency aid reserve and obtain the agreement of the budget authority. The Commission will count on the support of the European Parliament.

In parallel to EU assistance, Israel should release hundreds of millions of dollars of tax and customs revenues, which it has collected on behalf of the Palestinian Authority and which it has withheld since March in response to the formation of the Hamas-led Government.

We should all work together so that on the occasion of next year’s Palestinian National Day, we can celebrate progress towards the creation of a democratic, viable and sovereign Palestinian State.

  Hans-Gert Poettering, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, the situation in the Middle East is at once worrying, dangerous and tragic. It is worrying because the conflicts have been going on for decades and there is no end in sight. It is dangerous because tensions between the opposing parties are constantly escalating, and because external powers – such as Syria and Iran – are increasingly exerting an influence. Finally, it is tragic because ordinary people, particularly large numbers of children, are among the victims.

As we tell all the parties in the Middle East, a military solution is out of the question – we need peace through dialogue and through negotiations. We also say that a policy of ‘an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth’ is out of the question, as the situation will only escalate further, with each side responding to an attack by attacking the other with greater force. We need to break this cycle of violence. We ask this of both the Israeli and Palestinian sides.

The position of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats is crystal clear. We want to see an Israeli state with secure borders and, equally, a Palestinian state with secure borders. The dignity of an Israeli is the same as that of a Palestinian, and we must not apply double standards. We want to see an independent, democratic Lebanese state. Anyone who calls into question the right to exist of any of these states – there are already Israeli and Lebanese states, and there should be a Palestinian one – threatens to do lasting damage not only to peace in that region but also, the way circumstances are, to world peace.

The EU and others must now make a contribution to peace. I believe that the EU is very glad to be indeed making such a contribution by stationing troops in the region, although we should have liked to see a European armed forces rather than national troops from the individual Member States. This is an issue that the EU must consider for the future, however, as a means of making a genuinely European contribution in this regard. Nevertheless, the mere fact that troops are stationed there represents progress. The development towards our making a genuinely pan-European contribution – including military – must now continue, however.

It is now the turn of politicians, whose most important assets are confidence and credibility. When there is something to criticise, we must do so, irrespective of whether it is the Israelis or the Palestinians who are responsible. With regard to decisions of the Security Council – and I say this as someone who is very pro-American – it is unacceptable that all criticism or condemnation of Israel is vetoed by the United States.

(Applause)

I would say in all seriousness that this is not the way to achieve credibility nor, in particular, to build confidence in all the partners concerned. I believe that the EU’s opportunity lies in its credibility on this issue, because we recognise the right to exist of both the Israeli and Palestinian states and want to see peace in Lebanon.

If, with the massacre in Beit Hanoun – supposedly owing to a technical error – Israel caused these terrible consequences, an apology is not sufficient. Its policymaking in future must ensure it does not constantly react according to the ‘eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth’ principle.

(Applause)

I have just been informed that a woman has been killed and a minister’s bodyguard has had both legs blown off today by Qassam rockets. This has to stop. We have to say this to both sides, and we have to be credible. We Europeans must not turn a blind eye, but instead must take responsibility.

(Applause)

  Martin Schulz, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this is not the first time Parliament has discussed the situation in Gaza, and it is unlikely to be the last. It is the first time, however, that a discussion has revealed the formation of an opinion in this House that will entail a change in the EU’s relations with one of its partner countries, namely Israel.

Mr Poettering’s remarks show that we need a discussion across the group divide on what position the EU should take with regard to this development and, above all, to the role of Israel and the Israeli Government in developments in that region.

I have no expectations of terrorist organisations. What do we expect from terrorists? The answer is terror, contempt for mankind, the unspeakable suffering these criminals have caused in the world and continue to cause every day – of which Mr Poettering has just given an example. What expectations does a common system of law such as the EU have of such people? The answer is ‘none’. They are not suitable partners for us. They are not the people on whom we should and can pin our hopes when it comes to building peace.

Yet we should have expectations of a democratic country based on the rule of law. Israel, that wonderful country, the country founded in response to the lowest point in the history of mankind, has a right to our absolute solidarity in the region. Anyone who so much as attempts to threaten this state or call into question its right to exist will face opposition from all Europeans. There are no limits to our solidarity with Israel.

Nevertheless, as a democratic country based on the rule of law, Israel must be open to questions. It must be possible to ask a democracy built on the same fundamental values as ours how something like Beit Hanoun can be described as a technical incident. My expectations of a democratic legal culture are that the parties responsible for this ‘technical incident’ should be held accountable for their actions.

(Applause)

Regrettably, Parliament’s summer recess was interrupted by a technical incident such as this in Cana. I am still left wondering who was responsible for that.

If there is collateral damage from developments in the region, Israel must take care that its legal culture is not among it. It goes without saying that Israel has to defend itself and be able to do so, and that we have to lend the country a hand. Events in Lebanon serve the interests of Israeli security. What Europeans want, for there to be a stable Palestinian state, serves the interests of Israeli security. All our endeavours – be they financial or diplomatic, or now military – serve the interests of Israeli security. What the EU, a common system of law, cannot accept, however, is meeting lawlessness with lawlessness. That is unacceptable.

What is also unacceptable is for us to stay silent when a party that judges citizens by their ethnic origin, as Mr Liebermann’s party does, joins the government of a country such as Israel. That is unacceptable.

(Applause)

It is the Israelis’ sovereign right to elect a party such as this, but it is also our sovereign right as Members of this House to condemn such a policy. No social democrat anywhere in the world has anything in common with Mr Liebermann.

The only opportunity for a solution in that region is the renunciation of violence. Dialogue is the only way. The parties must try to look beyond all the violence and all the painful experiences and to talk to each other. There have been some good attempts: let us remember the efforts of Yitzhak Rabin, who was Chief of Staff of the Israeli military forces, but still knew that dialogue is the only way of overcoming war and conflict.

Dialogue is no guarantee of success, but what is certain is that, without it, there is no chance for peace. Thus, we expect Israel, in particular, to give priority to political dialogue rather than further militarisation.

(Applause)

  Graham Watson, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, I have lost count of the number of times we have debated the Middle East in recent months, but I do know that, since our debate in September, 150 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza, 70 in the last week alone. The atrocity in Beit Hanoun, where 18 Palestinian civilians were killed, is as indefensible as it is inexplicable.

In a spiral of violence where there is armed aggression on both sides, it is often hard to tell what is attack and what is retaliation, but there is no doubt in my mind that David Grossman was right when he said last week that the behaviour of Israel’s leaders is the conduct of scoundrels.

My colleague Mr Davies was recently in Gaza. He reports as others do that Gaza has become a prison, with daily reports of extrajudicial executions, of lives disrupted and rendered miserable, disproportionate retaliation – especially since Operation Summer Rains, the Qassam rockets have killed 14 civilians over two years. The IDF response has killed 126 people in the last month, of whom 63 were not involved in fighting.

The time is over. We cannot wait any longer. The international community cannot continue to condemn while waiting to solve the situation. It is a disastrous strategy that leaves the stage to others. We must relaunch the talks and the negotiations. We must waste no time in deploying international and military observers in Gaza. We must reinvigorate the commitment of the Quartet, and I hope that the US will reinforce its role by assisting in the negotiations as a test-case of a new multilateralism.

Palestinians must understand that the use of terror will never earn them the recognition they seek, and Israelis must understand that they are losing recognition by their incessant flouting of international law and disproportionate military action against civil targets.

At Yitzhak Rabin’s memorial service, Mr Grossman spoke of a country hypnotised by insanity, rudeness, violence and racism, of a state squandering its goodwill, squandering its own people, especially its young. The same Israel has recently used army bulldozers to destroy the graves of British soldiers killed in Gaza in 1917 and on 31 October sent F-15 fighter planes to dive at French soldiers serving with the UNIFIL force in Lebanon. How many enemies do the Israelis want? How long do they believe they can sustain themselves in a state of unresolved conflict?

It is time for reasonable people on both sides to come together, perhaps to relaunch the Geneva Process, and it is time for the European Union to do what it can to promote, encourage and support that process.

(Applause)

  Hélène Flautre, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (FR) Mr President, I was with Mr Davies, Mrs Morgantini and other Members in Gaza two weeks ago on the day that the Israeli army began the siege of Beit Hanoun. It was the beginning of a campaign of extrajudicial executions, of massacres and of the destruction of civil property. Israel, the occupying power in the Palestinian territories, constantly violates human rights and international humanitarian law with complete impunity.

The use of excessive and indiscriminate force against civilians and civil property, the destruction of installations supplying electricity and water, the blowing up of public buildings, the restrictions on freedom of movement and the consequences of all these actions for public health, diet, family life and the psychological state of the Palestinian people constitute a blatant collective punishment which is itself a blatant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Admittedly, there is no excuse for the constant launching of Kassam rockets against Israel, but nothing can justify subjecting a whole people to a draconian punishment like that imposed by Israel. In such circumstances, the European Union must stop giving its backing to Israeli policy.

In particular, it must assume its full responsibilities when it comes to supervising the Rafa crossing point and no longer simply bow to the will of the Israeli Government. The EU must use the tools available to it within the framework of the Association Agreement, and in particular the human rights clause, in order to ensure that violations of human rights and humanitarian law do not go unpunished. It must demand the reimbursement of taxes collected illegally by the Israelis. Dialogue with the future government of national unity must be reinstituted as quickly as possible, and direct aid to the Palestinian institutions must be resumed.

Finally, the European Union and the Member States must do all they can to have the International Court of Justice’s opinion on the illegal construction of the Wall applied. A meeting of the EU-Israel Association Council must be called as a matter of urgency. Consideration will have to be given to reviewing the Agreement if the violations continue.

Finally, the European Union must play its full part in organising an international conference to promote peace in the region.

  Luisa Morgantini, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, ‘Why does the political leadership continue to reflect the positions of the radicals and not those of the majority of the electorate? How has that happened? How can we stand by and watch today, as though hypnotised, the flood of madness, brutality, violence and racism in our country? […] Our political and military leadership lacks substance. [Dear Mr Olmert,] for once, really watch the Palestinians, not through the sights of a gun or from behind the closed barriers of a check-point: you will see a population that is no less tortured than ours, that is defeated, oppressed and hopeless. Perhaps for that reason, the majority of us have reacted indifferently to the harsh blow dealt to democracy by the ministerial appointment of Avigdor Liebermann, a potential pyromaniac who has been made head of government services, with responsibility for putting out fires.’

Those are obviously not my words: I am not an Israeli or a Palestinian. They are the words of David Grossmann, who lost a son in a pointless war, a war that was also caused, of course, by the Katyusha rockets, but that resulted in the deaths of thousands of Lebanese and Israeli citizens, including the son of David Grossmann. Mrs Wallström said that today, 15 November, is Palestinian National Day. What happened on 15 November 1988? The declaration and acceptance on the part of the Palestinians of a Palestinian State based on the 1967 territories: thus recognition of the State of Israel. However, there was no such move by the Israeli Government, which has never recognised either the 1967 secure borders – since it continues to build settlements – or the Palestinian State.

I am tired: in my seven and a half years’ term of office in this Parliament, I have heard the timeworn phrase ‘two peoples, two States’ repeated over and over again. Every effort must certainly be made to ensure that there are two peoples and two States that can peacefully coexist. But why continue to repeat empty clichés, given that the Palestinian State is not actually being built and that political decision-making, helped as it is by the madness of Palestinian extremists, is not helping the Palestinian State to grow, but, rather, is helping to continually wear away its land?

I went to Gaza last week – and I regret that Parliament’s official delegation did not go – with 12 MEPs: we saw what it means to live inside there, in that open-air prison; we saw what it means to use weapons that no one yet knows about and that are perhaps tried out on the torn-apart bodies of the young people killed by bombs that were falling and demolishing houses; we saw it, just as you must see it! That is why we can no longer just talk about ‘two peoples, two States’: we must take decisive action. I believe that there is a crucial need for an international peace conference with all of the parties involved. We really do need to organise it, though; we need to act!

The Palestinians would not need our EUR 650 million if the Israelis paid the taxes that belong to the Palestinians: let us make sure, just as we force others to do – and obviously not through the use of weapons – that Israel fulfils its …

(The President cut off the speaker)

(Applause)

  Eoin Ryan, on behalf of the UEN Group. – Mr President, the international community has taken its eye off the ball in relation to the ongoing crisis in Gaza. It has been distracted by other Middle East events such as the war in Lebanon, Iraq and Iran. We must all renew our efforts to find and encourage a peace process in Gaza. Compromises have to be made by both the Palestinians and the Israelis to end the conflict, which is destroying so many lives on both sides.

I welcome efforts from Hamas and Fatah to form a unity government in an effort to end the international embargo on Palestine. I urge Hamas, under the new Administration, to recognise Israel or accept a viable two-state solution to the Middle East conflict, which I believe is the only way forward.

I condemn the rocket fire by Palestinian militants from Gaza this morning, which killed an elderly woman and wounded another person in the Israeli town of Sderot. I also condemn the deaths of the 18 civilians in the shelling of Beit Hanoun by the Israeli defence forces last week. But an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind.

While I recognise that Israel has the right to defend itself against attack, many of us saw the documentary on Gaza yesterday and listened to our colleagues who had recently visited the region. I was shocked by what I heard and saw: the sheer brutality that has been inflicted on Palestinian civilians. Both sides have to realise that the only solution is to sit down and talk. Dialogue is the only way forward. Courageous leadership is needed on both sides. We are only too aware in Ireland of the cycle of violence caused by such conflicts. We also know only too well the enormous benefits that can accrue to everyone when violence ends and real negotiation and dialogue take place.

We must all strive to build confidence. The EU has increased assistance to the Palestinian people this year and has called for the immediate payment by Israel of withheld tax and customs revenue. It also continues to seek the release of the captured Israeli soldier and of Palestinian legislators detained in Israel, as well as the reopening of the Gaza crossing points.

The EU has an obligation to protect civilian lives. At this time, it is in a stronger position to act as an honest broker than Britain or America. Reasonable people must stand up and do something about what is going on. Evil will continue to prevail if we do nothing.

  Bastiaan Belder, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – (NL) Mr President, seven Palestinian rocket attacks on Israeli territory this morning resulted in the sad statistic of one fatality and one seriously injured in the town of Sderot. Those carrying out the violence claim that this is revenge action for last week’s blood bath in Beit Hanoun, in any event not on behalf of the seriously affected Athamna family from Beit Hanoun. Quite the reverse; they underline – and you can see it for yourself in today's Israeli press – that there has been enough blood shed. Sadly enough, this Palestinian spirit of reconciliation meets with no response at all from various prominent representatives of Hamas. Over the past few days, they have stressed most emphatically that the new Palestinian Government is not required to recognise the Zionist enemy. Can the Council and the Commission shed light on this repeated Palestinian political controversy between Fatah and Hamas? At the same time, I should like to know their reaction to the statement made by Mohammed Shabir, who has been proposed as Prime Minister of a Palestinian united Cabinet: ‘I shall make my position clear after the appointment’. Have you been in contact with him yet?

The Quartet is reported to be meeting in Cairo today in order to relaunch the peace process. I expect the explosive situation in Gaza will be high on the agenda. After all, the Council and the Commission will not be unaware of what the Chief of Shin Bet, Israel's Security Agency, told the Knesset, to the effect that, if the radical political and military tide in Gaza does not turn, Israel will have no choice but to mount a large-scale military operation. Shin Bet’s Chief, Mr Diskin, also shared that since Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza, no fewer than 33 tonnes of military explosives, large quantities of weapons and between USD 50 million and USD 70 million in cash have been smuggled into the Gaza Strip. Egypt, in particular, has cried off, although this is in contravention of the specified military agreement with Israel.

In summary, the European Union must take the Quartet meeting as an opportunity to remind Egypt, and, in fact, the rest of the Arab world, of their responsibilities. Gaza should not turn into the much-dreaded Hamasstan.

  Alessandro Battilocchio (NI). – (IT) Mr President, I have just come back from Palestine. I set off without any prejudices or preconceived ideas, but the situation I found was worse than I had expected: it is a powder keg ready to explode, and it will have a domino effect throughout the area.

Nine months is the length of time that wages have not been paid because of the blockade on money transfers, with the result that public offices are locked up, schools are closed, and hospitals are only accepting the all too frequent emergencies. Eleven thousand is the number of Palestinian political prisoners in Israeli jails, including 400 children and 41 members of parliament elected in polls that the international community accepted were free and transparent. Nineteen, including twelve minors, is the death toll of the clashes of the last few days, which in fact started the day after we left. Nine hundred and twelve kilometres is the length of the gigantic wall that is tearing the country apart and separating entire families, for reasons that have little or nothing to do with security. Nine hundred thousand olive trees, some of them centuries old, have been destroyed to make this impressive but useless structure. Eighty-seven per cent is the poverty rate in Gaza, where all outside links have been cut and importing or exporting goods is impossible. One thousand three hundred and fifteen metres is the width of Gaza’s militarised border, which can only be crossed on foot, even by the elderly and children, after interminable checks: it is an incredibly grim crossing, like something from another time. Even so, as you wander the streets there is still a glimmer of hope in people’s tired eyes.

Europe still has a chance to redeem itself, if we start again from where we left off and pick up the thread that has recently been broken. Let us work towards a fair and just solution providing for two peoples and two states: security for the State of Israel, the recognition of which is not up for discussion, and rights for a free and independent Palestine. Time is up: either we adopt a strong, incisive initiative now, or otherwise we must accept full responsibility for having been unwilling or unable to do enough.

(Applause)

  José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra (PPE-DE). – (ES) Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, I believe that we should draw two conclusions from the debate that we are holding this afternoon.

The first of them has been mentioned by the President of my group, Mr Poettering, who said that we must be consistent with the positions we have taken in the past and, just as we have condemned the indiscriminate attacks against innocent Israelis, we must also condemn this disproportionate attack by Israeli forces, which has caused civilian deaths, particularly amongst women and children.

Unfortunately, Mr President, in spite of the Prime Minister’s apologies and the investigation to be carried out by the Israeli Government, these people will not be brought back to life.

Mr President, in the formal sitting this morning we were reminded that these problems of recurrent violence in the Middle East can only be resolved by means of a fair and all-encompassing solution.

I am struck however — and I am glad that the Presidency-in-Office of the Council is here — by the regrettable fact — and the Belgian Prime Minister, Mark Eyskens, reminded us of this — that, for every one hundred times that the European Union votes in the United Nations, on sixty occasions each Member State does so in its own way. Mr President, the European Union will not be a major player on the international stage if it acts in that way.

I believe that everybody in this House recognises Israel's legitimate right to defend itself, but it would have been no bad thing for the United Nations to have condemned this tragic event.

I would therefore call upon the Presidency-in-Office of the Council to work to ensure that, if the European Union wants to be a major player on the international stage, it can speak with one voice, at least on the international stage and, in particular, in the United Nations, where our Member States should not act in the lamentable way they did in relation to these tragic events that we are condemning.

  Véronique De Keyser (PSE). – (FR) Mr President, more than 300 people have been killed in Palestine since June. The diplomatic term for this is ‘disproportionate response’. Wherein lies the disproportion? It lies in the fact that ten Palestinians have been killed for each Israeli during this second intifada, and 100 to one since the Lebanese war. There is therefore a lack of proportionality. The fact is, however, that each of these deaths is pointless.

At present, the highest international bodies – both the UN and the Quartet – appear paralysed in the face of the United States. Europe should therefore do what it has done in Lebanon and adopt a position that is strong and unanimous, as is today’s joint resolution by Parliament. It should therefore use all the political tools at its disposal, including the Association Agreement with Israel, in order to put an end to the violence. This violence condemns all Palestinians to death, but it also condemns Israeli democracy. It puts an end to democracy in Israel, whose government has just allied itself with a xenophobic partner which supports ideas of ethnic cleansing.

Let us be at least as brave as those Israelis who invoke justice and international law in writing to us today of their horror at the massacres in question. I am thinking in particular of the courageous signatories of the manifesto published by the main Israeli human rights organisations, which are demanding an end to the stranglehold placed on Gaza. That is why I call for the blockade on Gaza to be lifted and for aid to Palestine to be resumed, as well as for support to be given to the government of national unity that is about to be formed. This would be a victory by moderates against extremists on all sides.

I am also concerned about the Israelis possibly using new weapons of destruction in this dirty war – weapons whose use has already been suspected in Lebanon – and I call for an international inquiry to be launched in this connection. I support the idea of an international peace conference, bringing together all the players in the Middle East including Syria and Iran and, in common with the editorial in the newspaper Haaretz, I call for an international intervention force to be sent to Gaza.

Finally, I would urge the European Union to seize every opportunity for peace in this explosive situation. Death and famine are emphatically not fertile ground for peace. We do not bear every responsibility in this crisis, but we do have responsibilities. I would venture to say that, by interrupting aid to Palestine prematurely and by putting in place an intermediate mechanism that has taken some time to be implemented, we have helped bring about the prevailing chaos in Palestine. To each his particular task, certainly, but we have mistakes to remedy and responsibilities to assume.

  Alyn Smith (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, I, like many others present today, was with Mrs Morgantini in Gaza just a couple of weeks ago as this latest round in the current crisis was kicking off. We witnessed the systematic, deliberate and very sophisticated and effective brutalisation of an entire people.

Gaza is a prison without hope. Any moderate Palestinians are blocked at every turn as they try to develop a systematic Palestinian state that might be successful. They are being blocked by the Israelis, and we must place the blame appropriately. The only result of all this can be violence forever more, and we can only treat the symptoms for so long.

We saw well-meaning EU officials – we have heard today about the Temporary International Mechanism – and the EU is indeed doing a number of things to tackle the humanitarian symptoms of this disaster. However, as the Commissioner said earlier, the roots of this situation are political and the solution to it must be political. The association agreement must be brought onto the table and sanctions considered, or we will be treating the symptoms of a humanitarian disaster forever more. We are not without weapons and must use everything we have at our disposal.

  Adamos Adamou (GUE/NGL). – (EL) Mr President, 'Europe', 'peace', 'human rights', 'Palestine', 'Gaza': a vocabulary that we use which is rich in words. The reality is full of war, misery and pain and here we keep talking, passing resolutions, and repeating 'human rights' and 'peace'. All we do is to keep talking. How many crimes and how much death is needed for Europe to stop acting as Pontius Pilate? In Palestine, it is not just people that are dying; hope is also dying and yet I believe that human suffering is not something you get used to.

The visit by the European Parliament has been postponed for technical reasons, or so they say. Someone needs to explain to us what the technical reasons were and who is responsible for them. Maybe certain parties did not want us to go? And if we do not react, we shall again be accomplices to the crimes being committed, not today, not yesterday but, to our knowledge, for decades.

Words need to become deeds at long last. Within the frameworks of international law and without there being any intention to hurt the man in the street, sanctions need to be imposed on Israel. When, at long last, will the state of Israel be content to return the money it has kept to its rightful owners in Palestine who are dying of starvation? The Palestinians are not terrorists, nor are they begging for charity. They are a people fighting against third party interests for their dignity and survival. They are a people who, in the face of the hypocrisy of the international community, the occupation and terror, are fighting for their continuing existence.

  Elmar Brok (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, the most important point with regard to these issues is that people on both sides are suffering at the hands of politics. The second point is that, seen in an international context, the Middle East conflict has now reached such proportions that it is at the heart of efforts to safeguard world peace and also of threats to such peace. Both of these are reasons why the conflict must be resolved quickly and the Quartet must appear there together in full and make exacting personal demands rather than each member just drawing up papers on its own.

We must recognise that Israel has left Gaza and that what is happening there is partly an internal conflict between Palestinians, accompanied by terrorism, which is escalating almost into civil war there. In addition, Israel as a state has to respond to terrorist organisations that are not the responsibility of any particular state. This explains why we have difficulty judging the situation. It is no excuse, however, for actions such as the bombardment of civilians and their houses, because Israel, too, has to understand that the only chance for it to enjoy peace and lasting security, as for a viable Palestinian state, consists in breaking the cycle of violence. For this reason, Israel must consider whether its strategies are really the right ones to adopt.

After all, what has Israel gained from the war it waged in Lebanon in revenge for the capture of individual soldiers that ultimately resulted in the pro-Syrian forces taking power over the chain Iran–Syria–Hezbollah in Lebanon? In what way have Israel’s interests been served by that war?

A kind of responsibility should be seen here, too, and the new consensus government in the Palestinian territories that has come into being recently may represent a means to make a new start, in order to ensure world peace and give the people in the region a future.

  Proinsias De Rossa (PSE). – Mr President, Gaza is a prison camp for 1.3 million Palestinians, sealed tight by Israel.

The occupants are being starved; their health and education infrastructure is being destroyed; their economy is being laid waste; and they are being massacred. As many as eighty – not just eighteen – men, women and children were killed last week, most of them civilians simply going about their daily business and trying to get on with life.

This is all being done by a State which claims to be the only democracy in the region. What a shameful expression of democracy. Israel is now also pulverising these unfortunate people with experimental weapons. We have no word from the Commission or from the Council as to what they are doing about investigating that matter.

Launching Qassam rockets will not bring freedom for the Palestinian people, and I condemn such launches. However, it is also clear that Israeli firepower and Israeli oppression of the Palestinian people will not bring a secure future for Israel either. Only negotiations on a two-state solution will bring that security, and I would appeal to all concerned to start those as soon as possible.

  Tokia Saïfi (PPE-DE). – (FR) Mr President, following the massacre in Qana in Lebanon, we have seen a further massacre of civilians, this time in Beit Hanoun.

The Israeli Government has expressed its deep concern at this new tragedy, describing it as a technical error. However, we know already that this acknowledgement will not be enough to prevent the massacre of other innocents in the future. In order to put a stop to this interminable escalation, Europe must rouse itself from its inertia and finally take strong initiatives to bring about a sustainable peace quickly.

Firstly, we must remove our financial stranglehold on the Palestinian territories, a measure one might have thought designed specifically to increase the violence and bring about chaos there. Next, a military force needs to be interposed as soon as possible between Israel and Palestine, as was done between Lebanon and Israel with the FINUL. If such a force is effective in Lebanon, it will be so in Palestine. Above all, we must finally demand that a Palestinian State be created, with safe and recognised borders.

With the results of the mid-term elections in the United States, a window is perhaps being half-opened today. The American administration will, I hope, redefine its policy in the Middle East. In the new strategy that is taking shape, Europe must initiate a new dynamic for peace in which it finally embraces its own political role and ceases merely to be a source of funding.

We must never forget that the conflict between Israel and Palestine is not just a conflict like any other. There is an international dimension at stake. The moment has come, and there is no time to waste. Let us be courageous and assume our responsibilities before it is too late.

  Panagiotis Beglitis (PSE). – (EL) Mr President, the sortie by black-clad mothers rescuing their children in Beit Hanoun, as shown on the international media, was the chorus of the modern tragedy being lived through by a Palestinian people seeking its liberation. However, there can be no liberation for the Palestinian people while the dangerous and deadlocked strategy of the United Nations continues in the area, while the dangerous and deadlocked policy of the civil-military leadership of Israel continues.

Unfortunately, today we have heard the Commissioner talking as if the European Union were an international non-governmental humanitarian organisation. However, the European Union, Commissioner, is a political organisation with international obligations and a duty to defend democratic principles and international humanitarian law. The European Union, once again, has demonstrated the huge strategic deficit on the question of Palestine. Mr Solana should have been here today to see the results of the decision by the Council of Ministers in February, when they imposed economic sanctions on a Palestinian people which expressed itself democratically in the elections. These deadlocks in the European Union are being paid for today, politically and humanitarianly, by the Palestinian people.

  Ioannis Kasoulides (PPE-DE). – Mr President, the Israeli Government and the army have apologised for the tragic ‘technical mistake’ that resulted in the killing of 19 innocent civilians, mostly women and children, at Beit Hanoun. The issue is not whether that apology is acceptable or not; it is that the use of such powerful force so easily and so frequently is bound to result in ‘technical mistakes’, particularly when the threshold of consideration for human life is so low.

Israel and Palestine will never find peace and tranquillity if they carry on being trigger-happy. The Palestinians will never succeed with Qassam rockets and suicide bombers. The Israelis will always invite more Qassams and more suicide bombers when they respond so disproportionately and so powerfully. No side can win unilaterally. Unilateralism is dead and buried in Lebanon.

Thinking positively, let us take stock of Prime Minister Olmert’s call to President Abbas for talks without preconditions, progress in the formation of a national unity government between Fatah and Hamas, a government of technocrats – with Prime Minister Haniya abstaining from its leadership – and implicit acceptance by Hamas that they should sit at the same table with Israel. It is time for the Quartet to act and for the European Union to cease being a passive member of it.

Finally, I hope that the result of the American elections will make the American Administration review its policy and role in the Middle East.

  Béatrice Patrie (PSE). – (FR) Mrs Lehtomäki, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I, for my part, am delighted with the almost historic consensus obtained by the various political groups within our Parliament – a consensus that enables us to send out a clear political message.

It is transparently obvious that the strikes by the Israeli army cannot by any stretch of the imagination be referred to as a ‘technical error’. One gets the feeling that they are, rather, one more collective punishment inflicted on the Palestinians, who are being blamed for the political choices made following the last legislative elections. I cannot but lament the similarity between these strikes and the methods used against the civilian populations of Southern Lebanon during the war in the summer of 2006, with cluster bombs being used in both cases.

Admittedly, the Israeli population is also the target of murderous attacks. One is, however, entitled to expect a democratic state like Israel to behave in accordance with international law – something that cannot be demanded of terrorist organisations.

Faced with this situation, the European Union must assert itself as the driving force of the Quartet and be in favour of reinstating the Road Map. The new political order in the United States, the prospect of a government of national unity being formed in Palestine and also, and above all, the voices of protest raised in Israeli society are hopeful factors in terms of the re-launch of the peace process.

  Charles Tannock (PPE-DE). – Mr President, last week’s incident in Gaza, when an IDF shell mistakenly struck Beit Hanoun causing the death of 19 innocent Palestinians, is clearly tragic. The Prime Minister of Israel has apologised and ordered a full investigation.

Israel, it must be recalled, withdrew from Gaza in good faith, but the Palestinian Authority failed to establish law and order there. Instead we have witnessed a degeneration into chaos, internecine warfare and repeated Qassam rockets being deliberately fired at innocent Israeli civilian targets, such as the woman killed today in Sderot, with no apologies from the militants, such as Hamas, and the militias effectively using human shields as Hizbollah did in Lebanon by firing rockets from civilian areas, thus inviting retribution which resulted in the tragedy of Beit Hanoun. Furthermore, these Hamas-controlled militias have yet to release kidnapped Corporal Shalit.

Yesterday it was announced that a new government of national unity has been formed under independent technocrat Mohammad Shbair, but its spokesman, Fawzi Barhoom, denies that Hamas will now recognise Israel and instead disappointingly stated that the new government will recognise the terms of the ‘Prisoners’ Document’, a declaration signed this year by Palestinians held in Israeli jails that implicitly – but not explicitly – recognises Israel by calling for a Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza. It remains to be seen if this will suffice to dismantle the TIM and resume full PA aid, and reassurances on ending terrorist violence will have to be forthcoming too.

I will be reluctantly supporting this resolution, but cannot support its call for a multinational UN force to police the occupied territories, as the track record of UNIFIL in Lebanon remains unproven. I fear that, as we speak, Hizbollah is busy rearming itself and looking for a pretext to start yet another war against Israel.

Neither do I call for an immediate cessation by Israel of all military action whilst it is still being attacked, as argued by my Liberal colleague Mr Davies.

  Edith Mastenbroek (PSE). – Mr President, when I look at our policy towards the Palestinians I can see our stick but where is our carrot? The Palestinians are losing any faith they had left in a solution and in us as part of the international community. We are faced with two peoples who are craving peace and quiet in their lives, and we cannot rely on old rhetoric any longer. We all know where the solution lies. We need to acknowledge that the two sides are not making it on their own. A call for negotiations – no matter how justified – will not be enough this time around.

I want to ask the Council and the Commission: are you willing to consider bold ideas? Let the Palestinians define their state with the Green Line as its border. Let us then recognise it, let us use all our weight to get the Quartet to recognise it as well and let us then force Israel to accept it. Only then will steps to increase trust and confidence have any chance to succeed, because there can be no peace without justice. I say this as a friend of Israel, convinced, as I am, that we should not just save the future of the Palestinian state, we also need to protect Israel from itself. This is our responsibility.

  Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Gaza is the nub of the nub of the problem: it is the nub of the Israeli-Palestinian crisis and of the crisis in the Middle East. It has engendered terrorism’s major offensive; the failure to solve the Israeli-Palestinian problem has given rise to 9/11, the growing strength of Al Qaeda and the Middle East crisis. That is why Europe needs to play a major role and involve countries like Syria, whose role must be seen as separate from that of Iran.

Of course, none of us means to exonerate Israel for what has been happening in Gaza in recent days – the Israeli armed forces have to accept some of the responsibility – but it would be a serious mistake to point the finger just at Israel for the crisis as a whole. We must not forget what is going on, with missiles being launched from Palestinian territory often with the backing of terrorist and extremist organisations, because there are some who do not want to thwart the peace process.

Europe needs to play a constructive, decisive role to advance the peace process and must defuse any act by either side that might be provocative. Its role has to be balanced: it would be a disaster if Europe took sides against Israel and considered that it was to blame for everything that has happened, because we would not resolve the situation like that.

We have to commit to establishing a Palestinian state and make every effort for Israel to feel secure within its own borders, so that no Israeli family feels forced to send one child to school on one bus and another child on a different bus every morning, because they do not know which of the two will return home. We have to stand very firm on that, and make Hamas realise that there is no room for military and terrorist action, and Hezbollah that there is no room for it to play a political role in the peace process.

IN THE CHAIR: MR ONESTA
Vice-President

  Paula Lehtomäki, President-in-Office of the Council. (FI) Mr President, thank you to the Members of Parliament for this very valuable debate. The Council shares the view so powerfully put forward in this discussion that this is a time for policy. It is a time for policy and we have been of the opinion the whole time that this crisis cannot be solved militarily; instead, what is needed is a comprehensive political solution. We need a solution that proposes a two-state model and that will require the people in the region, including ordinary people, to accept this goal of coexistence properly, and to commit to it at all levels of society.

The hope has been powerfully expressed here that the European Union will do what it can. On behalf of the Council, I can assure you that the Union and the Presidency will do whatever it can. The European Union’s potential and strength in a solution to this crisis lies in the fact that the Union is a credible player in the eyes of all parties. You cannot find this kind of strength just anywhere. For the Union to be able to continue its work and its role as a credible player in a solution to this crisis, it must be able to sustain a united and consistent policy, and the question of how to foster this coherence is a daily challenge.

We are taking robust action to ensure that the Quartet also has a leading role to play in resolving this crisis, and we will aim to support the Quartet’s active involvement. It is also vital that, in order to find a comprehensive solution, we are able to persuade the countries in the region to commit to an involvement in this process.

The next occasion on which the Middle East question will be on the agenda in our multilateral forum of cooperation will certainly be next week at the EU-Russia Summit, and then at the end of November at the Foreign Ministers’ meeting of the Barcelona Process at Tampere. We will also work hard to get the Quartet to convene in December. This is an important issue and a serious, long-term problem right on Europe’s doorstep, so we have to pool all our resources to find a comprehensive, long-term and lasting political solution.

  Margot Wallström, Vice-President of the Commission. Mr President, escalating violence in Gaza only increases civilian suffering and fuels extremism. As I have said, the Commission has stepped up its assistance for meeting emergency and humanitarian needs. That is a useful contribution, but the solution lies elsewhere. The only way forward for Israel and the Palestinians is the negotiation of a viable two-state solution. The international community – as many of you have already said – has the duty to revive a credible peace process. The European Union should play a leading role in that respect and, through its participation in the Quartet, encourage any ideas aimed at furthering peace in that area, including an international conference on the Middle East process.

  President. – In accordance with Rule 103(2) of the Rules of Procedure, I have received six motions for resolutions⁽¹⁾.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow, Thursday.

Written statement (Rule 142)

  David Martin (PSE). – The European Union must do everything in its power and use every instrument at our disposal, including the EU association agreement with Israel, to end the violence in Gaza. The ongoing violence condemns the Palestinians to a slow death and risks setting the whole of the Middle East on fire. Death and famine are not fertile ground for peace. We need an end to the Israeli blockade of Gaza, resumption of aid to Palestine and support for a government of national unity. I fully support the idea of an international peace conference bringing together all the actors in the Middle East, including Syria and Iran. We need an international force in Gaza as a matter of urgency.

(1) See Minutes.

12. Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC), cluster bombs and conventional weapons (debate)

  President. – The next item is the Council and Commission statements on the conference for examining the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC), which will take place in 2006.

  Paula Lehtomäki, President-in-Office of the Council. (FI) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, issues relating to weapons of mass destruction and arms control have in recent years been central to the European Union’s Foreign and Security Policy. Multilateral action on arms control and disarmament has nevertheless had to face enormous challenges in previous years, and the results achieved have been modest. There is an urgent need to alter this trend.

The Third Review Conference of the States Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons is currently taking place in Geneva. Both this conference and the Sixth Review Conference of the States Parties to the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention to be held in late November and early December are an opportunity to show that the international community is able effectively to respond to the challenges of arms control and disarmament today.

The civilian population is all too often the victim of the use of weapons covered under the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. The clearance of explosive remnants of war is an ever-growing burden for the international community. The universalisation of Protocol V to the CCW on Explosive Remnants of War and its effective implementation mean that we all have to make an effort. The European Union welcomed the entry into force of the Protocol at the Review Conference.

The Protocol on Explosive Remnants of War was drafted in response to the humanitarian threat caused by unexploded ordnance, including cluster bombs, to civilian populations in the aftermath of a war.

The recent events in southern Lebanon bring to mind the dangers caused to the civilian population by explosive remnants of war, especially cluster bombs, and the difficulty and expense of clearing them. This problem has to be addressed without delay. Therefore, the EU has proposed that the work of the CCW Group of Governmental Experts should be continued in 2007. The Group’s current mandate includes the development of preventative measures to improve the design of certain types of munitions, with a view to minimising their risk to humanity. In addition, several EU Member States have individually pledged to start negotiations on a legally binding protocol which would respond to the risks to humanity arising from cluster bombs. The EU Member States, however, do not have a shared view on how to deal with the rather restricted area of cluster bombs within the framework of the CCW.

This morning at the Review Conference, it was agreed that the Union’s position on cluster bombs would be endorsed, and the decision was taken to propose the establishment of a think-tank of experts, whose purpose would be to prepare recommendations for future action to deal with cluster bombs within the CCW framework.

In the course of the five years of negotiations on anti-vehicle landmines, the EU has consistently made mention of the fact that our objective is a legally binding protocol which endorses international humanitarian law and brings added value to it. Agreement on the protocol at the Review Conference, however, seems unlikely.

For more than 30 years now, the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention has served as the normative and legal cornerstone of biological disarmament and non-proliferation. Today, biosciences are one of the most rapidly evolving branches of science, with infinite potential for both good and bad. The BTWC has to be capable of being adjusted to scientific developments and responding to any possible challenges that go with them. The Review Conferences are an opportunity for this.

The European Union has made thorough preparations for the Sixth Review Conference of the BTWC, in accordance with the objectives of the EU Strategy Against the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction. These objectives include, in particular, making the BTWC apply worldwide, promoting the national implementation of, and compliance with, the Convention at national level, and reinforcement of the Convention.

In February this year, the Council adopted a common position on the Sixth Review Conference. The Union’s position is a balance between a realistic and an ambitious approach, nevertheless insisting on a comprehensive review of the Convention and practical improvements for its implementation. As an add-on to the common position, the Union has drafted thematic working documents on several topics.

In addition to joint action, the EU agreed on an Action Plan on the BTWC. In it, Member States committed to taking measures to strengthen the Convention, such as an announcement of any confidence-building measures that have been taken. These concrete measures will make the main aims of the EU's common position on the Review Conference of the BTWC more plausible.

The Third Review Conference of the CCW has a good, though not perhaps optimal, chance of success. We hope for a successful outcome, however. The Sixth Review Conference of the BTWC also stands every chance of a successful outcome.

  Margot Wallström, Vice-President of the Commission. Mr President, weapons of mass destruction are potentially the greatest threat to European security and, in terms of the ability to inflict mass casualties, the weapons of most concern are clearly nuclear and biological.

While we all carry with us the collective memory of the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there are no equivalent common images for biological weapons. Mass death from biological agents, or diseases like the plague, appear by contrast to be part of ‘ancient history’ or science fiction.

We must hope that it stays that way, but we cannot be complacent. Consider the following. Firstly, unlike nuclear weapons, biological weapons are not dependent on limited supplies of weapons-grade uranium and plutonium. The rapid development and dissemination of biosciences is bringing weapons capabilities within reach of those who could do us harm. The danger that humans, animals or plants might be attacked by biological agents is a real one.

Secondly, official reports suggest that terrorists are seeking bio-weapons. If terrorists were to start biological attacks across Europe, many lives would be at risk and our lifestyle could change dramatically.

Thirdly, biological weapons have been used in the recent past. The anthrax attacks in the United States in late 2001 killed few people but caused significant, wider social and political disruption, and the perpetrators remain at large.

How protected are we today? All use and possession of biological weapons has been prohibited since the Biological Weapons Convention came into force in 1975. However, this Convention is the weakest of the regimes addressing weapons of mass destruction. It has no provision for verification of compliance or implementation, and, unlike the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Chemical Weapons Convention, there is no central institution with oversight. Furthermore, there are fewer parties to the Convention than to either of those two treaties.

Our security would be enhanced, therefore, if the effectiveness of the Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention could be strengthened and its implementation improved. State parties should be encouraged to address these weaknesses at the forthcoming review conference later this month.

Good security starts at home. My colleague, Commissioner Frattini, is well aware of the need for action. The Commission is examining potential responses through a common framework approach. National responses to biological threats are clearly insufficient. Alongside the work on strengthening public health and medical surveillance and response, we will be issuing a Green Paper on European bio-preparedness in spring 2007.

Disaster and disease do not respect borders. The issue of bio-threats is one where internal and external policies are inextricably linked. Much can be achieved through better international collaboration and coordination. We will aim to share best practice on bio-preparedness: by helping to protect others, we will better protect ourselves.

I would also like to say a few words on a very different type of deadly weapon. Unexploded cluster ammunition represents a threat to human security and sustainable development. Such munitions kill innocent people every day and 30% of those killed are children. They represent major challenges, both politically and to daily life in former war zones.

A review conference is currently under way. It will see Protocol V to the convention, on ‘Explosive Remnants of War’ – i.e. failed explosive ordnance, ammunition or sub-munitions from cluster bombs, – enter into force. The implementation of this protocol, intended to eradicate the threat that such legacies of war pose to populations, will be a welcome step forward.

The events in Lebanon this summer highlighted the issue, particularly in view of the high failure rate of the cluster sub-munitions employed. Helping Lebanon in the difficult task of clearing these deadly remnants of war is important and we have contributed some EUR 5 million to the task. We also support the need to focus more attention on strengthening and ensuring compliance with international humanitarian law in this area.

Commission assistance and cooperation in humanitarian disarmament – that is to say mine action, clearing the explosive remnants of war and fighting the illicit spread of small arms – all have a positive impact on improving human security. They contribute to the sustainability of our development policies. We are grateful for the support of the European Parliament in these efforts.

  Elizabeth Lynne, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, with the Conventional Weapons Convention taking place this week and the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention next week, it is important that the EU’s voice is heard.

One main area that concerns me – the Commissioner talked about it – is the use of cluster bombs. We have seen the widespread use in recent conflicts: Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon, to name but a few. Because they are not covered by the 1997 Treaty on Landmines they are used with impunity, but they still have the same devastating effect, with civilians being killed or maimed for years to come.

According to the report ‘Fatal Footprint’, published this month by Handicap International, the Israeli defence force delivered at least four million bomblets into Lebanon between July and August this year. Worldwide, civilians constitute 98% of all recorded cluster bomb casualties. That is one of the reasons I call on the Council and the Commission to endorse the growing movement for change within the international community and the moves by countries, amongst them Belgium and Norway, to establish national legislation to ban cluster munitions from their territories and armed forces. I would also like to applaud the Red Cross for its campaign and call for a ban on the use of cluster bombs, for stockpiles to be destroyed and for clearance programmes to be stepped up.

As far as biological and toxic weapons are concerned, we must put more pressure on the United States Government, which has refused to countenance a legally binding verification protocol. That is damaging the future of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention and its credibility. We must also make sure that a permanent secretariat is set up to oversee the Convention’s implementation.

  Angelika Beer, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner Wallström, ladies and gentlemen, death comes in the aftermath of war, and, rather than these cluster bombs falling from the heavens on their own, we have to be aware that they are dropped by Europe’s allies and that those same allies continue to manufacture and export them.

You say that cluster bombs and unexploded munitions represent a challenge to former war zones, and that is where I have to contradict you; on the contrary, they are not a challenge to former war zones, but rather a challenge to the European Union, which must make sure that none of its Member States produces, exports or uses such weapons, and which must no longer permit its allies to do so in the way that the Americans, or the Israelis in the most recent war, have done.

It was with this in mind and considering the European Union’s inability to take action that we, a fortnight ago, wrote a letter to the Finnish Presidency – and when I say ‘we’ I mean not ‘we Greens’ but rather the coordinators of the conservatives, the socialists, the liberals and I myself – with an urgent appeal for a European position in favour of an outright ban to be tabled at this conference, which represents an historic opportunity for the prohibition of cluster munitions.

You made it plain to this House that you were either unwilling or unable to do so. You say you are going to set up a working party; well, I am sure you are familiar with the saying that, setting up a working party is what you do when you do not know what to do next. It is also the cynical way to go about things when one bears in mind the fact that, day in and day out, the lives of civilians, police officers and UN troops sent by us to crisis-hit regions are being put at risk by what is left of these weapons.

I would therefore like, once more, to urge you in strong terms to now seize the initiative and – since you are able to do so – ensure that the national parliaments of the EU’s Member States describe these cluster munitions as what they actually are, namely as a form of weaponry worthy of being outlawed and one that Europeans must renounce once and for all, refusing to use them or accept their use in any war whatever.

  Vittorio Agnoletto, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, my group is of course in favour of a general, worldwide ban on the production and use of biological weapons and on trade in them, and we hope that the forthcoming Geneva Conference will decide to strengthen the relevant international conventions. I am pleased to note that the European Union is in the forefront on these issues, and I hope that the Commission will do everything humanly possible to achieve a worldwide ban on these horrific weapons.

We have to acknowledge the fact, however, that the main stumbling block to achieving such a ban has a name that we all know: George W. Bush. The President of the United States is personally responsible for the US political boycott of the Geneva negotiations. He has, in fact, decided to pull out of the talks. Instead, the United States has made the build-up of their biological arsenal and the use of white phosphorus and depleted uranium a strong point in their aggressive and unacceptable military policy. Similarly, they have neither ratified the Mine Ban Convention nor signed the Third Protocol to the Certain Conventional Weapons Convention (CCWC), and they have also revived the Star Wars programme.

This attitude by the United States is a threat to world security. The European Union needs to overcome its inertia and make putting pressure on the United States a key point in the Geneva negotiations.

  Gerard Batten, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – Mr President, Mrs Lehtomäki spoke of the European Union’s action plan in relation to the Review Conference of the Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention. Yet again, the European Union falsely assumes the attributes of a political state empowered to determine policy on what are military and defence measures, which are the proper responsibility of sovereign nations.

The EU has never had to militarily defend its citizens and let us hope that it never has to, for a variety of reasons. Meanwhile, countries like mine, Great Britain, which are serious military powers, have to discharge that responsibility. Cluster bombs do indeed need greater international regulation, especially in regard to the so-called dumb bombs, which have no self-destruct mechanism. Britain is also a leading power in research into defence against biological and toxin weapons, and given the current terrorist threat by fundamentalist Islam, Britain has to maintain its independence and freedom of action in this sphere.

  Philip Claeys (NI). – (NL) Mr President, the manufacture and use of biological weapons used to be the preserve of states. These days, progress in biotechnology is such that ever fewer resources are needed to produce dangerous viruses, bacteria and poisons, and the consequence of this is that terrorist organisations, too, can resort to biological warfare.

In March of this year, Interpol pointed out that there are serious indications that al-Qaeda is preparing to commit acts of biological terrorism. The scale of the destruction that could result in that way far outstrips that of the attacks in New York, Madrid and London. It is impossible to conclude agreements with terrorists in the same way as states do with one another. It is of vital importance that police forces be further trained in order to prevent and control biological terror. Some legislation may well need to be adapted in order to make it possible to check sensitive scientific research.

There is still a need to give attention to the exchange of information between intelligence services within the European Union, but also with our partners in the United States, Russia and in all other nations that want to discharge their responsibilities in the fight against terrorism.

  Achille Occhetto, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Socialist Group in the European Parliament wholeheartedly supports this draft resolution, because it sees it as a decisive step in the strategy to oppose the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction that was adopted by Europe in December 2003, and also because it makes reducing the biological weapons threat a top priority. At the same time, another important initiative is that we are calling on all countries that have not yet done so to abide by the legislation banning biological weapons, not least in order to achieve that universality that is an integral and binding part of international law.

Within this basic framework, there are in any case measures designed to ensure that the Convention is effectively implemented, although in the most recent analysis the United States failed to comply with these measures. I should also like to stress the importance of the appeal made in the resolution to finalise a specific Protocol 6 unequivocally banning the manufacture and use of cluster bombs, despicable weapons even used in humanitarian wars to get round the Mine Ban Convention.

At the same time, Europe needs to show that there is a direct link between trends towards proliferation, which must be strenuously repressed, and the failure to disarm. The West will have greater moral authority to oppose the proliferation of any kind of weapon if: 1) the United States stops opposing the adoption of inspection measures and the banning of cluster bombs; and 2) the disarmament process is resumed even within the nuclear club. What has happened today is therefore an important step, but it is merely the first on the long road towards a ban on all weapons of mass destruction.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE). – (ES) Mr President, like so many other instruments that regulate arms at world level, the existence of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention is a necessary, though not sufficient, tool in the fight against human irrationality.

There is therefore only one acceptable option for the sixth review conference which is to begin on 20 November: to strengthen that instrument, particularly with a view to developing genuine verification mechanisms, and to promote its universal application.

Furthermore, with regard to cluster bombs, I can only vigorously support the call for the Convention on Inhuman Weapons to be provided with a sixth protocol. In my view, it should even be provided with a specific and complete treaty, which unambiguously prohibits the production, storage, transfer and use of this kind of weapon, as in the case of anti-personnel mines.

In view of the indiscriminate nature of cluster bombs and the enormous impact they have on the civilian population, the use of those weapons must no longer be tolerated in any way. The case of Lebanon, which is currently under investigation, is just one example of many that illustrate the reason for this.

  Ana Maria Gomes (PSE). – (PT) In recent years we have witnessed the erosion of the most important legal instruments for combating the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention is no exception. We are more vulnerable than ever to devastating terrorist attacks.

The main ideas contained in this resolution, on which notable consensus has been reached across all political groups in Parliament, are decades old and applicable to other conventions, too. These ideas can be summed up under three headings: universalisation, application and verification. The notorious cluster bombs and anti-personnel mines must be combated. These immoral arms must also be outlawed. These bombs spread death indiscriminately and the fact that they have a low rate of immediate explosion means that they continue to kill innocent people many years after conflicts have ended.

The recent war in Lebanon, in which Israel left the country mined with thousands of cluster bombs, should give us the impetus to ban, once and for all, the manufacture and use of all kinds of cluster bomb, as we have done with anti-personnel mines. Perhaps merely adding a new protocol to the existing Convention against certain conventional weapons is not enough; perhaps the time has come for a specific convention. This does not matter, provided the EU takes action and the human race joins forces to eradicate these heinous weapons.

  Paula Lehtomäki, President-in-Office of the Council. (FI) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Union and the Council are very concerned that people in conflict zones are injured or die when the conflict itself has ended. This is patently clear in the case of Lebanon today, where unexploded bombs are a real problem for the civilian population.

The Presidency is pleased that the Protocol relating to unexploded ordnance has entered into force. In the future we will be working to ensure that the harm caused to the civilian population by munitions remains minimal. As for international cooperation on cluster bombs from here on, we will continue our efforts to find a common position in the European Union and make headway on this.

Finally, I wish to say that Mrs Beer and her colleagues will be receiving an answer to their letter to the Presidency in the very near future.

  Margot Wallström, Vice-president of the Commission. Mr President, the informed debate that has taken place on these issues is one more strand in the argument against war and another argument for prevention and hopefully being able to avoid the use of these weapons.

As you know, under the common foreign and security policy, these are not areas in which the Commission takes the lead. However, we are part of the solution when dealing with the aftermath of war. The human suffering, unexploded munitions and humanitarian problems which result from wars around the world are a challenge for us.

The Commission will of course continue to support the clearance of such weapons, working with the international community and NGOs. The war in Lebanon lasted a few days, but the human suffering will continue for many years.

  President. – In accordance with Rule 103(2) of the Rules of Procedure, I have received six motions for resolutions⁽¹⁾.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow, Thursday.

(1) See Minutes.

13. European initiative in the field of civil protection (debate)

  President. – The next item is the debate on the oral question to the Council on the European initiative in the field of civil protection by Mr Florenz, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, by Mr Galeote, on behalf of the Committee on Regional Development and by Mr Daul, on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (O-0115/2006) (B6-0442/2006).

  Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE), author. – (EL) Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Madam Vice-President of the European Commission, the experience acquired over recent years from dealing with natural and man-made disasters has revealed that there are shortcomings in the capacity for national intervention and, consequently, increased expectations of Community assistance, assistance which will need to have the attributes of effective intervention in the field of prevention and rapid response. From this point of view, an early warning and response system is needed, based on the following four components: identification and assessment of the risks, constant monitoring of the risks, a warning and communication mechanism and, lastly, preparedness, in other words the ability to respond and help.

Allow me to refer briefly to certain parameters of particular importance which characterise such an effective civil protection mechanism, as referred to in the exceptional Barnier report passed by plenary and in the report which I presented to the Euro-Mediterranean plenary.

We need a lookout system, intervention units from the participating states, response guidelines and the relevant information for citizens, best practices for dealing with situations and mutual consular assistance in determining contact points between Member States.

It goes without saying that, without the necessary funding and the fundamental participation of the Member States, the entire endeavour will remain in abeyance. The question, therefore, Madam President-in-Office, is whether the Council has the will to respond to the demand and, of course, to secure the necessary cooperation of the Member States.

I believe that, in the relevant decisions, the need to respond to the demand and expectations of the citizens will ultimately prevail, dictated first and foremost by the increase in and frequency and intensity of natural disasters which result in loss of life as well as financial and environmental damage.

In addition, we must always bear in mind that promoting cooperation between the Member States in the field of civil protection will gradually consolidate a European conscience in the citizens and will be a visible example of the solidarity which must distinguish the European Union.

  Gerardo Galeote (PPE-DE), author. – (ES) Mr President, without going into the underlying causes, over recent years several countries have been suffering serious natural disasters. Particularly in the summer, we have suffered fires, floods and the effects of a particularly severe drought.

We frequently see how the affected regions of the Member States, sometimes of the most developed ones, lack sufficient resources to deal with these phenomena themselves.

Nevertheless, it sometimes seems that we are more conscientious about offering our solidarity when the damage is done thousands of kilometres away than we are when it is done in a Member State.

Despite all of this, the Council appears to be sticking to a passive approach. Some people will say that no more money should be spent, but it is not a financial issue, and one example of this is that you, representatives of the Council, are not making any progress on the reform of the European Solidarity Fund, which will not cost a single additional euro from the Community budget.

Sometimes we are in no position to criticise. Plenary approved the sending of a delegation to the most affected regions at the beginning of September, and, Mr President, Parliament’s Bureau is still tied up with regulatory issues that it has to sort out before it can give the green light to that delegation.

We shall not lose heart, however, because nobody believes that we should not provide resources for a common effort that will make us more effective when it comes to helping people. The principle of subsidiarity will be respected as well. There is no intention of impinging on the sovereignty of any Member State.

There is a report, for which Mr Barnier is responsible, on the table in the Council, which provides a good basis for this work. I would like to know whether the Council intends to pursue this issue. The European Parliament will undoubtedly give its enthusiastic support, and Europeans will be grateful for that.

  Markus Pieper (PPE-DE), author. – (DE) Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, no region can cope unaided with natural disasters, whether these be forest fires, earthquakes or floods. Fighting them, and, moreover, coping with their aftermath, goes beyond the capacities of regional authorities, and so the regions affected are reliant on solidarity, primarily on aid from neighbouring regions and support from the national level, with which responsibility for civil protection and disaster prevention lies.

I would like to make it clear that we have no need of new powers at European level, which would duplicate structures and waste money on administrative apparatus. I also find somewhat problematic the idea of using European money from the structural funds or even money intended for rural development. European policy for rural areas looks towards the future; it supports the nation states in their regional investment strategies in international competition. There are those who are now demanding that these valuable resources be put to work in preventing forest fires and compensating their victims, and, on that front too, I have to say that it does not seem to make much sense to use European taxpayers’ money for such things as firebreaks.

As we all know, the European Solidarity Fund is there to deal with really major disasters, for those very situations in which individual countries are unable to cope with natural calamities, but I would demand that this fund be more flexible in its use of money. I also call for more binding rules on the international coordination of crisis interventions, initially bilaterally between the states concerned and in exceptional cases at the European level too, but, please, let there be no new European superstructures in the civil protection field and no more wasting of valuable European resources on tasks that really should, in the main, be left to the nation states!

  Paula Lehtomäki, President-in-Office of the Council. (FI) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in drafting its answer, the Council has gone on the assumption that the honourable Members wish to know how the Union’s civil protection services are to be developed and taken forward by the Council. Their introductory speeches have now confirmed that our assumption was correct and that this is indeed the issue.

The primary goal in the work of the Council is to establish better coordination to ensure that assistance interventions function more efficiently. The Council will rely on this in existing structures, such as the civil protection monitoring and information centre that operates in association with the Commission and the Secretariat-General of the Council of the European Union.

The second goal of the Council’s work is to provide assistance quickly wherever it is needed. The Member States themselves have the main responsibility for providing assistance in emergencies. With reference to a Commission proposal for establishing a financial instrument for emergency services and rapid assistance interventions, the Council is examining whether, with certain conditions in place, a proportion of the Community budget appropriations allocated for EU civil protection operations could be used for the hire of transport and equipment. All this shows that the Council considers it very important to strengthen the European Union’s preparedness in the area of civil protection.

  Konstantinos Hatzidakis, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (EL) Mr President, the fact that this is the third time in recent months that we have discussed this issue demonstrates the enhanced sensitivity of the European Parliament.

I have pointed out on another occasion that it is a paradox that we have a common policy for farmers, the environment and regional development, but have no policy for the natural disasters that affect farmers and regional development and the environment. This is a paradox in the functioning of the European Union to date.

Furthermore, I consider that indifference on these issues is also strengthening Euro-scepticism. The image of the European Union would be much more positive if there were a European mechanism and if the European Union were present after any natural disaster at the problem faced at that moment by the citizens. We need to understand this. I do not think that particular thought is needed in order to adopt this perception. We do not want substitution of the Member States. Of course the Member States will also continue to be present, but what we want is for there to be coordination.

Minister, it was the Council that called on Mr Βarnier, a distinguished European and successful Commissioner, to table a proposal to you, not us. You noted the Council proposal in June and, since then, the proposal has remained without there being any development. You need to tell us something. I know that you do not merely represent your country here; you represent 25 countries and you must coordinate between yourselves, really coordinate. Months have gone past. Must we wait again for disasters as happened in Germany in 2002 before we do something? At that time, the disasters were the reason we set up the Solidarity Fund. We cannot proceed in this fashion. You need to say something clearer at some point and you have time up to December to raise the matter and to follow up the Barnier report. You owe it to yourselves, because you called on him to draft that report, and you owe it, above all, to the citizens of Europe.

  Edite Estrela, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (PT) Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, as times change, so do needs. The climate is no longer what it was dozens of years ago. All year round, parched dry days alternate with days of torrential rain.

‘Climate change is not science fiction’, said Kofi Annan today as he opened the Climate Change Conference in Nairobi. Insurance experts have predicted that natural disasters will cause EUR 2.3 billion’s worth of damage in 2040.

Climate change lies at the root of natural disasters throughout the world that have left a trail of destruction and death in their wake. Global warming is one of the major problems of our times. It is necessary to raise awareness among the citizens and encourage them to take part in the prevention of these disasters, although responsibility for managing the response to natural disasters rests primarily with the country affected, with the Union playing a supporting role.

The Community civil protection mechanism must be strengthened with greater resources and more wide-ranging powers. This indeed was what you said, Mrs Lehtomäki, but what actual form will this process of strengthening take? What is the Council thinking of doing to enhance the European Civil Protection mechanism? Does the Council support the idea of creating a European Strategic Coordination Centre responsible for gathering and disseminating information on emergencies and for making rapid reaction resources available for combating the different types of disaster? What does the Council intend to do with the Barnier report, as mentioned earlier?

These are the questions to which we would like answers.

  Jean Marie Beaupuy, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, if there is one area in which all Europeans expect effective Community responses, it is that of large-scale natural disasters.

Everyone has seen how, whenever major disasters such as the tsunami occur, there is a quick response on the part not only of individual countries and NGOs but also of our fellow citizens who, through their gifts of money, clothes and time, are able to join forces and take action. However, we have also seen, when each of these disasters has occurred, that what was missing was proper organisation. We are indeed confronted by inadequate organisation.

That is why, together with my group, I am in favour of implementing preventative actions and of putting in place the capacity to respond very quickly to the consequences of tragedies. In this connection, I should like to draw attention to the quality of the Barnier report, which states the problem well and proposes solutions that are constructive not only - my fellow Members have already emphasised this – in terms, as one would expect, of efficiency but also of subsidiarity. At this stage, I should like to point out where this report scores. Although no one questions the fact that it is for the various military organisations, fire services and other players of various kinds to exercise their responsibilities in full, it has to be acknowledged that only the European Union is in a position to ensure preventative and responsive coordination.

Finally, I should like to emphasise that the European Union has thus had the opportunity to demonstrate at a global level that the word ‘solidarity’ is not devoid of meaning but may be translated as ‘practical action’. If, when disasters similar to those of the past occur – and there is, unfortunately, a danger of their doing so in 2007 – the European Union has a presence on the ground in order to offer a response to human suffering and to mitigate the material, technical and ecological disasters, it will be viewed by the world as a more unified and much more practical enterprise. For this reason too, it is important for the Presidency successfully to carry out this operation as early as at the beginning of 2007.

  Derek Roland Clark, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – There are indeed two aspects. There are disasters, natural and man-made, and there is terrorist attack.

Allow me to speak from the perspective of the UK, where we have experienced both of those within the last year. Last December, at an oil-storage depot near London, we had the biggest fire in peacetime Europe. In July there was a serious terrorist attack in central London, with three tube trains bombed below ground and a bus above ground.

In each case we coped. And it is more than just a question of subsidiarity. We do not want to become dependent – and neither should anybody else.

So, I have a question. What do you mean by ‘European Consulates’? Are these to be imposed upon national systems, over and above them?

Another question: the European Civil Defence Force referred to in the Barnier report – what is it going to do? Is it an armed unit? If so, under whose control? Based where? Could it be deployed without national government request or permission?

Finally, the Constitution included a European policy on the prevention of natural disasters and on civil protection. A further question: is this an attempt to introduce parts of the dead Constitution into new legislation?

  Paula Lehtomäki, President-in-Office of the Council. (FI) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it has become very clear from this debate that the Council, Parliament and surely the Commission too share exactly the same goals. Firstly, we have to be able to establish effective arrangements for coordination in the field of civil protection. The other goal that we share is that assistance should go wherever it is needed efficiently. It is worth bearing in mind that a high level of cooperation will be needed to achieve these shared goals. We do not necessarily or automatically need new structures, and we should not imagine that something will run well merely by creating a new structure. Cooperation is therefore paramount, and is a keyword here.

Furthermore, when we speak of certain natural disasters we have to remember, particularly when they occur outside the European Union, that there are a lot of players other than the European Union in the field. In such situations, the Union needs to be part of a wider internationally coordinated operation. The need for coordination in the field was very evident when the tsunami disaster struck, when there were dozens, even hundreds, of players in the field at the same time.

Mr Barnier’s proposals are now being considered and digested by the Member States. They are very ambitious, and right now the work of the Council work is focussed on finalising decisions on the financial instrument, leading to a common civil protection instrument. Work is also nevertheless continuing with respect to Mr Barnier’s proposals, and he has been invited to present his ideas at the Justice and Home Affairs Council on 5 December.

  President. – The debate is closed.

Written statements (Rule 142)

  Sebastiano (Nello) Musumeci (UEN). – (IT) This umpteenth and timely question on the sensitive matter of EU civil protection capacity puts the spotlight on one of the most convoluted and controversial sectors that the Member States have ever had to deal with.

As I have said before – I have talked to the Commission on a number of occasions and expressed my views in this House – since the civil protection sector is a matter for the individual Member States, it inevitably comes up against very different laws, types of professional training and practices. For that reason, I have for some time supported the idea of capacity building and strengthening the coordination of the national intervention forces, with the aim of rendering the various national legislations more homogeneous. In my view, such action has to be delegated to a special European Civil Protection Agency, on the model of the US Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Recent experience has taught us that, if you look beyond the willingness shown, for example, when the horrific tsunami hit part of the Indian Ocean in 2004, the European Union’s emergency management is, I am sorry to say, utterly inadequate.

  Margie Sudre (PPE-DE). – (FR) The strategy developed in the excellent Barnier report with a view to making the most of the very considerable efforts made by Europeans in the field of emergency aid could supplement the Community civil protection mechanism instituted in 2001, whether the crisis were internal or external to the EU.

I particularly approve of the proposal aimed at basing this force in the EU’s seven outermost regions, which give Europe a human and territorial presence off the African coast - the Canaries and Madeira – in the Indian Ocean – Réunion – and in or close to the Americas – Guiana, Martinique, Guadeloupe and the Azores – not to mention the overseas territories in the Pacific: French Polynesia and New Caledonia.

We must follow the example of the French Red Cross, which has created overseas-based teams for responding to humanitarian crises. These are capable of rushing to the area concerned in less than 24 hours, setting up emergency hospitals and providing tents, medicines, water supplies, telecommunications and logistical support.

In order to give practical expression to the ‘Europe of projects’, the European Union must take initiatives inspired by a clear, comprehensible and strong political will.

Enhanced civil protection on the part of Europe would involve a federative dimension, strongly identifying the action concerned as European, and, in accordance with the principle of solidarity dear to our Community, would represent a source of pride for our fellow citizens.

IN THE CHAIR: MR MAURO
Vice-President

14. Framework for European Regulatory Agencies (debate)

  President. The next item is the debate on the Council and Commission statements on the framework for European regulatory agencies.

  Paula Lehtomäki, President-in-Office of the Council. (FI) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union and its citizens need effective agencies that work transparently. As you know, in order to promote this objective, on 28 June 2004 the Council adopted conclusions on the Commission communication on the operating framework for the European Regulatory Agencies.

In these conclusions, the Council focussed attention on the Commission’s intention to put forward the proposal as a legally binding instrument, which would define the Regulatory Agencies’ horizontal operating framework. It was the Council’s opinion that the proposal should deal with such issues as the establishment, work and monitoring of regulatory agencies, to ensure, in particular, that there would be consistency, transparency, good governance, credibility and cost-effectiveness, and that their activities would be lawful.

Afterwards, in February 2005, the Commission drafted an interinstitutional agreement on the operating framework for the European Regulatory Agencies. The proposal stated that the purpose of the interinstitutional agreement was to reinforce the horizontal framework for the establishment, structure, work, evaluation and monitoring of the Regulatory Agencies.

When the draft was being considered at working group level, however, the Council, in April 2005, took the view that there could be no agreement on the issue in the form of an interinstitutional agreement, at least in terms of its content. Nor was it considered possible to admit any legal basis for the Regulatory Agencies, because there is none in the Treaty for a legal act of this kind. In Council discussions, various models were proposed for moving forward in this matter. There was no agreement, however, on how this could be achieved.

During our Presidency, we have pondered various options for establishing an interinstitutional agreement on the Regulatory Agencies. We have been paying particular attention to the content of the Commission’s proposal and the matter of a legal basis. The time has never been ripe, however, for a completely new proposal by the Commission. So fresh talks on the matter have also been impossible to organise. It is nonetheless clear that there is a need for more discussions on both the content of any forthcoming Commission proposal as well as its format.

It is important to remember that any horizontal operating framework in respect of the agencies must also function practically. There needs to be a guarantee that there is a real need for their establishment and work, with a proper analysis of the cost-effectiveness of the project. The Finnish Presidency is very aware that the European Parliament has focussed its attention on this matter on several occasions.

In its draft for an interinstitutional agreement, the Commission stressed that the Regulatory Bodies would have a public service function to perform. They would improve the implementation and application of Community rules everywhere in the European Union. Thus, it is not just a question of the creation of a legally binding framework to enhance the work of the Union. We need to show the general public that the Union is trying to step up progress on issues that are important to them, credibly and cost-effectively, and in this case with the help of Regulatory Agencies.

  Margot Wallström, Vice-president of the Commission. Mr President, the Commission still considers that an interinstitutional agreement seems the best solution for a framework for regulatory agencies. Only this legal instrument has the advantage of involving the three institutions from the outset and allows all three to agree good rules of governance applicable to regulatory agencies.

The recent creation of a number of new agencies, with more on the way, makes the case for progress still stronger. We now have 21 agencies under the first pillar with 2 more on the way: the Gender Institute and the Chemicals Agency to be created under the REACH regulation.

We all seem to agree on the desirability of action. If the problem is the instrument by which we should move forward and the proposed interinstitutional agreement is questioned, then the Council needs to explain what alternative it proposes.

The Commission is prepared to consider alternatives but needs to know how the Council would like to take this matter forward.

  Georgios Papastamkos, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (EL) Mr President, the function of European regulatory agencies is closely linked both to multi-level European governance and to the European strategy on better lawmaking. The state of interinstitutional inertia which this issue has reached leads me to address the following questions to the Council and to the Commission:

First, do the basic terms and criteria for the operating framework of the regulatory agencies need to be defined or not?

Secondly, the number of regulatory agencies appears to be on the increase, thereby exacerbating fragmentation and a lack of transparency and uniformity. Will the Commission and the Council help towards rationalisation, transparency, democratic control and a horizontal approach to regulatory agencies?

Thirdly, the Commission has postponed its initiative. The European Parliament has also, in turn, formulated its positions ambiguously. Should the institutional diplomacy of silence on the part of the Council be interpreted as the postponement of the matter ad calendas grecas?

Fourthly, does the Council – and we expect a clear answer – consider the Commission's draft interinstitutional agreement to be a live text?

Fifthly, is the Commission prepared, should the Council take action, to reassess its draft and to restore it with new wording, so that it can form the basis for an interinstitutional agreement?

  Jo Leinen, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (DE) Mr President, this state of affairs is, indeed, completely unsatisfactory. There are 21 European agencies and a confusing plethora of models, all of them impenetrable to the public and Europe’s citizens, even, indeed, to the bodies – such as this Parliament – representing them. It is no good example of good and proper government that it should no longer be possible to gain an insight into what goes on in them.

As long ago as 2003, we warned that new arrangements would have to be made for these agencies, and we said so again in 2005; another year has now gone by, and nothing has happened. Things cannot carry on like this. The presidency really must make the effort to establish consensus in the Council as to how it may join with the other institutions – the Commission and Parliament – in putting together an agreement on the administration and accountability of these agencies. As has been said, we are dealing here with things that the public are interested in; the Food Safety Authority, the Medicines Agency, the Chemicals Agency, the Environment Agency – all these have to do with things in which the people out there are interested, and if nobody has a clue as to who is responsible or how they work it is hardly surprising that people find European politics frustrating.

I have to tell the President-in-Office that what the Council is actually doing is forcing Parliament to have recourse to sharper weapons, for she will have seen how the Committee on Budgets did not release the funds for the new agencies, even though we actually want them. The funds for the human rights agency, the Agency for Gender Equality and the Chemicals Agency, rather than being released, have been put in reserve in what is almost an emergency operation aimed at compelling the Council to clarify matters once and for all, and I hope that she will succeed in getting things moving on this front.

  Andrew Duff, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, I think it is fair to remind ourselves what would be the position without the existence of these regulatory agencies performing a vital supervisory function at the federal level. If they were not to exist, the Commission would need to grow one vast centralised bureaucracy and appoint an army of prefects and inspecteurs de finances to patrol the Union.

But we should develop a far less spontaneous and more coordinated approach to setting up the agencies. They should become an example of modern European governance: consultative, transparent, autonomous and accountable. Parliament itself should exercise a greater degree of self-restraint here and retain a dispassionate scrutiny, so that we are able to exercise our authority for the discharge.

I agree with the Commission that an interinstitutional agreement is sorely needed, but if it is blocked I would ask the Commission to consider a regulation on the basis of Article 308.

  Paula Lehtomäki, President-in-Office of the Council. (FI) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, first may I say thank you for the comments which the Presidency has received on this issue from the various teams. As I said in my opening speech, this autumn we have thought about and tried to find different alternatives to this interinstitutional agreement. The particularly crucial aspects of the Commission’s proposal are its content and the issue of a legal basis.

It is absolutely essential that we create a regulatory environment and an operating framework that function successfully, rationally and cost-effectively, where it concerns practical matters as well. We clearly need continued debate among the Member States to hone this project, and we shall endeavour to promote and fine-tune this debate throughout our presidential term.

  Margot Wallström, Vice-President of the Commission. Mr President, this could be the right moment to repeat the common set of good governance principles that the Commission wanted to include in an interinstitutional agreement to oversee and help the functioning of these agencies, because it would give a definition of these agencies and would create rules on their creation, structure and functioning, including issues of transparency, evaluation and control. In all this discussion about the format, it is important to remember the content.

We in the Commission are ready to explore the option mentioned by Mr Duff of considering a regulation under Article 308. We are open to exploring that option. However, as far as the decision-making process is concerned, the European Parliament, for example, would only have a consultative role in the content of the future regulation. That is why our preference was for an interinstitutional agreement.

Finally, I can only express our hopes for a dialogue on these issues. We shall continue to look for the most appropriate, effective and cost-effective method to deal with these necessary issues to try to establish some common rules and a common set of good governance principles for the agencies.

(The sitting was suspended at 5.20 p.m. and resumed at 5.35 p.m.)

  President. As I explained earlier, the sitting was suspended because Parliament’s work was running ahead of time for the first time in this legislative period.

15. A Baltic Sea Strategy for the Northern Dimension (debate)

  President. The next item is the report (A6-0367/2006) by Alexander Stubb, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, on a Baltic Sea strategy for the northern dimension (2006/2171(INI)).

  Alexander Stubb (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – Mr President, thank you for those kind words. I will try to be like a talkative Finn and use a maximum of five minutes of your time.

I would like to set three questions. First of all, what is this report all about? Secondly, why are we tabling this report? And thirdly, what do we actually want?

On the first question of what this report is about, it is about a Baltic Sea Strategy for the Northern Dimension. I will stress that again, especially for the Finns sitting across the table. It is a Baltic Sea Strategy for the Northern Dimension, so the aim is to strengthen that concept.

Our thinking in this report is that the Northern Dimension is based on three wonderful pillars. One of them is what we call the Paavo Väyrynen pillar, in other words the Arctic. The second is what we might call the Mr Paasilinna pillar, which is Russia, and the third is what we would call the Mr Beazley pillar, which is the Baltic and the Baltic Sea Strategy. This report focuses on the Baltic Sea Strategy only.

The report has three aims. One: to support the Northern Dimension. Two: to make the Baltic Sea a priority of the Northern Dimension – we firmly believe that should be the key area of the Northern Dimension itself. Three: we want to raise awareness of the Baltic Sea as a brand, as a concept.

Why are we tabling this report and why are we tabling it now? The first reason is general, and it is that after enlargement in 2004 the Baltic Sea became an inner sea, a mare nostrum. We have eight EU States around the sea, one of them is non-EU, that is Russia and then of course there is Kaliningrad. But basically it is an EU sea.

We have a wonderful window of opportunity for two reasons. The first is that we have the Finnish Presidency, which gives us an opportunity to push this issue forward, and the second is that we have an EU-Russia summit on 24 November. That is why we wanted to push this through as fast as possible.

For those who have not visited the Baltic Sea, I remember from when I was a child that in many places you could actually see the bottom of the Baltic Sea. The average depth is 58 metres. Standing on the pier you could see to the bottom. It was clear. You could see the seaweed. It was a wonderful place to swim in. For those who have been there lately, it is green gunk nowadays. Green gunk! It is really nasty. It is in really bad shape. Oxygen levels are very low. You can see virtually nothing at all. It is time to react.

58 metres average depth! It takes 30 years for a drop of water to go in, and then out of the Baltic Sea, so the circulation is very slow. People from the Mediterranean may have a completely different understanding of water. They see the Mediterranean – clear, blue and wonderful. We see green and nasty. Something needs to be done.

This report also deals with the economy. It deals with culture and security.

The third and final point: what do we want? One could summarise the report in religious terms, saying that we want the Ten Commandments of the Baltic Sea. The First Commandment goes to Mrs Wallström and her team. It is that we want the Commission to take an initiative on the Baltic Sea Strategy. It would be wonderful if the Commission could do that in one form or another.

The Second is for a summit meeting before every European Council, where the Heads of State and Governments of the Baltic Sea region, including Germany, get together and discuss their positions.

Third – and this has been an issue that has had overwhelming support among the people around the region, although there are one or two who disagree – we want a separate budget line. We may think the world revolves around money. But if you want to have a true Baltic Sea Strategy, you need policies, and for those policies you need money. It is as simple as that. We are not saying this should be the only source. As in the case of the Northern Dimension, support could come, for instance, from the ENP.

The Fourth Commandment is environmental protection, for instance the idea of protected areas.

The Fifth is a rather topical issue, and that is an energy market and an energy policy for this area. Of course I will not mention the pipeline between Russia and Germany in this instance.

The Sixth Commandment is infrastructure. We need to work on infrastructure. That means water, air, rail and roads, to get the infrastructure to work well.

Seventh, we would like to see the application of all four free movements in the area, that is, the free movement of money, the free movement of people, the free movement of goods and the free movement of services.

Eighth, we would like to have good exchange among centres of excellence. We would like to have good student exchanges.

Ninth, and this is a pet subject of Mr Lax, we would like to have fluid border crossings. Finns know the problems with that.

Tenth, we need the increased presence of Europol.

All in all, I ask for three practical things. One: a Commission initiative. Two: for the Finnish Presidency to bring up this issue as part of the Northern Dimension package at the EU-Russia summit. Four amendments have been tabled. As rapporteur, I will put a plus sign in my voting list on two of those, and that is the amendment by the Greens and the amendment by Mrs Jäättenmäki of the ALDE. On the third one, which has to do with the Arctic region, I suggest a split vote. On one part, I will certainly put a minus, on the other one I will put a plus. On the final amendment, by Mr Väyrynen, which suggests that there should be no separate budget line, I will put a minus and would ask most of my colleagues to do the same.

That is what the Baltic Sea Strategy is about, why we have it, and what we want.

(Applause)

  President. This Presidency also takes note that you are desperate for a Mediterranean holiday. We shall ask the Italian delegation to invite you down.

  Paula Lehtomäki, President-in-Office of the Council. (FI) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the European Parliament plenary part-session is this week discussing several issues to do with the sea, as it is now with the Baltic Sea strategy. The Presidency is delighted that regional issues are being discussed as part of a wider whole. On Monday you held a debate on the EU marine environment strategy and directive, which again are a component in the EU’s maritime policy now being prepared. The parliamentary conference on the Northern Dimension planned for next spring is a welcome example of Parliament’s interest in Nordic issues.

Baltic Sea issues affect the eight Member States of the Union that border the Baltic, as well as Russia, very directly. Norway and Iceland are also involved in Baltic Sea cooperation as members of the Council of Baltic Sea States. An important shipping waterway, the Baltic Sea is important for all EU countries.

Broad, horizontal cooperation is therefore needed both within the Union and between the EU and Russia and other partners on issues of the environment, energy, traffic, training, justice and home affairs and matters of health. The Union’s common maritime policy presently being drafted will also serve to strengthen this cooperation. To achieve concrete results, there will also have to be more effective use made of the Union’s internal funding programmes and external relations instruments. Furthermore, there will need to be opportunities for cross-border cooperation, which is also supported by the new Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument.

The rapporteur’s speech makes mention of the Northern Dimension, and it is proposed that the Baltic Sea Strategy is part of it, but the Northern Dimension is also a component in the EU’s external relations policy. It covers the operating sectors in the Four Common Spaces adopted by the EU and Russia, as well as environmental, social and public health issues. The Baltic Sea is one of the target areas for the Northern Dimension, along with northwest Russia, Kaliningrad and the Arctic regions.

One of the aims of the Finnish Presidency is the review of policy under the Northern Dimension on the basis of the decisions taken at the Northern Dimension ministerial meeting held in November last year. The new Framework Document for the Northern Dimension was negotiated this year between the EU, Russia, Norway and Iceland. The Framework Document and the Political Declaration connected with it are to be adopted on Friday next week in Helsinki. We believe that the new, jointly agreed policy is likely to strengthen the commitment of partners to the Northern Dimension and to provide a firm basis for practical cooperation in the Baltic Region. We also hope that a reinforced Northern Dimension will help clarify the work and division of labour associated with the diverse network of cooperation in the Baltic and Arctic Regions.

The Baltic Sea’s ecological state is worrying, and calls for urgent action in accordance with the principles of sustainable development. The European Union, individual countries and international financial institutions have pooled their resources within a framework of environmental partnership under the Northern Dimension. Several governments, organisations, in particular HELCOM (the Helsinki Commission), and other players are working to rescue the marine environment of the Baltic Sea. Northern Dimension environmental partnership projects mainly focus on northwest Russia, but their impact benefits all the countries in the region. As a result, the Baltic Sea is, fortunately, already a crucial area for the Northern Dimension.

A key instrument in the future for improving the state of all European seas, the Baltic included, will be the EU’s Marine Strategy Directive. Its aim is the achievement of ‘good environmental status’ by the year 2021. It is an ambitious goal, and efforts to attain it must be started immediately. The Finnish Presidency will try to find political consensus on the directive in the Council in December.

The Partnership in Public Health and Social Wellbeing also functions within the framework of the Northern Dimension, and this is aimed at preventing contagious diseases and lifestyle illnesses as well as reducing social problems. A new element in the Northern Dimension is also being drafted in the shape of a Transport and Logistics Partnership. The importance of viable transport communications and efficient logistics for economic growth and competitiveness is underlined more than ever when our economies are interlinked.

Right now the European Commission is drafting a new and wide-ranging European maritime policy, one which takes account of the economic, political and environmental values associated with Europe’s seas and coastal areas. The Baltic Sea is one important sea area in Europe, and special attention should be paid to its special problems. That is also true when it comes to developing the EU’s maritime policy. This evening’s debate certainly serves this purpose.

The EU’s maritime policy will be a good opportunity for cooperation among the Member States. This is necessary, as the special characteristics of the northern and Arctic regions and exploitation of the region’s potential will require joint research projects and technological development on the part of the EU Member States. In cooperation with third countries typical of the region, existing international agreements and organisations are made use of. The large number of challenges in the Baltic Sea area, such as marine conservation, safety at sea, fishing, sustainable use of coastlines and the development of the region’s maritime sector, all call for effective, horizontal cooperation. The Baltic Sea area is a splendid opportunity to test the EU’s maritime policy now being drafted and make it beneficial to the entire Union.

The Baltic Sea issue is important, and it is a positive sign that serious attention is being paid to it in the European Union and here in Parliament. I just have to say that some of the rapporteur’s ideas, these Ten Commandments, are already a reality. It is beneficial and vital to the Baltic question that all the countries in the region are involved in the programme of cooperation and that they are genuinely committed to resolving the challenges that they share. It is this kind of joint commitment that we need to strive to accomplish in cooperation on the Baltic Sea.

  Margot Wallström, Vice-President of the Commission. Mr President, the Commission is most grateful to Mr Stubb for his report, and welcomes the opportunity for a debate. There is no mistaking his commitment and determination. The Baltic Sea is a very important sea for the European Union, since eight of the nine countries with a Baltic shoreline are EU Member States. It is a meeting point for the European Union and Russia. With this in mind, the new Northern Dimension Policy Framework Document, to be adopted later this month, will have as its priority areas the Baltic and Barents Seas, Kaliningrad and the Arctic.

The new Northern Dimension policy will be the regional expression, in the North, of the EU-Russia Common Spaces, with the full involvement of Norway and Iceland. The Northern Dimension will also have its own priorities: health and social wellbeing and the protection of indigenous peoples in the High North, as well as particular emphasis on the environment and culture.

A common new Northern Dimension policy implies that all the partners will be bound by the same goal: its success. Accordingly, cofinancing will be the rule, particularly in a context of an increasingly wealthy Russian Federation.

The Northern Dimension should not only be project-oriented, it should ensure a continuous policy dialogue on the various challenges and opportunities. The four Northern Regional Councils the Baltic, Barents, Nordic and Arctic Councils are important actors in this dialogue.

The Commission is grateful for the attention Parliament has paid to this policy, and particularly for its resolution of 16 November 2005 ahead of the Northern Dimension ministerial meeting. The Commission also commends the Parliament’s initiative to call for the first conference of a Northern Dimension Parliamentary Forum early next year.

As for a Baltic Strategy within the Northern Dimension that we are discussing today, the Commission will bear this report by Parliament in mind during the discussions at the Northern Dimension event at which the new policy is to be adopted and which will be held back to back with the forthcoming EU-Russia Summit in Helsinki in the presence of the Prime Ministers of Norway and Iceland.

The Northern Dimension is an EU external policy, but it is clearly important to improve the inter-relationship between EU internal policies and the Northern Dimension. That is why the Commission gives such priority to cross-border cooperation, which is one of the main value-added elements of the Northern Dimension. This is indeed a field where internal and external policies necessarily meld together.

The Baltic Sea is now a Northern Dimension priority because we are concerned about its fragile environment and the increasing traffic through its waters, as is correctly highlighted in the report. There are other less tangible threats to the citizens of the Baltic Sea region, including the fight against organised crime, human trafficking, transmissible diseases and unhealthy lifestyles. All of these require our close cooperation with Russia, as well as with Norway and Iceland. Furthermore, we see great potential for economic cooperation across the Baltic Sea with Russia. These are all important objectives to which the Northern Dimension can make a great contribution and which will be elaborated upon in the future. EU internal policies, with their own tasks and their own instruments, will of course also make a major contribution to meeting these challenges in EU Member States in the Baltic Sea region, and these should be debated in the appropriate contexts.

The Commission looks forward to using the new Northern Dimension policy to provide added value in a forum embracing Russia, Norway and Iceland in order to meet the many challenges facing the northern part of our continent. In this context, the Commission welcomes the report by Parliament and will certainly convey the importance of the Baltic Sea region. I will try to integrate relevant elements of this report into the implementation of the new common Northern Dimension policy.

  Giles Chichester (PPE-DE), Draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy. – Mr President, I would like to focus on three of the issues raised in my committee’s opinion.

First, I would like to stress our view of the importance of further exploitation of offshore wind energy in the Baltic and the demonstration of different types of wave energy concepts.

Secondly, I would like to emphasise the importance of developing further cooperation with Russia. We want to cooperate on energy matters that ensure respect for the principles of reciprocity and transparency and we want to encourage Russia to ratify the Energy Charter Treaty and the Energy Charter Protocol on transit. We have a concern about the supply of gas from Russia to Europe.

Thirdly, we invite Northern Dimension member countries to be aware of the importance of two EU programmes in our committee’s area of responsibility: Galileo and SESAR, because we believe that the commitment of northern dimension parties to both of these would reinforce sustainable growth and competitiveness in the region.

  Christopher Beazley, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – My prepared speech has been brilliantly summarised by Mr Stubb, the rapporteur, so I should simply like to put two questions.

First of all to the Minister, Mrs Lehtomäki, would she accept that, as the debate has already underlined, circumstances have completely changed since Finland first devised the Northern Dimension? In other words, there are now eight EU Member States, not four, around the Baltic Sea, not all of which see the Northern Dimension in the same light. The reason, for example, that the EU-Russia embellishment process has been stalled, as we know, is that Poland has a reserve over Russia’s refusal to ratify the Energy Charter. So would she accept that it would be very helpful at the Council of Ministers, at the preparatory phase of the Northern Dimension discussions and negotiations, first to have an internal EU discussion involving the eight EU Baltic States?

Secondly, I am very grateful to Commissioner Wallström for her comments and for agreeing to incorporate much of the report into the Commission’s thinking about evolving and developing the Northern Dimension into the future. But she did, I think, neglect to refer to the budget. It seems to me that this is not a question of Parliament coming cap in hand, begging for support. We are, after all, an arm of the EU’s budgetary authority; it therefore seems to me logical and coherent that, if this is going to be an important element, there would be mechanisms and systems whereby, just as in other parts of the EU – EuroMed for example – we have a dedicated budget. We should give serious consideration to this and not brush it under the carpet.

My final point is addressed again to Commissioner Wallström, and concerns communication, which is her brief. It seems that this is an exercise which can bring a real message of accomplishment and achievement to the citizens of the EU, to show that a region dislocated completely by the Cold War can now have harmony, prosperity and stability restored. So I think this debate should be taken out into the field, to the public, to show a real success story for the EU.

(Applause)

  Justas Vincas Paleckis, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (LT) The Baltic Sea Strategy for the Northern Dimension is certainly a significant document. It reflects the merit of Alexander Stubb, the rapporteur, and the entire Baltic European Intergroup who have worked hard on it.

The storms of the Cold War have caused larger damage to the Baltic coast than to any other sea coast in terms of political, economic and ecological damage. We can feel it even now, when the Baltic Sea is becoming an internal sea of the EU. The intervening Russian coast provides a great opportunity to cooperate with this country.

The region, with its population of 85 million, is one of the economically and socially strongest in the EU; the welfare state model is implemented in many areas here. However, differences in the standards of living among these countries are shocking, and the increase of social exclusion in some places is threatening. This Strategy should help to overcome such trends.

Particular attention has been paid to environmental protection, economy and transportation. All three elements of this triad are highly dependent on energy and energy security, which is violated when any one country exerts excessive potential or ambition. Therefore, the countries in the region need a common energy market. Even more attention should be paid to efficient energy use and to renewable energy resources. Discussions and specific actions concerning nuclear energy are inevitable. At the beginning of December, a power bridge will link Estonia and Finland and it must be reinforced with similar bridges between Lithuania and Sweden, and Lithuania and Poland. The Strategy urges more rapid and firm networking of highways, railways and seaways in Northern and Central Europe. Poland is right at the main crossroads. If Warsaw fails to pay more attention to these projects, they will remain on paper for a long time.

The Baltic Sea is shallow and very vulnerable ecologically. More than 60 tanker accidents and 400 illegal oil spills at sea are recorded every year. The sea absorbs the unprocessed wastewater of a population of over a million living along the coast. Therefore, seacoast protection zones must be established and extended, and more restrictive environmental protection standards must be applied than the ones presently provided for in the EU directives.

The European Union would like to have not merely a good but also a reliable neighbour in the Kaliningrad Region of the Russian Federation. Georgiy Boos, the governor of the region, is treating Kaliningrad as a Russian window on Europe, as well as the EU’s on Russia. We would like this window to be wide open to fresh winds of cooperation. A wider opening of this window, or an opposite process, would manifest the direction that Russia is moving in.

The proposal to assign a separate budget line for funding this Strategy would demonstrate the affinity and innovation of the Baltic region. I am convinced of its worth, since it may and must become a laboratory for new ideas, projects and innovations which are equally significant on a larger scale.

(Applause)

  Paavo Väyrynen, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (FI) Mr President, the Northern Dimension is being strengthened in a way that is gratifying. Here in the European Parliament we presented an initiative last year on a Baltic Sea Strategy realised within the framework of the Northern Dimension, and now we have a special report on it. It covers cooperation between the EU and its Member States, on the one hand, and cooperation with Russia, on the other. The Commission and the Council have themselves negotiated agreements with Russia, Norway and Iceland, whereby the Northern Dimension of the Union’s external relations policy will be a policy common to these countries and the Union. These agreements are to be signed at the end of November in Helsinki.

The Commission should draw up a proposal for a Baltic Sea Strategy, as requested by Parliament, as soon as possible. The Strategy should cover all areas of policy and both internal and external policy. Its preparation and implementation will require the input of all the Commission’s Directorates-General, and it should be financed out of all the relevant budget lines.

The Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe does not think it wise to have a separate budget line for the Baltic Sea Strategy. We are now amassing budget funds for neighbouring regions in the shape of the new European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument. No good purpose will be served in splitting it up into new budget lines, and it would not increase funding for the Baltic Sea area; in fact it would more likely have the opposite effect. It is of course a sexy notion that Mr Stubb has frequently spoken about, but we have to consider things from the point of view of substance, and not image.

The next step could be that the European Parliament might draft a new comprehensive report on the Northern Dimension that would take account of the Baltic Sea report now being discussed, on the one hand, and the agreements concluded with our neighbouring countries, Russia, Norway and Iceland, on the other. I would finally like to thank Mr Stubb for his excellent levels of cooperation in drafting this report.

IN THE CHAIR: EDWARD McMILLAN-SCOTT
Vice-President

  Inese Vaidere, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (LV) Ladies and gentlemen, I would first of all like to congratulate Alexander Stubb on his excellent report. The enlargement of the European Union to take in the Baltic States created an objective need for a revised Northern Dimension instrument. The accession of the new Member States is opening up unprecedented opportunities. The Baltic Sea region may become the most dynamic and competitive region in the world, and this will be a huge benefit for the entire European Union economy in helping to make the Lisbon Strategy a reality. The Northern Dimension must become a permanent instrument, identifying the Baltic Sea region as a priority. It is very important to strengthen its internal pillar. If the states in the region create a common energy market and promote the use of renewable sources of energy as well as energy efficiency projects, they have an opportunity to reduce their energy dependence on Russia. In the formulation of new energy projects it is very important to involve all the European Union Member States that are stakeholders and to carry out an international environmental impact assessment, so that we may avoid a recurrence of the current situation with the potential construction of the North European gas pipeline. The development of cooperation with Russia is one of the Northern Dimension’s important tasks. The Baltic States have a significant history of relations with Russia and accumulated experience that may produce good results. At the moment Russia — which in terms of resources is one of the richest countries in the world — is in some curious way still receiving assistance from various European Union programmes. The principle of parity and cooperation should replace such an approach. In order for the Northern Dimension to be able to carry out its tasks, it needs a stable financial basis. On this point, our views differ from the previous speaker, and we think that a separate budget line is necessary, to add to the existing resources from various sources. This would make it possible to develop highly necessary infrastructure projects, such as Rail Baltica, a Baltic motorway and others.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE-DE). – (LT) The Baltic Sea, as it has been previously mentioned today, is the inner sea of the European Union bordered by nine countries, eight of which are Member States of the European Union with the ninth being Russia, specifically its Kaliningrad and St Petersburg regions. One third of the EU population lives in these eight Member States, contributing one third of the gross domestic product of the European Union. Till now, the Northern Dimension was mostly targeted at the Russian regions; therefore, supplementing it with the Baltic Sea Strategy would enrich the Northern Dimension with additional specific content.

The Baltic Sea region leads in competitiveness compared with three other EU regions: Central Europe, the British Isles and the Iberian Peninsula. Over the last few years, the Baltic Sea region has taken the lead over other European regions in terms of such indicators as wellbeing, productivity growth and scientific innovation. The key advantages of this region are a good physical infrastructure, qualified labour force, low level of corruption and strong research sector. Nevertheless, the poorly implemented competitive potential of the region must be noted. Since not a single country here has a market of sufficient size to develop necessary competitive pressure; therefore, the solution is clear, that is to increase the integration of the region.

The European Parliament should approve an article of our resolution suggesting (start of quote): 'in pursuit of transparency and consistency (...), to assign the Baltic Sea Strategy a separate budget line, most likely under the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument, where, along with the current funding of the Northern Dimension, additional funds would be provided' (end of quote).

Apprehensions about the European Commission declining to pursue this idea are groundless. It is much more important to persuade the EU Member States, especially those outside this region, to support this Strategy, since better integration of this region presents potential not only for the whole EU becoming more dynamic and competitive, but also for resolving other EU issues, such as energy security, common energy policy and better relations with Russia.

  Józef Pinior (PSE). – (PL) Mr President, the European Parliament’s resolution supports the Northern Dimension policy and defines the North Sea region as a priority area. Since enlargement in 2004, the Baltic Sea has virtually become an internal sea, the ‘Mare Nostrum’, of the European Union.

The Baltic region could become an example of the most dynamic economic region in the European Union, evidence of the development of a European economy based on cutting-edge technology, an economy that is modern and competitive on a global scale. In this context, we must stress the need to protect the Baltic Sea ecosystem, which is extremely vulnerable as the Sea is shallow, its waters circulate slowly and pollution levels are high.

Particular attention must be paid to promoting innovation in the field of research and raising the issues of culture and civil society.

The Baltic Sea, which links the European Union, Russia, Norway and Iceland, should become an example of an area of peace and security.

I would particularly like to highlight the opportunities which exist for transforming the Kaliningrad rayon into a pilot region, with better access to the internal market. These opportunities have been discussed in joint talks between the European Union and Russia.

Cooperation in the Baltic Sea region could point the way forward in this part of our continent, and mark out a way towards cooperation with Russia and other countries.

  Diana Wallis (ALDE). – Mr President, of course we congratulate the rapporteur on his report and the points of interest it has raised, but I would not be fulfilling my role as President of this Parliament’s Delegation for Relations with Iceland and Norway if I did not express some regret at the absence of a report or a resolution that expressed the full sweep of the Northern Dimension policy. I regret that fact because I feel that we are, therefore, neglecting the big geopolitical issues that face us in the High North that find their focus in climate change, in energy supply, in marine resources. Of course those issues concern the Baltic hugely, but they also concern the Arctic and the High North. And if we want to bring our partner countries, Norway and Iceland, with us, then we have to reach out and not be inward-looking.

We have previously striven, as a Parliament, when we have talked about this issue, to bring the Northern Dimension away from just a ministerial level of policy. We have striven to bring it back to parliamentarians, into the ownership of parliamentarians across the region. I hope we will be able to do that in the meeting we seek to host at the beginning of next year.

But let me emphasise again: the Northern Dimension should not be just about us. This year the Commission concluded a very important agreement with Greenland. It may be a small thing, but it shows that the Arctic window is open and should remain open, and that there should be activity beyond our borders. Next year is International Polar Year. I hope that we will raise both our vision and our eyes to the High North and give it the focus and the attention it deserves next year within the Northern Dimension policy.

  Hanna Foltyn-Kubicka (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on having prepared a good report on the future of the Baltic Sea. When we discuss the specific characteristics of the region, however, we should not forget important factors which have shaped its character, which include historical factors, such as the stocks of chemical weapons from World War II that remain at the bottom of the Baltic Sea.

There is also the matter of a delicate ecosystem, additionally threatened by an increased volume of sea transport and planned investments, such as the construction of a northern gas pipeline, which could lead to an ecological disaster. Before undertaking such activities, it is vital to carry out a very careful analysis of their potential influence on the natural environment. It is also important to set up a consultation procedure with the interested parties and be prepared to amend any planned work if it turns out that it may have a negative impact on the ecosystem of the Baltic.

Ecological issues and national interests in the region also have to be taken into account when building the planned marine highway. We need to ensure that there is equal access to Baltic sea ports and the benefits the motorway will provide. It is also important to ensure close cooperation between the Member States in the building energy networks, and solidarity amongst the European Union Member States in their relations with Russia. At the moment, Poland is blocking any agreement with Russia, until Russia opens its doors to our meat and agricultural products. The European Union has responded by saying that the West has no intention of freezing for the sake of Polish sausages. We remember the expression ‘we don't want to die for the sake of Gdańsk’, and we all know how that story ended.

(Applause)

  Vytautas Landsbergis (PPE-DE). – (LT) Mr President, the report being discussed is an important step for the whole European Union. A change in the political thinking of the New Age is coming to the fore which could be characterised by the concept of 'discovering the Baltic'.

The Baltic Sea consists of water, its coast and bottom, just as other seas. The Baltic waters are shallow and the worst polluted among all of Europe’s Atlantic seas. The bottom of the Baltic Sea is already dead in many places, and whether a new Dead Sea will emerge in Europe depends on us. This process was accelerated by many German chemical weapons submerged here at the end of World War II, including bombs and canon balls with dioxin, mustard gas and other ‘souvenirs’ which are starting to pose hazards after 60 years of corrosion. This constitutes a threat of tremendous catastrophe, both to the water and the coast. The coast is particularly attractive for its white sandy beaches and pine forests; the Curonian Spit is part of the UNESCO World Cultural Heritage registry. Its beauty is a creation of nature and people; now, people are likely to destroy it and nature is unable to defend it. The eastern coast of the sea is populated by ancient nations not willing to submit to ecological catastrophes caused by post-Soviet capitalism.

Today, I would like to emphasise not only the responsibility of Gazprom, but also of the German Government, for the outcomes of the Russian-German agreement concerning the so-called Northern Gas Pipeline, if repositories of lethal poisons at the bottom of the Baltic Sea are affected during construction.

The European Union, which blessed the funding of the pipeline without any investigation or warranty, should take even greater responsibility for the manifold negative outcomes of this alleged ‘good business’, meaning responsibility for the outcomes of economic discrimination and the political disintegration of Europe, as well as the ecological and demographic outcomes of potential disasters.

It is good that we will adopt this initial European Baltic Strategy document and are beginning to realise the responsibility.

  Andres Tarand (PSE). – (ET) In January 1990, Finnish prime minister Kalevi Sorsa held a Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference with the objective of developing new directions in regional cooperation in the new political situation. Unfortunately the representatives of the Baltic States were forced to spoil the conference, since we could already clearly see Russia’s malevolent behaviour, which was tangibly expressed in the attack against the television tower in Vilnius a few days later. We then used the platform to call the world’s attention to this danger, and other objectives received less attention.

We did, however, present a strategic plan on behalf of the Green Party. In rereading this, I noticed that, despite the drastic political changes that have taken place, this has not improved the environmental protection of the Baltic Sea itself. One of our recommendations was to put an end to all oil transport on the Baltic Sea. Instead, the volume of oil transport rose threefold.

The Russian newspaper Независимая газета (Independent Newspaper) yesterday printed an article on the Baltic Sea gas pipeline. The article claims that a proposal will now be made to the Baltic Sea states for the performance of the necessary ecological studies. That is excellent, but unfortunately in the wrong order. Attention was first devoted to political, then economic and only then to ecological conditions, as a form of decoration, as it were. The end of the article is also noteworthy – the opponents of the gas pipeline plan to torpedo the whole operation using ammunition sunk during the Second World War. The 6th Gas Pipeline in Urengoy apparently suffered the same fate, which was allegedly the sole reason for the collapse of the Soviet Union.

I would like to bring to your attention to the fact that all of the conditions were favourable for the timely performance of an ecological assessment in the Baltic Sea, as well as the environmental protection organisation HELCOM and eighty years of academic cooperation.

In sum: our delegation approves of Alexander Stubb’s approach, and wishes to thank him warmly for this. We also believe that, in accordance with Stubb’s three pillars, there is no need to include the Arctic in the Baltic Sea strategy. In our opinion, it would be worth opening – for planned work with the Baltic Sea environment, and much more – a new line in the European Union budget for this sea, which is unique in the world.

  Henrik Lax (ALDE). – (SV) Mr President, as one of those who first mooted, and then helped to found, the Baltic Europe Intergroup network, I have for two years had the pleasure of contributing to the work that has now led to this report.

When the EU enlarged to include ten new Member States, it became possible to reunite the nations around the Baltic Sea. Now, the heart of the region can give the Northern Dimension its vital spark. The EU must make use of the Baltic Sea region’s considerable potential. The quicker the new Member States can increase their prosperity, the stronger the EU will become in relation to its neighbours. If this state of affairs is to be brought about, active measures are required on the part of the EU. We therefore need a practical programme from the Commission in which all the areas administered by the latter play their allotted role.

A strong Baltic Sea region is needed if issues important to the whole of the EU are to be resolved. Through direct contacts between people, we must break down the psychological barriers between West and East. We need a modern visa policy and better economic cooperation with Russia. We must resolve the border disputes in the Baltic, restore the ecological balance in the Baltic Sea, obtain an end to the Russian boycott of Polish foodstuffs and do away with the up to 30-mile-long queues of lorries at the border stations in eastern Finland. The EU is there to solve common problems. Vetoes need not be the only way of directing attention to important issues. A common EU strategy is therefore necessary. It is important for the Commission to lose no time in getting to grips with this issue, and Mr Stubb’s report is an excellent basis on which to do this.

  Zdzisław Zbigniew Podkański (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, the Baltic Sea, which today is virtually an internal sea of the European Union, is a matter of priority for both the economy of the region and the whole European Union.

Unfortunately, the Baltic is the most polluted area of marine water in the world. It therefore needs attention, that is to say a joint strategy and consistent collaboration between the countries of the European Union and Russia to implement this strategy.

It is therefore fortunate that an agreement on a new political declaration concerning the Northern Dimension and a strategic framework document will be discussed at the EU-Russia Summit in Helsinki, on 24 November.

When tackling the problem of the Baltic Sea, we must remember that around 85 million people live on its shores and that it contains rich and diverse animal and plant life, including many already endangered species. For centuries, this sea has fed millions of people and given not only fishermen and their families their livelihoods, but also those engaged in other activities. Seafaring people have also created their own culture, which we should protect with no less care than the natural environment, the beauty of the landscape and material wealth.

That is why we view the planned northern gas pipeline, and the associated dangers of chemical pollution and military mobilisation, with concern. The Baltic Sea is a treasure which we have inherited from our forefathers, together with the duty to pass it, and its values, on to future generations.

  Charles Tannock (PPE-DE). – Mr President, first of all let me congratulate the rapporteur, my friend Alexander Stubb, and my colleague Christopher Beazley for his good work as Chairman of the Baltic Intergroup.

I totally endorse Diana Wallis’s remarks about raising the EU’s profile in northern Europe. The Northern Dimension is a wide-ranging EU policy which governs EU relations with the north-west Russian areas, including Kaliningrad, the Baltic and the Arctic Sea regions. The Northern Dimension is implemented within the framework of the partnership and cooperation agreement with Russia. It is conceived as a way of working with the countries of Europe’s northern regions to increase prosperity, strengthen security and resolutely combat dangers such as the environmental pollution of the Baltic Sea, nuclear risks such as those posed by the Russian submarine fleet in the Kola Peninsula, cross-border crime and the management of marine resources, amongst others.

Eight EU Member States – Denmark, Germany, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Finland and Sweden – surround the Baltic Sea, and the EU’s shared border with Russia has lengthened significantly following enlargement. Nevertheless, EU-Russia relations cannot be dictated only by relations between the Baltic states and Russia. Our strategic partnership and our collective EU needs for energy security, as well as cooperation in the fight against terrorism and the need to carry Russia in areas like preventing nuclear proliferation from countries like Iran and North Korea, transcend regional issues such as those addressed by the Northern Dimension.

There is currently financial support from Tacis and Interreg, but shortly Russia will be part of the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument, and the EU should have a proper budget line for the region. Climate change is making the Arctic more accessible to human activities now, such as exploitation of natural resources and increased shipping, but the Arctic also has an important role to play as an early-warning sign for potentially catastrophic global climate change.

Russia’s energy exports can also be a political weapon, we have now discovered, as we saw last year in Ukraine and this year with Georgia. Now rumours abound that Russia wishes to set up an OPEC-style gas cartel, which we must resist at all costs. I call upon President Putin to get around to ratifying the EU Energy Charter, which would give all EU companies more access to Russian oil and gas. The EU must also invest more in renewables and low-carbon energy, while encouraging as much diversity in supply as possible.

  Katrin Saks (PSE). – (ET) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, although this is a shared sea, we have given it different names, and we must admit that we have not as yet come to see it as a shared space, or used all of its possibilities. Thus I warmly welcome the efforts made by Alexander Stubb and President Toomas Hendrik Ilves in creating this strategy.

Under the aegis of the Northern Dimension, our shared lake strategy could grow into something even bigger. I believe that in a globalising world and a multicultural, even expanding European Union, we all seek new identities, and the Baltic Sea could play an important role here, and become a kind of symbol. Throughout history there have been connections between the countries that surround the sea, but cooperation aimed at the development of the region as a whole would take those relations to a new level. We would all benefit from this. The sea itself, which today is one of the most polluted bodies of water, demands joint action.

Why indeed do we need this strategy? A common Baltic Sea area will not arise itself or from individual projects; we need coordinated activity …

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Anneli Jäätteenmäki (ALDE). – (FI) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I want to congratulate Alexander Stubb on an excellent report and thank him for his excellent levels of cooperation. I just wish to raise one point, and that is the amendment which Diana Wallis and I tabled on the establishment of a local office in the Baltic Sea area.

At present, the European Investment Bank operates in 11 EU Member States and 6 countries outside the EU in the Mediterranean region and in Africa. Just one branch, the one in Poland, is located in the Baltic Sea region and in a new Member State. By contrast, there are eight branches in total in southern Europe and the Mediterranean region. A branch office of the EIB was set up last spring in Vienna. It is to be responsible for projects in eastern Central Europe and the Balkan region. But it is not the function of any branch to be responsible for projects in the new Member States, the Nordic countries or the Baltic countries.

I think that it is important to establish an office of this kind, responsible for overseeing funding operations in that region and making the Baltic Sea Strategy a reality. The presence of such a branch office could also aid large funding projects under the EU’s Structural and Cohesion Funds during subsequent terms, and in this way facilitate cooperation in the Baltic Sea region and promote major projects there.

  Bogdan Klich (PPE-DE). – (PL) Mr President, the Northern Dimension of the European Union’s external policy is not just a priority for the Finnish presidency. It is also an extremely important aspect of Polish foreign policy and the foreign policies of seven other European Union Member States which surround the Baltic Sea. During the last dozen years or so, the Baltic has become a region for peaceful cooperation with Russia. If we are to maintain this situation, we need to eliminate the dangers that have appeared on the horizon today. The main threats today are the growing dependence of the countries in the region on Russian fuel supplies and the series of unsolved problems concerning the Kaliningrad area.

Addressing these challenges is beyond the capabilities of individual countries and also exceeds those of our group of eight countries. It is therefore vital for them to be made a priority for the European Union as a whole. Today, 24% of gas supplies come from Russia. This percentage will rise in the future. The possibility, mentioned by Charles Tannock a moment ago, of Russia creating a gas cartel is additional cause for concern. Investments such as the Baltic gas pipeline are increasing the dependence of the entire European Union’s on its eastern neighbour. In addition they are causing dangerous political tensions between members of the Union itself.

Today, the Kaliningrad region remains a ticking time bomb. We are not only concerned by the level of military mobilisation in the area, but also by the social situation in Kaliningrad. A large percentage of the population is infected with AIDS, the natural environment is being destroyed and organised crime is rampant.

Therefore, if the European Union as a whole fails to take an interest in these issues, there will be no common policy with respect to energy or to Kaliningrad. Without a common policy we will all face failure.

  Janusz Onyszkiewicz (ALDE). – (PL) Mr President, I would like to expand on the topic of Kaliningrad, as it does represent a great challenge. We had all hoped that Kaliningrad would become for Russia what Hong Kong was for China. However, there are fears that it may become what Puerto Rico became for the United States.

Apart from the dangers mentioned by the previous speaker, Mr Klich, I would also like to point out a further unsolved problem, namely the fact that, 15 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War, there are still huge stocks of weapons in Kaliningrad and no one knows what they are doing there. The figures are available because Russia, as a signatory of the Convention on Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons, is obliged to make these figures public. There are more tanks in Kaliningrad than in the British and French armies combined. What exactly are they doing there? As I said, 15 years have passed since the end of the Cold War.

As a result, we clearly need to try to resolve this complex of problems jointly with Russia, as the entire Baltic region, and its future, largely depends on the future of the Kaliningrad region. It is probably the most dynamic region today, and its potential for further dynamic development is enormous.

  Tunne Kelam (PPE-DE). – Mr President, this is a joint initiative by members of the new Baltic Intergroup, successfully chaired by Christopher Beazley, on the basis of which Alexander Stubb has drawn up a very efficient report. I would draw your attention to its underlying ethos, which is not to create a separate region, but to open the Baltic Sea area up to Europe as a whole in the interests of all the EU Member States. The Northern Dimension will therefore retain its present foreign policy aspect of cooperation with Russia, Iceland and Norway. However, a very important new internal EU cooperation aspect will be added as a priority, which one might call the ‘Beazley pillar’. This is because we need to make full use of the cooperation potential of the eight Member States around the Baltic Sea.

Various studies show that the competitiveness index in this region is one of the highest of any European region in terms of growth in prosperity and productivity, scientific innovation, physical infrastructure, a skilled labour force and even a low level of corruption. We therefore need to coordinate our efforts to fully harness the four basic freedoms with regard to this region and so achieve a new brand for it as one of the most attractive and rapidly developing in the EU. We therefore also need a special budget line, and this would be our contribution to the development of the Lisbon Strategy.

Finally, I would like to remind the Commission of the first commandment, which is that the Commission should now take the initiative on the basis of this report.

  Margarita Starkevičiūtė (ALDE). – (LT) Mr President, I was prepared for a completely different speech, but I am captivated by the Commissioner’s idea that we must focus on the issues of an unhealthy lifestyle in the Baltic region.

The geopolitical importance of this region has been ignored for years, yet the Baltic region acts as a driver of modernisation enabling development of Northern Europe to the Arctic. Because of this region, the modernisation of Russia became possible (if one is aware of history). Because of this region, Finland gained its strength. (It is a pity that the Finnish Minister is not taking part in such an important discussion.) Therefore, the significance of the region has been constantly downplayed. In my opinion, this report is an opportunity to thank Alexander Stubb for his efforts to give some impetus to the Baltic region, which is actually a driver of modernisation in Northern Europe, and in this case could even be a driver of modernisation for the entire European Union.

I would also like to second the idea of Mr Beazley that this project matches the key activity of Parliament to bring decision-making closer to the people. I hope the Commission will keep this in mind as well.

  Bogusław Sonik (PPE-DE). – (PL) Mr President, I believe that the Baltic Sea will increasingly unite, rather than divide, the countries of this region, by establishing and promoting economic ties, whilst respecting the political rights of these countries, and preserving its natural heritage. However, this will not be possible if certain economic interests are promoted at the expense of others, without respect for the principles of good neighbourly cooperation, solidarity and shared responsibility. A case in point is the construction of the Northern gas pipeline, which has been mentioned here several times, and is an investment that was made without consulting partners from the Baltic region.

We have to ask ourselves what our aims and priorities are in terms of closer cooperation within the group of eight Baltic countries. On the one hand, we proclaim the need to protect the ecosystem of the Baltic Sea, while on the other we fear an open and honest debate on the environmental issues associated with the construction of the gas pipeline.

I would like to remind you that, last year, 60 Members of this House tabled a motion for a debate on the environmental aspects of building the gas pipeline. This debate never took place. The presidents did not include it in the agenda.

I would also like to inform the representatives of the Council and the Commission that Russia is hindering free travel on the Baltic Sea by not permitting ships to pass through the straits between the Vistula Lagoon and Kaliningrad. This means that the port of Elbląg, which was recently renovated with European Union funds, is dying because it has lost access to the open sea.

It seems that the unilateral interests of Russia, which has its army base on these straits, have been given priority.

The Baltic strategy has highlighted these dangers, and that is why I would like to thank Alexander Stubb for his report. He can count on our support for the aims he seeks to achieve. I would also like to thank all the members of the Baltic Intergroup and its leader, Christopher Beazley, for their commitment.

  Margot Wallström, Vice-President of the Commission. Mr President, I have my own personal Northern Dimension, being born in the north of Sweden, so I am sure that my colleague Mrs Ferrero Waldner would have had an easier time keeping a cool head in this debate!

I have very much enjoyed listening to this discussion on the Baltic Sea Strategy and to whole debate on the Northern Dimension as a whole. Part of challenge is to ensure that the Baltic Sea Strategy is one that embraces all the important elements, and not just those connected to the Northern Dimension.

I am confident that the new Northern Dimension policy, with its future shared ownership by the European Union, Russia, Norway and Iceland, will substantially benefit the Baltic Sea region because none of the challenges faced by the Baltic Sea can be tackled without genuine Russian involvement, just as none of the challenges faced by the Barents Sea can be dealt with without Russia and Norway.

Let me comment on just a few specific issues that have been raised. Firstly, regarding the Baltic Sea, investment decisions must of course be taken by investors, but the Commission’s viewpoint has been that it is very important that proper environmental impact assessments are made for the implementation of the project, and we have not favoured one route over the other.

On the Kaliningrad oblast, this has of course been a priority sector for the Northern Dimension policy and will remain so. It is also an area of particular attention in our bilateral relations with Russia. The transit regime has now been successfully implemented and has been notably facilitated through very substantial EU assistance, on which the Commission expects to present its report by the end of the year. Also, although the transit regime is an important issue, we should not forget that the key to success in Kaliningrad will be strong economic development in the oblast, supported by the EU in a harmonious manner with the Russian programmes for this territory. Improved economic growth in Kaliningrad to reduce the gap with its immediate EU neighbours would help eliminate the long queues at the border. At the same time, EU investments in border crossing infrastructure will continue. That is how we are engaging with this very important issue.

As demonstrated by the very important opening of the St Petersburg south-west waste water treatment plant last year, with its tangible beneficial effects in water quality in the Gulf of Finland, cooperation and cofinancing with the Russian Federation is possible and it pays dividends both to their citizens and to ours. The forthcoming large Northern Dimension environmental partnership projects in the Kaliningrad oblast combine with Tacis projects in the water sector in this same oblast to confirm these premises. Furthermore, membership of the Northern Dimension as regards our EEA partners, Norway and Iceland, also provides a northern pan-European character to this policy, which we should welcome.

Finally, I would like to add to what Diana Wallis said. Canadian and US involvement also gives the Northern Dimension a transatlantic and circumpolar value that we should maintain.

Let me also comment on the budget. In the Commission’s view, the proposal in the report to set up a separate budget line for the Baltic Sea Strategy actually entails some risks. It would go against the logic of simplifying the EU’s external financial instruments. The European neighbourhood and partnership instrument would be the natural tool with which to accompany implementation of the Northern Dimension policy, but other financial instruments will also have a contribution to make. We cannot afford to neglect any of the Northern Dimension components and we should use all its potential and synergies in full. The European neighbourhood and partnership instrument will provide new opportunities, particularly in the field of cross-border cooperation which, together with a larger contribution from a more prosperous Russia, and a notably larger availability of European Investment Bank funding for this area, will provide the right incentives and improve the well-being of the citizens of the whole of Northern Europe.

  President. Thank you, Commissioner. I should also like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Beazley and all the speakers.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow.

Written statement (Rule 142)

  Marianne Mikko (PSE). – (ET) Ten years without review and re-assessment is too long, even for a long-term strategy. The Northern Dimension initiative obtained its impetus and direction during Finland’s last presidency. Now Finland once again holds the EU presidency.

In the intervening time, the Baltic Sea region has changed beyond recognition. Russia is now wealthy enough to buy up energy infrastructure throughout Europe. The Kremlin is once again self-confident, even aggressive. The Baltic States are now Member States of the European Union, and the Baltic Sea is our internal sea.

The Baltic Sea region is now the most competitive region in the world, mainly due to the success of the Scandinavian countries. In order to maintain its position, it is of the utmost importance that the region also function as a whole in its expanded form.

The report by our colleague Alexander Stubb emphasises the need for a definite strategy for the Baltic Sea. The implementation of the strategy presupposes financing, and thus a separate budget line for the Baltic Sea strategy is unavoidable. Without a budget line, the entire strategy would be no more than empty words.

The financial side of the Northern Dimension consisted only in providing aid to Russia. European Union funds were able to significantly reduce the danger of nuclear and conventional pollution from Russia. Now it is time to move ahead, concentrating on harmonising the level of development of the Baltic States and the Scandinavian countries.

Internal security, the safeguarding of nature, transport and infrastructure must be brought up to the Scandinavian level. The relatively small markets of the Member States must be integrated. There is much work to be done, and the sooner we begin, the better results we will be able to achieve.

16. The implementation of the European Security Strategy in the context of the ESDP (debate)

  President. The next item is the report by Karl von Wogau, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, on the implementation of the European Security Strategy in the context of the ESDP (2006/2033(INI)) (A6-0366/2006).

  Karl von Wogau (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start, Mr President, by pointing out that Mr Dimitrakopoulos has passed on his two minutes’ speaking time to me, so that I am in the fortunate position of being able to speak for over seven minutes.

The topic for this debate is the European Union's security strategy, as proposed by the High Representative and adopted by the heads of state and government on 12 September 2003, the basic outlines of which are as relevant as ever they were, but it has to be said that the geopolitical situation has changed over this period of time, and that our priorities have to change, and that is why we are calling, in this report, for the Council to submit to this House, once in every legislative period, a report on the European Union’s security strategy, which could then be debated both in this House and in the national parliaments. That is what happens in the United States, where a core report of this sort is made once in each legislative period, and so a similar arrangement here could help to step up transatlantic dialogue on these matters.

We do, after all, currently put different emphases in the strategy for Europe’s security than the Americans do in respect of their own; we favour a multipolar global order, something that Mr Solana calls effective multilateralism. We do not put our trust in coalitions of the willing, but rather in the Charter of the United Nations and in international organisation. If we want this strategy to be successful, we have to be clear in our own minds that it will be that only if we manage to make international organisations more efficient.

The report also contains a new definition of the Security and Defence Union, which is the next thing we should be working towards, and which is actually wanted by the European Union’s citizens, for, according to opinion polls, 70% of them want the European Union to have powers in respect of security and defence policy and of their security; that is what the

citizens of the European Union want.

What, though, is a security and defence union? It involves a number of elements, such as, for example, the European Foreign Minister envisaged by the draft Constitution. We are also proposing a deputy Foreign Minister, who would be responsible for defence matters. Why do we need one? I am – still – the chairman of this House’s security and defence sub-committee, but I do not have an opposite number on the executive side – something reflected in the fact that none of the seats on the Council bench are occupied.

We need someone on the executive with whom to discuss these developing issues; hence our call for a deputy Foreign Minister, as well as something that is not in this report, but in which I know Mr Brok is taking an interest, namely a single foreign service and a commitment to mutual assistance, as proposed in the draft Constitution, but present already in the Treaty of Brussels, on which the Western European Union is founded.

My personal proposal would be that we should concentrate on this project for a security and defence union if we want to restart the constitutional process, for I am convinced that it is easier to persuade people of their desire for a single security and defence policy than to explain to them once more what a constitution is.

Our past experience was that we were always successful if we said first what we wanted to do, and worked out on that basis what institutions, and what institutional changes, were required, and so I do believe it makes sense to put this project at the heart of the constitutional process.

The European Union does, today, have troops under its command – they are serving in Bosnia-Herzegovina and the Congo. With effect from the beginning of 2007, we will have at our disposal two units going by the fine English name of 'battle groups' every six months, which will be capable of being deployed at short notice. The European Union and this House have a particular responsibility with respect to these soldiers, whom we send to the Congo, to Bosnia-Herzegovina, and elsewhere, namely, that we do not expose them to unnecessary risks, which are, for soldiers, a fact of life whenever their equipment or the leadership structure are inadequate, and so, with that in mind, we make, in this report, proposals for the removal of the deficits in the area of reconnaissance, which I found recurring in the Congo.

Although the European Union is still performing inadequately in the field of telecommunication and in transport by land and sea, what is needed most of all is effective democratic control, but that necessarily involves information and consultation, both of which are often still lacking. We are not adequately informed concerning what the Council is planning; even though there is reference to consultation with us in the inter-institutional agreement, the Council is extremely hesitant about doing it.

Issues of security, issues of war and peace, must not be left to generals; nor, though, must they be left to the executive alone, for what is needed here is democratic control by the popularly-elected parliaments, that is to say by the national parliaments and by this one.

  Margot Wallström, Vice-President of the Commission. The Commission welcomes this comprehensive report, which demonstrates the importance attached by the European Parliament to the European Security Strategy and more generally to the field of security.

As you know, this is not an area where the Commission leads, but we make an important contribution to security in situations of crisis. I agree with the rapporteur that we need to act on the basis of a comprehensive concept of security in today’s security environment and that both external and internal security aspects need to be adequately addressed. We need to use all available instruments, be they civilian or military, be they in the hands of Member States or the Union, to achieve our goals in the security sphere. And, as stated in the Commission’s communication of last June entitled ‘Europe in the World’, we need to enhance coherence, effectiveness and visibility through a pragmatic and cooperative approach. Let me assure you that the Commission will continue to cooperate with the Council in full respect of our respective institutional responsibilities.

I am encouraged by recent efforts in the EU amongst Member States, the Commission and the Council Secretariat to work more closely together on achieving the goals of the European Security Strategy. Let me mention some examples: the development of the concepts of security sector reform and disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration, as well as concrete actions in Afghanistan and in the Democratic Republic of Congo; the border assistance mission at Rafah and in Moldova, and the planned mission to Kosovo.

The new instruments introduced within the context of the 2007-2013 financial perspectives will facilitate better coordination. The Stability Instrument, in particular, with its short- and long-term orientation, will help us respond flexibly to upcoming challenges, while going some way towards meeting your demands for better parliamentary oversight in the security field.

The Commission has been actively developing policies to confront main security threats and to promote effective multilateralism. Commission work has focused on, amongst other issues, the Neighbourhood Policy, the effectiveness of development assistance, humanitarian aid and civil protection. Drawing lessons from the experience gathered so far, we will soon make proposals for a reinforced ENP. The report also refers to various initiatives taken by the Commission in the fields of disaster and crisis response, including health emergencies.

The report welcomes the Commission’s work on creating a European defence equipment market and specifically the forthcoming initiatives on defence procurement and intra-community transfers. We are grateful for the Parliament’s continued support in this delicate area. Progress here will help to strengthen the competitiveness of European industry and the development of military and civilian capabilities for EU policies.

The Commission is particularly grateful to the Parliament for the support concerning security research and space policy, which are already specific thematic priorities of the Seventh Framework Programme. We fully agree on the importance of research for competitiveness.

In these areas, the Commission is working closely with the European Defence Agency with a view to ensuring complementarity and synergies for the development of capabilities and the strengthening of the European industrial base. The Commission and the European Defence Agency together have a key role to play in moving from a national to a European approach and in convergence between security and defence industries. We will do this within the limits imposed by the current institutional framework and clearly stated political positions concerning research for civilian and defence purposes by fully respecting the civilian character of the European Security Research Programme.

In conclusion, I would like to stress that the reports by Parliament are most welcome, as are the joint meetings of the Committee on Foreign Affairs with the corresponding committees of the national parliaments and the public hearings. Regular stocktaking can be helpful in guiding our efforts to adjust our strategies to a changing environment. The Commission is pleased to contribute to these debates by giving full information on its activities as part of the overall EU effort.

  Elmar Brok, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Madam Vice-President, I would like to say how much I appreciate the Vice-President’s presence here today, which demonstrates the importance that the Commission attaches to security and defence policy, while the Council’s absence from a debate on it can – if one puts a favourable gloss on it – be interpreted to mean that the Finnish Presidency is, now that the pillar structure has been put in abeyance, on the way to accepting that security and defence policy, too, has become a matter for the Community. Were it not for the fact that I subscribe to this favourable interpretation, I would be very angry at their absence.

This foreign, security and defence policy is becoming increasingly important, and I would like to thank Mr von Wogau for this report and also the Security and Defence Sub-Committee for the work that it has done, which highlights the truly decisive field into which developments are leading us. When one considers the effort we put into securing our energy supplies, or the situation around Iran, the changes that may well occur in American policy in Iraq and Afghanistan following their elections, or the debate we had this afternoon on Gaza; not to mention the things that are going on in Darfur and in other regions, where some are buying raw materials while others campaign for human rights and then hold great summits in Beijing and Shanghai, it is not difficult to realise that this issue is going to be of increasing importance to Europe, and that is why it is necessary that some efforts be made. It is only if we Europeans become more credible in terms of our military capacity that we will be able to get the trans-Atlantic alliance to seek to rely not merely on military might, but on the threefold chord of prevention – which takes precedence – combined with civilian crisis management and military capacity. We will be able to achieve that only through our strong position within what is termed the West, and that is why we must also make it our concern to strengthen our links with NATO.

I would be glad if, instead of a multiplicity of individual operations with national headquarters, there were to be political agreement that these would run more on the basis of ‘Berlin plus’, for that would mean not only a more Community-based approach, but also, at the same time, more common purpose and cooperation with NATO.

  Helmut Kuhne, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (DE) Mr President, let me say something quite brief about the view our Socialist Group in this House takes of what has emerged from the committee.

There are three things that we regard as important. First of all, there is the need to reinforce the diplomatic and civil elements of the security strategy. Secondly, there is the need to avoid the traps that might leave us with an unfounded military doctrine; the text contains no terms such as ‘pre-emptive’ or anything of the sort. Thirdly, the instruments and the institutional requirements must be kept absolutely separate. We regard these as important advances, and it proved possible to make progress on these points by means of good cooperation with the rapporteur, for which I am grateful. From a social democrat point of view, however, there still remain a few controversial items outstanding.

We can see the risk of the procurement wish lists getting longer and longer as Christmas draws nearer; we ought to be concentrating on the priorities we have already set ourselves, such as air transport, information and communication. We do not actually need to aspire to amphibious motor vehicles, a Mediterranean fleet, and aircraft carriers, which hinders us from going after the things that really are important priorities in terms of the strategy. The question must also be asked as to whether the last-named examples belong in some quite different context rather than in the security strategy.

On the other hand – although we will be endorsing most of the amendments that add precision to the parts of the text that have to do with diplomacy, civil society and disarmament – we do not believe that crisis prevention must, under all conceivable circumstances, involve the use of exclusively non-military means.

The reality we face today has already changed, and the rapporteur made reference to that. We have sent troops to Macedonia in order to prevent the outbreak there of a civil war similar to those that have broken out in other states belonging to the former Yugoslavia. In the Congo, we used not only civilian means, but also sent a contingent of troops, in order to ensure that the elections there could be held in peace, and I am confident that this contingent will be able to return home at the end of this month.

As I conclude this intervention, I should like to return to the point that the rapporteur made at the very outset and was quite right to highlight, namely that the analysis of the threats and of the action taken under the security strategy need to be reviewed on a regular basis. Once the report has been adopted, the next thing we should do is to discuss how we, in this House, can organise this process.

  Annemie Neyts-Uyttebroeck, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, I wish to begin by warmly congratulating Mr von Wogau on his excellent report, which offers an accurate and comprehensive survey of the current line of thinking of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Subcommittee on Security and Defence. I also want to thank him for the efforts he made to reach the broadest possible agreement with the other political groups. While this clearly means that my group will approve the report, I would like to stress two particular points.

The first point is the need to ensure effective parliamentary control, both at national and EU levels. The EU, as has been said, is currently engaged in a growing number of military and civilian operations in various parts of the world. I insist on the need for Parliament to be continually updated and to be informed and consulted whenever a new operation is being contemplated. Until now, all these operations have gone well, but it is entirely possible that one day a major incident will occur and there will then be widespread clamour for parliamentary oversight.

Secondly, much greater clarification of the respective roles and responsibilities of the Commission, the High Representative, the Council and the Member States is also needed. Who pays what is too often decided on a case-by-case basis, which again makes oversight difficult. This is conducive to overlap and waste and, worst of all, also leads to outright competition between, for instance, the Council’s special envoys and the Commission’s delegations. Both the Council and the Commission will of course deny this is the case, but a number of us know better, even if, luckily, such competition is not the general rule.

Finally, what is needed most of all is political will on the part of Member State governments and that, alas, is an entirely different story.

  Angelika Beer, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is a matter of good manners in this House that one starts with warm congratulations to the rapporteur, and, while I am happy to do so, I also have to say that I am deeply saddened not to be able, for the first time in two and a half years, to recommend that my group approve a report – unless, that is, our main amendments to it are accepted.

I want to justify that firstly by reference to the report’s content, and secondly on grounds of form. What is fundamental is that a great deal of the report – as one Member has pointed out – reads like the armaments industry’s shopping list, but such a thing cannot be sustained under the title of ‘European Security Strategy and ESDP’, which refers to far more complex concepts.

That being so, the report is not a comprehensive concept, but rather the very opposite of one. I take it that that was the reason why the rapporteur’s own group tabled 45 amendments, which is a considerable figure.

When one looks at the report in detail, it is clear that what it is attempting to do is to blur the boundaries laid down by treaty between internal and external security. Europol is covered by the ESDP. The intention is that the ESDP should be used for the purpose of combating terrorism, and for the protection of infrastructure, the energy supply, and of the external borders. Combining police, military and judicial functions in this way is a blatant violation of treaties currently in force, and it also gives rise to additional security problems; it is the very approach taken by President Bush, Dick Cheney and the now-departed Rumsfeld. Homeland security modelled on US security policy has already failed and there is no need for us to copy it.

Secondly, the report gives the impression that there is no such thing as the civil arm of the European Security and Defence Policy, even though most of the 17 ESDP missions are civilian in nature. Nor is sufficient reference made to civil conflict prevention, yet that is precisely what is needed right now.

Thirdly, instead of going into detail about the defence market, it would have been timely to speak plainly about Europe’s security and about disarmament – both conventional and nuclear – yet the subject occurs nowhere in the report.

Fourthly, I would like to look at the question of what military goods are to be purchased: aircraft carriers, satellite communication systems – all these things are asked for, with the justification given being that we are becoming a defence union. What sign is there here, I ask you, of a realistic assessment of what we now have to do? We have to work towards harmonisation; we have to compel the nation states, in the interests of all, to harmonise their strategies, structures and equipment, but the idea of us being a defence union is somewhere over the rainbow. It always used to be the Greens who were fundamentalists, and it is quite astonishing that you have now gone that way.

As I see it, the resolutions adopted at Cologne, Helsinki and Feira have been turned on their heads, and, if I were a schoolteacher, I would give you nought out of ten for missing the point. I regret to have to say it, but this amounts to an attempt at remilitarising European foreign policy. In committee, we had negotiated a consensus, and it was the rapporteur himself who broke it at the last minute. That is an unfair way of going about things, and something we cannot accept.

  Tobias Pflüger, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (DE) Mr President, the Greens appear to be learning. The chairman of the security and defence sub-committee has produced a report on military policy in the EU. The report has now been wrapped up in social democratic cotton wool, its language – originally unmistakeable – robbed of its punch. It is evident that no place could be found for the statement in the draft to the effect that the EU ought, under certain conditions, to be open to the concept of pre-emptive warfare; that sort of talk was, no doubt, too plain.

The report makes the mistakes usually associated with a militarised EU foreign policy. It incorporates a risk analysis of the European Security Strategy, according to which the principal threats faced by the European Union and its citizens are international terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, regional conflicts, failed states and organised crime.

What about poverty, hunger and social inequality? The report speaks up for military border surveillance – aimed against whom, I wonder? – and for the use of military means to secure access to resources. The EU wants to develop a strategic partnership with NATO; the report ‘welcomes NATO's increasing capability of playing a role in out-of-theatre operations’ – and that in a report from the European Parliament! It also calls for a considerable strengthening of Europe’s operational capacities, including air and sea transport, and the conflation of civilian and military is taken still further.

The report amounts to a catalogue of demands aimed at the further militarisation of the European Union – demanding, among other things, more money for crisis operations, which will have to be found from the Community budget, which means new financial arrangements. After the games played on us with Athena, what is now being proposed is the introduction of a virtual military budget.

We all know that the Treaty of Nice, quite rightly, outlaws any freestanding military budget for the EU; that is why attempts are being made to resurrect the deceased EU constitutional treaty, for as it says, 'stresses the importance of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, which will bring about major progress towards a Security and Defence Union'. It is for precisely that reason that we are opposed to this Constitutional Treaty for the EU. What is being called for here is the EU as a military union.

There are those for whom making the EU a military union is a goal, and paragraphs 51 and 52 of this report read like their wish list, with new weaponry and more money to buy it and enable the EU to be a military global player around the world. That is the wrong way to go about things. The EU is currently involved in at least 11 military and police operations around the world, and more are in the pipeline; the list now includes Afghanistan, where NATO troops are killing more and more civilians, and now the EU wants to join in the carnage as soon as possible, when what is needed – and now! – is for the troops to be brought home from Afghanistan and elsewhere. The European Union has no need of more armaments; it needs to be a civil power. What is needed is disarmament, and it is needed right now.

  Gerard Batten, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – Mr President, in the early 1950s Jean Monnet proposed a European Defence Community, with a European army run by a European Minister for Defence, a common budget and common arms procurement. This project was thankfully rejected by the French after President de Gaulle opposed the idea.

Undeterred, Jean Monnet and his acolytes pursued the idea of a European political union by economic means rather than by defence and military means. Over 50 years later, we have a European Union which has almost completed its political agenda: it has its own President, its own cabinet in the shape of the Commission, its own Parliament, a single currency, flag, anthem and Court of Justice, just to name a few of its attributes.

However, if it is to be a real state it must have its own military forces, and that is what this report is about. The report calls for a common equipment and equipment procurement policy and for integrated command and control and communication systems. What better way to ensure the integration of Europe’s national military forces than by ensuring that they will begin so interdependently that they will not be able to operate independently. The militaristic pill is sugared, however, by reference to humanitarian operations and crisis management. However, call it what you will, it is an army, and if war is the continuation of politics by other means, then the European Union needs an army to pursue its foreign policy ambitions.

I am not surprised that Mr von Wogau pursues political integration by these means. He believes in political integration and is open about it, and I respect him for that. What disgusts me is that Britain’s Prime Minister, the liar Mr Blair, and his rotten and corrupt Labour Government collude with the process of integrating Britain’s armed forces into the planned European army, while pretending to defend Britain’s national interest.

  President. Luckily, you are over call-up age, Mr Batten, so it will never affect you.

(The sitting was suspended at 19.20 and resumed at 21.00)

IN THE CHAIR: MRS KAUFMANN
Vice-President

17. Membership of political groups: see Minutes

18. The implementation of the European Security Strategy in the context of the ESDP (continuation of debate)

  President. The next item is the continuation of the debate on the report by Mr von Wogau on the implementation of the European Security Strategy in the context of the ESDP.

  Tunne Kelam (PPE-DE). – Madam President, I would like to thank the rapporteur for presenting a comprehensive analysis of the current problems of the European Security Strategy and for evaluating threats to the modern world. One example of these threats: in paragraph 10 the report stresses a need for a major EU contribution to promote regional disarmament.

I would like to draw attention to the Kaliningrad area, a heavily militarised Russian enclave within the EU. To continue pretending that this last vestige of the Cold War and Soviet expansion is something with which we have to accommodate would be dangerous and absurd. Therefore the demilitarisation of this area, which should be followed by making Kaliningrad a pilot project and opening it up to free trade, should be one of the topics to be raised at the forthcoming EU-Russia Summit. The von Wogau report clearly presents our final objective. We are on our way to a Security and Defence Union. However, it also reminds us that the EU is still a long way from this goal. We are just noting progress, increasing capacities and looking for additional money.

There are some problems we need to be very clear about. We need to establish a common market in the field of defence, to provide for a European budget to cover both the military and the civil aspects of security and to intensify cooperation between the EU Defence Ministers, with the final goal of creating the post of Deputy EU Foreign Minister in charge of the ESDP. To that end, it is essential to avoid duplication of efforts and to coordinate all these activities with NATO. There is an urgent need to provide the same access to space-based intelligence systems for all Member States on a common basis.

  Libor Rouček (PSE). – (CS) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is often said in Europe that there is a crisis of public confidence in the European project and in European politics. There is no such scepticism when it comes to security and defence policy. As public opinion polls have shown, more than two thirds of the Europeans support this policy and take the view that the risks and dangers associated with terrorism, organised crime, regional conflicts and the spread of weapons of mass destruction require a joint, Europe-wide solution.

Mr von Wogau’s report calls for a joint solution, and for elements of the European security and defence policy to be strengthened. I wholeheartedly support this call and the efforts to establish EU security and defence. The proposals for creating an internal market for developing, manufacturing and purchasing arms, a shared communication and media system and European civil defence mechanisms are among many that I consider to be steps in the right direction. Europe needs a joint approach to the security risks and threats it faces and Mr von Wogau’s report outlines such an approach in a way that is both realistic and outstanding.

  Alexander Lambsdorff (ALDE). – (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, European security and defence policy has great challenges ahead of it, and the EU must not close its eyes to them. What is certain is that the future will see the EU taking on more and more international commitments, and the disturbing developments in the Middle East, in North Korea and in Iran are harbingers of this trend.

What we need is effective decision-making machinery, a clear command structure, no doubt about who is empowered to do what, competent personnel capable of being deployed quickly and kitted out with modern equipment, and the logistical capacity for getting troops quickly to where they are going to serve. The von Wogau report demands these things, and also contains proposals for their improvement; it is for these reasons that we will be supporting it.

Over recent years, the ESDP has achieved some progress; the battle groups will, with effect from 1 January 2007, have become fully operational, and the Foreign Relations Council, meeting yesterday, noted that there had been further improvements in the quality of equipment used by the Member States’ armies. The European Defence Agency makes a valuable contribution towards the harmonisation of the armaments market and the coordination of joint research projects in the security and defence sphere.

It has to be said, though, that the planning of EU mission off-budget is on the increase, and this is still a disturbing trend. An increase in the number of missions presupposes that they are legitimate in democratic terms, but that cannot be guaranteed if their finances are planned without reference to the European Parliament, which results in an unjustifiable lack of transparency. The report contains refreshingly clear proposals as to how this may be prevented, and these, too, we can fully support.

I would like to add that I believe we should be conducting this debate in Brussels rather than in Strasbourg.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE). – (ES) Madam President, the drawing up of the European Security Strategy was influenced by three great debates of an international nature: the debate on the new threats that had to be faced and on how to face them, particularly following 11 September; that on the problems faced by the United Nations as a universal and multilateral forum for preventing and managing disputes; and that on the commitments to be made by the European Union in order to become a more active, capable and coherent actor at world level.

The European Security Strategy therefore points out that the greatest challenges that the European Union and its citizens must face today are international terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, regional conflicts, failed States and organised crime.

I naturally agree that those problems are important. I fear, however, that this list does not place sufficient emphasis on other aspects that I believe are just as important, if not more so. I am talking, for example, about poverty, the lack of a global justice system, the collective criminalisation of groups and communities, the increasing militarisation of the planet, the plundering of the basic subsistence resources of the poorest countries by the rich countries, the pollution of the environment and the destruction of social ecosystems.

In this regard, I do not believe that the European Union always offers the most appropriate response, in either political or structural terms. Hence, for some time we have been hearing arguments in favour of creating a single European army, for example. Nevertheless, that army is usually seen as an addition, or, if you like, a complement, to the 25 existing armies, and not as a replacement for them, as I believe it should be.

Though we apparently agree that, in order to deal with the current challenges, numerous armies of a national nature are no longer necessary, we still have a European Union with 25 national armies, whose personnel amount to some two million people, whose main duty is to defend the Member States’ borders and interests and which jointly cost more than EUR 160 million per year. Furthermore, these are figures that many of us would like to see dedicated to the prevention and management of conflicts.

In short, the actions and decisions of the governments do not currently appear to be consistent with the change of attitude towards security that we have been seeing recently, particularly at European level.

  Diamanto Manolakou (GUE/NGL). – (EL) Madam President, the report describes in the clearest and most revelatory manner the nature of the European Union as an imperialist union of European monopolies which is being militarised.

The so-called 'European security strategy' has nothing to do with a security strategy for the people; it is an undisguised aggressive imperialist policy which moves in two directions. Firstly, towards going along fully with the USA and ΝΑΤΟ in criminal action against the peoples and, secondly, towards the construction of the European Union's own mechanisms to strengthen its military power, so that it is also in a position to take military action and intervene on its own. Its objective is to secure a better share when the markets are divided up. This policy is based on the principle of preventive war, on the adoption, to all intents and purposes, of the new NATO military doctrine for imperialist interventions throughout the world, on the pretext of combating global threats, terrorism and interruptions to the flow of natural resources, the imposition of democracy, crisis management and the principle of preventive strike.

It announces that the imperialist interventions of the European Union no longer have any limits to their action. Their scope is extending to the entire world. It indirectly adopts the model of the imperialist interventions in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq, in other words imperialist war on various pretexts, such as the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq that were never found, followed by occupation and reconstruction. This enriches the imperialists by plundering the wealth of the peoples.

It also promotes the creation of rapid intervention forces and deliberately links military and civil missions, baptising military interventions 'humanitarian'. It even links the external security of the European Union with the creation of a European constabulary and policy force, with the militarisation of the borders and a military approach to immigrants and refugees. It even increases funding for military purposes with hidden budgets. For the workers, however, there are starvation wages and permanent austerity. In promoting this strategy, the aggressiveness of the European Union is intensifying and escalating, both towards third countries and within it. The enemy is the people.

Efforts to strengthen the military power of the European Union are linked to the efforts to strengthen it in the imperialist competition and within the frameworks of competition between the war industries. The effort to show that, apparently, the European Union is distancing itself from the US imperialist policy in Iran is brazen deceit of the peoples. The excitement about Guantanamo and CIA flights and abductions on European territory is hypocritical, given that it follows the same imperialist policy and, at the same time, strengthens operational cooperation with ΝΑΤΟ.

The peoples must be concerned about and must act against the arming, militarisation and terrorism of the imperialists.

  Konrad Szymański, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (PL) Madam President, I would like to warmly congratulate you on the report on European security policy. It is an excellent report which, in my opinion, requires no further amendments. In particular, it does not require any amendments which would deprive the European Union of any military significance in the world.

If it wants to play a greater role in the world, the European Union must be able to have an effective military presence, not only on its own borders, but also in other parts of the world. This will not be achieved by simply creating a defence agency and harmonising armaments. We also need to convince European public opinion to support greater defence spending that would be in line with our ambitions.

Europe has proved that it does not abuse military power, so pacifist fears in this respect are unfounded. In fact, we should instead fear for our political and military ability to take responsibility for global security.

The creation of a European security policy should not aim to copy NATO, our main, tried and tested defence policy instrument. Neither should our strategic autonomy upset our political and technical cooperation with the NATO powers. In fact, the Western world, which stretches far beyond the borders of the European Union, has a right to expect from us a real contribution towards cooperation and synergy in terms of our joint activities. The report presented this in a well-balanced manner, and that is why we will gladly support it in tomorrow's vote.

  Andrzej Tomasz Zapałowski (IND/DEM). – (PL) Madam President, today’s debate on the implementation of a European Security Strategy is one of the more important debates concerning the future of the European Union. It is a step towards adopting some of the solutions contained in the dead constitutional treaty. The proposal to create the post of a European Foreign and Defence Minister is a threat to the interests of many Member States.

Germany’s agreement with Russia was a fine example of European solidarity in the field of energy. It is very typical and should be viewed as a warning sign. It makes sense that the Union needs an instrument to exert military influence on its immediate surroundings. However, any attempt to take on military responsibility for global security would represent an attempt to replace NATO or, to be more precise, to weaken the United States' influence in Europe and the world.

There should be no competition between NATO and the European Union in the field of security and defence policy. It must be stressed that NATO has a significantly more important role and capabilities than the armed forces allocated to the European Union. Of course, there are members of the EU who are not NATO members, and we have to find a way to involve them in matters relating to European security. This kind of cooperation should take place within the framework of cooperation between the national armed forces of the Member States.

We do not need to create new command headquarters, but simply to allocate parts of national armed forces to cooperate in specific actions. However, it is vital to create a coherent European system in the field of intelligence, crisis response and the monitoring of economic threats. It is for the national governments and the Union to monitor how individual Member States are prepared for terrorist attacks or whether they have an appropriate territorial defence system. Moreover, the Union should deal with security in its immediate surroundings and not try to exert a global influence and become involved in local conflicts around the world.

  Geoffrey Van Orden (PPE-DE). – Madam President, I have consistently opposed EU meddling in the defence sphere. European countries are responsible for their security through their own efforts individually and through NATO collectively, and that is how it should remain. The European Union has moved on to defence territory, not because it adds defence capabilities, because it does not, but because there are those who wish to see the EU acquire more State-like attributes and become a global actor, pursuing its own distinct foreign policy objectives. To do this, it wants the full range of foreign policy instruments at its disposal, including armed forces.

This report, however, goes well beyond the immediate ambitions of even those who drive ESDP at the moment. It advocates a Security and Defence Union and wants the EU to have its own defence budget. Heaven help us if those responsible for the common agricultural policy, the common fisheries policy and all the interfering and counterproductive over-regulation of our lives were to have a role in organising our defence.

These unacceptable proposals for a Security and Defence Union, for an EU defence budget, are enough in themselves to ensure the opposition of the British Conservative delegation, but the international context in which this report is being debated makes it doubly objectionable. NATO is currently engaged in a vital operation in Afghanistan. It is no exaggeration to say that the success of this mission is indispensable to NATO’s future and to our own long-term security. The Alliance has repeatedly called for reinforcement of this Afghanistan mission with combat troops, tactical lift helicopters and indeed with forward civil reconstruction efforts to consolidate the military gains that are made. With some honourable exceptions, the response from European allies has been pitiful. I have no doubt in my own mind that ESDP is a distraction from NATO and is part of the problem.

At this time of threat to the democracies, when solidarity is needed, it is disastrous for Europeans and Americans to have competing strategic visions, or indeed to have two defence organisations with overlapping membership, making competing claims on the same limited resources.

  Ana Maria Gomes (PSE). – (PT) I wish to congratulate Mr von Wogau on his ambitious report. It is a report that recognises that, in spite of the progress that has been made in the area of Europe’s security and defence, much remains to be done. I agree with what Mr von Wogau said in the Chamber today: the process of building a Union of security and defence has the potential to bring us closer again to the citizens of the Union.

The figures from Eurobarometer are clear: 77% of Europeans support a European security and defence policy. Even in the United Kingdom, the country of Mr van Orden and of some of the most vocal Eurosceptics in this Chamber, support stands at 59%.

Yet this report is limited in scope. Although it boldly proposes the creation of a European budget for the Union's military activities, advocates strengthening the role of the European Parliament and national parliaments in scrutinising Europe’s security and defence policies and rightly calls for the advances proposed by the Constitutional Treaty not to be cast aside, this report limits itself to reiterating support for the initiatives put forward by the Council and the Commission in vital areas of industrial integration and the creation of a European defence equipment market.

It is disappointing that this report does not go further. I am firmly in favour of introducing the principle of European preference in the area of the procurement of defence equipment. What is at stake in the long term is the EU’s strategic autonomy, and Parliament has thus far been unable to present its own vision in this area.

Madam President we must not let ourselves be blinded by the dogma of the market. It is crucial that, following the lead of our friends and partners around the world, we do not forget the strategic and political implications of this sector of industry.

  Andrew Duff (ALDE). – Madam President, this is the first serious review of the European Security Strategy by Parliament, but we are much less clear about NATO. We say that NATO is responsible for our collective defence and a forum for transatlantic relations. We do not say what we would do if NATO fails to achieve peace in Afghanistan. NATO is not supposed to be defeated. NATO has suffered from an absence of clear strategic reappraisal since the end of the Cold War and it suffers from continuing poor collaboration with the European Union. Parliament should not be so shy of a critical scrutiny of NATO, without which our grip upon the development of the European Security and Defence Policy will always remain fanciful.

  Hélène Goudin (IND/DEM). – (SV) Madam President, during my two years here in Parliament, I have come across many reports dealing with everything under the sun. However, the report we are now debating is the worst I have seen so far. Mr von Wogau proposes now one thing and now another, but the main theme is that of militarising the EU by developing the Common Foreign and Security Policy. He wants to extend the scope of the European Security Strategy. This would open the way for pre-emptive wars of the type we are seeing right now in, for example, the Middle East.

Mr von Wogau also believes that military efforts in the field of crisis management should be funded out of the EU budget. In other words, it would be taxpayers in, for example, neutral Sweden who would pay for military operations around the world. Among the more fanciful proposals is that of setting up a standing naval force in the Mediterranean Sea to take care of the EU’s security interests in the region. To top it all, the rapporteur also emphasises the need for a Constitution, because this would speed up the creation of a Defence Union.

When, in 1995, Sweden joined the EU, many Swedes were sceptical. That the EU might become militarised was precisely one of the concerns dismissed by EU groupies as being completely unwarranted. Today, slightly more than ten years later, we see that this is by no means an impossibility. On the contrary. I, for one, do not want to see my three sons and other young Europeans participate in an EU army, and I therefore call on my fellow Members to vote against this report in tomorrow’s vote.

  Bogdan Klich (PPE-DE). – (PL) Madam President, Mr Solana's 2003 strategy is an excellent document. It accurately describes the threats and challenges we face, as well as clearly describing the specifically European response which has become the calling card for a European security and defence policy.

In this respect, it does not seem necessary to update this document. After all, NATO has been using the same strategic concept since April 1999. This is the only point on which I disagree with Mr Karl von Wogau’s proposal.

The value of this report lies elsewhere, in the prospects it outlines for the ESDP. It is the result of a frank appraisal of the current civilian and military capabilities of the European Union, and Karl von Wogau states that ‘The European Union currently has at its disposal only a limited capability for implementing civilian and military operations’. Karl von Wogau also draws the right conclusions from this assessment. First of all, he calls for intensive cooperation between the European Union and NATO. Secondly, he calls for the Union to focus its capabilities on our immediate geographic surroundings.

The rapporteur is aware of the cause of these limited capabilities, since he mentions the lack of strategic air and sea transport, interoperational telecommunications systems and intelligence capabilities, especially in relation to satellites. These comments are by no means new, as these deficiencies have been with us since at least the first Capabilities Commitment Conference in 2002.

In my view, however, the report's biggest asset is to be found in the long-term perspective that Karl von Wogau outlines for the ESDP. He moves beyond the boundaries of operational targets, in other words beyond 2010 and beyond the terms of the Constitutional Treaty. This outlook involves the creation of a security and defence union. We must not lose sight of this objective. It is, and should be, the guiding light for the next steps that need to be taken to develop the ESDP.

  Józef Pinior (PSE). – (PL) Madam President, I would like to begin by quoting the results of the Eurobarometer survey, according to which 70% of European citizens are in favour of a European Security and Defence Policy. The citizens of the European Union seem to have a better idea of the challenges of our time than the Council representatives, who are not present in the plenary Chamber in Strasbourg tonight.

The European Security Strategy should focus on the most important aims in terms of creating a common Security and Defence Policy for the European Union. Above all, we should call for a new generation of satellite systems to be integrated into the European system and for the data gathered to be made available to the military and the police, as well as for the purposes of disaster management, using the satellite centre in Torrejón. Intelligence remains one of the most important areas of this strategy. Secondly, the rapid response groups being set up now must be provided with intelligence and communications equipment that is the same as, or at least compatible with that used by NATO.

  Alexander Stubb (PPE-DE). – Madam President, I congratulate Commissioner Frattini for staying on board for so long. Perhaps he is excited about the next season at Ferrari, with Kimi Raikkonen driving for them. Sorry, Mr Duff, I know you do not follow Formula One! I should like to make five points.

First point: I support the report. I think it is excellent. There is only one thing I think goes a little over the top and that is the idea of a European Defence Minister to supplement our Foreign Minister. We will wait for the Constitution to start with one and then perhaps have the other.

Second point: this concerns Mr Van Orden, who unfortunately has already left. He raised a lot of problems about the relationship between NATO and the EU. I always tell Mr Van Orden that he should get a life. If we have the Constitution all those problems will be solved, but alas, he is probably not in favour of the Constitution.

Third point: I think the strategic interests of the EU and the US are exactly the same and this report shows that very well. That is why I think we need to try to solve our problems hand in hand as Mr von Wogau suggests.

Fourth point: I think the biggest structural problem that we have between ESDP and NATO is that our cooperation does not really work in the way it is supposed to. As a former civil servant, I think that the relationships are too much staff-to-staff, in other words too many civil servants dealing with civil servants. Perhaps we should make the relationship political and thus get a result.

My final point is that I think the strength of the ESDP is its diversity. If we only focus on the civilian aspects of crisis management, we are cheating ourselves. The question is, do you accept ethnic cleansing, for instance? If your answer is no, we also need a military aspect of crisis management. So therefore I support the report with all my heart. I think it is excellent.

  Hubert Pirker (PPE-DE). – (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to thank Mr von Wogau for this report, which is comprehensive, pragmatic and also courageous.

I share the view – one held by 70% of Europe’s population and most of the people in this House – that the only response to the major threats facing us, from terrorism to failed states, that ultimately promises any success is that of a European Security Strategy. I also share the rapporteur’s view that such a strategy must be constantly adapted if Europe wants to remain in future an area of security, freedom and prosperity.

Since there is hardly likely to be, in future, much support for increased military expenditure, we need to make more efficient use than hitherto of the means and resources at our disposal, and that is why the European Security and Defence Policy needs common standards, shared research and development and a single system of procurement. There is a need for a single system of air and space reconnaissance and shared telecommunication standards.

There is a need for strategic cooperation between the forces deployed in the fields of external and internal security. What is evident from present-day deployments of troops in the Congo is that, although their dedication has yielded successes, there are just as many deficits to be dealt with.

We all know that the EU, although an economic giant, continues to be a dwarf in security policy terms, but if it wants to become a political union, it must stop being a security dwarf and abandon national animosities in favour of something holistic and bigger.

It is for that reason that the Community needs a security policy that is also to be funded by the Community, with Parliament sharing in the decision-making and monitoring it, and with a political head in the person of a deputy foreign minister. It is to this road that this report points, and that is why it is not only courageous, but also forward-looking in the interests of a secure Europe for its citizens.

  President. The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow.

Written statements (Rule 142)

  Alexandra Dobolyi (PSE). – I welcome the report which correctly reflects our opinions on the evolution of ESDP in the future.

ESDP should further enhance its civil-military character; the best combinations of all assets and instruments are able to offer us the optimal stabilisation result in the field. The aim is to stabilise a crisis management area with a better perspective in the long run.

In this way, we should not be inspired by the military model of NATO, but be able to develop our own approach as is the case in Congo. Belligerents trust us more since EU is not driven by a leader nation with political arrière-pensées and its decisions are taken through transparency rules.

Rapid reaction in movement and transport is a common challenge for all EU operations regardless of their nature. Europe should better explore the use of and synergies among its civilian transport assets. Europeans are leaders in civilian air and maritime transport and such advantage should also serve our rapid reaction in crisis periods. Multi-modal planning, optimal combination of different type of assets (air, sea, helicopters, rail) and better use of civilian assets need to be integrated into our concepts of how we conduct operations.

  Bogdan Golik (PSE). – (PL) Madam President, whether the aims presented in the Security Strategy are achieved largely depends on the ability of the European Union to implement this document, which will, in turn, lend the European Union credibility in terms of a serious security policy, and make it a body capable of taking decisive action in crisis situations. At the moment, we are facing many challenges in the field of foreign policy, such as the conflicts in the Middle East, military missions involving soldiers of the Member States and the emergence of new world powers such as China or India. In these times, it is vital to strengthen our Common Foreign and Security Policy.

To make our Common Foreign and Security Policy more effective and efficient, we need to take key steps today and provide answers to the fundamental questions posed by the rejected Constitutional Treaty. We also need people and institutions to conduct this policy. This includes creating the post of an EU Foreign Minister, greater financial resources, better analysis of key problems and coordination of the policies of the Member States. It is important to create our own pool of skills in the field of humanitarian operations, peacekeeping and pacification missions and crisis management. The security of the Member States of the European Union can be assured by having an effective, multi-faceted system and a stable region.

Implementing the Strategy will largely depend on the will of the Member States and the diligent fulfilment of the responsibilities assigned to them. Actions such as the adoption of a legal framework, an implementation timescale and commitments in the field of external relations will, in themselves, not be enough to create an effective system for preventing and combating threats.

19. Succession and wills (debate)

  President. The next item is the report (A6-0359/2006) by Mr Gargani, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs, with recommendations to the Commission on succession and wills (2005/2148 (INI)).

  Giuseppe Gargani (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, let me say straight away that, in relation to the measure before us, there are in the European Union between 50 000 and 100 000 cases of succession due to death, and this is a measure that is likely to become the reference in issues of international law.

Transnational succession is an extremely wide-ranging phenomenon, and it comes up against an increasing number of difficulties stemming from profound differences between the system of private international law and the substantive law systems of the Member States. That often results in obstacles to the freedom of movement and the enjoyment of the right to own property. The Committee on Legal Affairs, which I have the honour of chairing, has therefore decided to take the initiative to make successions in Europe simpler by using the power granted to it by Article 192 of the EC Treaty, and to call on the Commission to adopt a legislative proposal.

Since we, ladies and gentlemen, unfortunately do not yet have the power to initiate legislation like all our counterparts in the national parliaments – that is an observation that I always make – I turn to you, Commissioner Frattini, and, with the strong backing that I am sure the qualified majority vote will give me, I call on you to carry forward an important request of ours in the interests of Europe’s citizens.

You are aware that, for beneficiaries to take possession of an estate, they currently have to start proceedings in all the countries where the property is located. This is not only a costly and laborious process, but, since the transmission of property by inheritance is a special way of transferring ownership, it is associated with emotional and personal aspects – highly complex interpersonal relationships that even transcend legal arguments. I should like to mention a very personal recollection from my youth, when I was at university: Professor Cariota-Ferrara, who had done his thesis on inheritance law, used to say that inheritance law was a law about emotions, a law that often involved suffering. Hence, Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I am convinced that our proposal will make a real contribution to creating a Europe of the citizens.

I am grateful to the committee, which debated this issue at length and thoroughly examined all aspects of it. I truly believe that what we are putting before Parliament is a very important proposal that represents a step forwards for both political Europe and the citizens’ Europe. I therefore call on you to adopt this report, and I also ask Commissioner Frattini to do so on behalf of the citizens of Europe.

The report we are proposing includes measures aimed at ensuring that there is one applicable law and one competent court. Applicable law and competent court should generally coincide, and the criterion for establishing them is also objective: the habitual place of residence of the deceased at the time of death. Individual freedom of choice is not ruled out, however: people making a will may choose which law should govern the whole succession, either the law of their own nationality or the law of the country in which they are habitually resident at the time the choice is made. Similarly, should disputes arise, the parties may choose the applicable law and the competent courts.

I should like to say a few words on a key point that I consider the cornerstone of our proposal. The report proposes the introduction of a legally binding European certificate of inheritance, which will set out the law applicable to the succession, the beneficiaries of the estate, the persons responsible for administering the estate and their powers, and the property comprising the estate. The certificate will be drawn up according to a standard model and will allow the property inherited to be recorded in the public registers of the Member State in which the property is located.

Mrs Berger has carried out a more thorough investigation than the others precisely on this proposal and has tabled five amendments. In this respect, I must say that I am particularly concerned that the certificate should be compulsory, consistent and legally certain. Indeed, if that is not established, I think the whole structure of the provision will be adversely affected, and it will become less effective and rather less of a reference. Not all the countries in the EU may take it into account, and it will end up being a consultative measure rather than a mandatory one. In any event, that is likely to diminish its force, which should lie precisely in its legal certainty and its ability to reach all citizens, so that they can have a real chance of receiving their inheritance by means of these instruments.

In my opinion, the other amendments should be rejected, and in that respect I should like to appeal particularly to Mrs Berger to think again and perhaps to withdraw or recast her amendment in order to make this proposal more incisive.

  Franco Frattini, Vice-President of the Commission. (IT) Madam President, Mr Gargani, ladies and gentlemen, firstly, I would like to sincerely congratulate Chairman Gargani and the Committee on Legal Affairs for having drawn up a proposal which, if it is approved by this House – as I hope it will be – I will not hesitate to transform into a legislative proposal.

I too would like to begin with an observation. We have worked for a long time to gauge the opinions of legal operators, of experts in the field, and, above all, of the citizens of the European Union, on the possibility of having an instrument clearly identifying the applicable law and therefore making it easier to create a real European area in the sector of succession and wills.

Well, from the results of a survey conducted by Eurobarometer in July 2006 on the various aspects of family law in Europe, it has emerged that, on average, 80% of Europeans believe that recognition of succession and wills within the whole European area is necessary. There are, obviously, countries in which the consensus on this matter is even stronger: in Germany, for example, one of the great founding countries, and in Latvia, a smaller country, 92% consensus was recorded in favour of this kind of legislation; in my own country, Italy, the figure was 88%, as in Hungary. There has therefore been a wide response, showing that, on average, four fifths of Europeans are in favour of facilitating European regulation on succession and wills.

In March 2005, the Commission published a Green Paper on the subject, which has enabled us to gather hundreds of responses of great interest from academics, the legal profession and operators in the field. We have also gathered many good ideas from the hearing on transnational successions, which Parliament had the excellent idea of organising. Among other things, I can inform you that the Commission has, in turn, organised a public hearing on the same topic, to be held on 30 November. It will give us an opportunity to collect further ideas, which, I believe, together with Mr Gargani's report, will enable us to submit a legislative proposal in the near future.

The last subject on which I would like to comment briefly is that already touched on by Chairman Gargani, namely that of a European Certificate of Inheritance. I share the rapporteur’s view that, if we want a truly effective European instrument in this area, it must have binding effect within European territory. In this regard, many of you will remember other instruments of private international law on which we have reached an agreement. If a certain instrument, once adopted in one Member State, could be called into question every time in the other Member States in which it is to be applied – if it is not binding on them, in other words – one of the foundations of the area of free movement of decisions would be jeopardised.

Obviously, the objection could be made that a certificate of inheritance, as such, is always binding, since otherwise it would not be able to certify situations. However, I believe that in this case it would be appropriate to emphasise its binding nature, as we are creating, perhaps for the first time, a useful instrument for resolving the problem of movement among European citizens that is also shown through the recognition of wills, that is the problem of succession and wills. Allow me therefore to say in advance that I agree entirely with Mr Gargani.

  Manuel Medina Ortega, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (ES) Madam President, Mr Gargani has presented us with a report that expresses the Committee on Legal Affairs’ desire for the European institutions to take action in the field of succession law.

Commissioner Frattini has stressed that 80% of European citizens believe that succession law must be regulated and recognised in a harmonised fashion throughout the European Union. We are not talking about theories, but about the realities affecting people who live in different countries or who have families in different countries and who, when succession takes place, find themselves in an absolutely desperate situation.

Unfortunately, the European Union’s Treaties do not provide for the possibility of harmonising the substantive law on succession. This is something that will probably have to be put right in the future, since it makes very little sense that the consequences, the legal system and the rights of inheritors should change entirely as a result of moving a few kilometres and depending on whether a person is established in one country or another.

For the time being, the Committee on Legal Affairs, by means of the report by Mr Gargani, is restricting itself to telling the Commission that it is necessary to begin to propose actions of a legislative nature. Commissioner Frattini has indicated that the Commission is in favour of doing so. We will probably not be able to go much further at the moment.

We in the Committee on Legal Affairs have discussed the merits and the content of the proposals that Mr Frattini includes in the annex; there are certain amendments tabled by my Socialist colleague, Mrs Berger, which are intended to correct some of the defects noted in that annex, but the most important thing of all is that the Commission is prepared to make practical proposals, as Mr Frattini has indicated in this House. We cannot improvise on this issue, since we must work on the basis of our experience.

Anybody who has had to deal with an international succession issue within the European Union will have found themselves faced with huge difficulties, above all in terms of jurisdiction.

We should probably begin to deal with the issue from the point of view of jurisdiction, the competences of courts and the recognition and effectiveness of decisions, removing the exequatur procedure, as Mr Gargani recommends, which makes no sense in the European Union.

I therefore hope that Mr Gargani’s efforts and Mr Frattini’s contribution will make it possible for us soon to have practical proposals on the table for the development of Community law in this field.

  Diana Wallis, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Madam President, on behalf of my Group, I would like to welcome the Green Paper, and thank Mr Gargani very much for his report and all the work that has been done on it in terms of consultation. It really is welcome.

This is clearly an issue that affects an increasing number of our citizens and that we have to address, but it is not a simple issue. When one thinks about how terrible it is for any individual to have to deal with bereavement and then adds to that the difficulties of dealing with some sort of transnational legal situation, it is clearly an area that we have to try to tackle in order to make life easier for our citizens, having encouraged them to be mobile in the way that we have.

But the legal problems that this raises touch on subsidiarity. They touch the culture of our different legal systems very deeply. But it is clear that if we are to tackle the problem, we need, as Mr Gargani has said – and I think my group would also underline – to move towards a binding European certificate of inheritance. That has to be our first goal, to have free circulation of such a binding certificate, in the same way as we have free circulation of ordinary judgments. It is going to be difficult though because, as I have said, it touches matters of public policy within our various countries. It touches matters of taxation law. But I commend the report and hope that the Commissioner will be able to take it forward to a legislative instrument.

  Maria Berger (PSE). – (DE) Madam President, the rapporteur – and chairman of our committee – deserves thanks for his report and also for having been willing to take on board a number of my amendments following the debates in committee.

I think today is a good day for a subject that is not exactly fun: death and inheritance. Having adopted the services directive at second reading, thank heaven there was no derogation for funeral services, which is what many had wanted. Tonight we are discussing European initiatives in the field of inheritance law.

Right at the outset, I would like to clear up a misunderstanding, since it is evident that a technical error has cropped up. I am not seeking to make the certificate of inheritance anything less than binding, but only to delete the words ‘unless and until proven otherwise’; on the contrary, indeed, far from wishing to do away with the certificate of inheritance’s binding effect, I want to reinforce it. Since I shall be clarifying this with the House services, it might perhaps be possible, under these circumstances, for the other groups to vote in favour too.

I hope that Amendment 3 is now acceptable. We are proposing as a starting point a residence period of at least two years, for people should not suffer unexpected legal consequences as a result of short-term relocation, while we do not want to make it easy for someone to evade his own country’s inheritance law, to the detriment of his family members, simply by moving elsewhere.

I would now like to put the case for my other amendments, which provide for the certification of conformity. Since Recommendation 1 testifies to our desire not to interfere in Member States’ procedural law, I see this examination of conformity as going against the principle of non-interference not only in the Member States' material law, but also in their procedural law.

I trust that these explanations will help the other groups to support our amendments after all.

  President. The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow.

20. Women in international politics (debate)

  President. The next item is the report (A6-0362/2006) by Mrs Gomes, on behalf of the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality, on Women in international politics (2006/2057(INI)).

  Ana Maria Gomes (PSE), rapporteur. – (PT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to express my gratitude for all the contributions that I received from all political groups in drawing up this report. These contributions improved the report substantially. The presence of women in international political life has increased. Take, for example, Chancellor Merkel, President Bachelet and President Johnson-Sirleaf and Prime-Ministers Han Myeong-Sook of South Korea and Diogo of Mozambique. Indeed, the EU Presidency is currently headed by a woman, Mrs Halonen. Yet closer inspection reveals that the female presence in politics remains unsatisfactory, both at world and European level, including within each Member State. Gathering data for this report was not easy, and that tells its own bleak story.

At global level, in spite of the declaration and the platform for action adopted in Beijing, and in spite of the Millennium Development Goals, only ten out of the 191 Member States of the United Nations have a woman as Head of State or Government and only 16% of members of parliament around the world are women. In the UN, of the 91 envoys or representatives of the Secretary-General only nine are women.

In spite of Resolution 1325 of the Security Council, adopted six months ago, the composition of international bodies and missions involved in conflict prevention continues to be characterised by inequality. Three weeks ago, the Security Council held a debate on women, peace and security in order to gauge progress in the implementation of Resolution 1325. All agreed that there remains much to be done to translate good intentions and positive words into action. What emerged from the debate were recommendations to involve more women in peace missions and thereby to improve the operational effectiveness of these missions. There was also a call for an urgent change of culture in the office of the Deputy Secretary-General for peace-keeping operations. Our report contains similar recommendations.

I now turn to the situation in Europe. Despite Resolution 2025, and others from this Parliament, and despite, too, the Lisbon Strategy, the composition of the European Commission is not yet characterised by gender parity. Furthermore, out of 107 EU third-country delegations, only seven women are currently serving at the level of Head of EC delegation. In the Council, there is only one woman among the 14 personal representatives of the High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy. This despite the abundance of qualified, experienced and capable women in the Member States and in the European Institutions.

At practically all levels of decision-making apart from the top, there are signs that the glass ceiling is starting at least to bulge, if not to break, because it is indeed only at the very top echelons of European power that women remain scandalously under-represented. At national level, I wish to highlight the pioneering example of the Zapatero Government in Spain. In a world in which the political machinery has a history of blocking women’s involvement in political and economic power, this is a model example, which demonstrates that democracy characterised by gender parity is possible and depends a great deal on clear political leadership.

The conclusions of this report are simple: action must be taken to redress inequality of opportunities at European and national level in all fields: for example, the UN and its Secretary-General, by means of a human resources policy that ought to act as an example to the world, and the EU, by means of support to international women's networks and human resources policies ensuring the balanced presence of men and women in positions of political and economic decision-making.

In this connection, I welcome the fact that the Council has just sent a questionnaire to the Member States to gauge the level of implementation of Resolution 1325. National governments must also encourage more women to apply for political positions at national, European and international level and must ensure that electoral systems produce democratic institutions with balanced representation; no democratic institutions should have fewer than 40% and more than 60% of either sex. Quotas and other mechanisms designed to redress the balance, currently necessary for women, may become necessary for men. Without parity of representation, democracy is incomplete and does not work properly. In this regard, laws and measures contributing towards a better home and working life balance have a vital role to play.

Lastly, political parties should promote women’s involvement by setting quotas and establishing other mechanisms for redressing the balance, including specific training for women to embark on a career in politics. The impetus for change also depends on the quality of party political leadership. Take my country, Portugal, for example, where women have only been allowed to become, for example, judges, diplomats and armed and security forces professionals since the fall of the dictatorship in 1974. These are careers that could provide many more candidates of both sexes for all kinds of European and international missions and posts. Since 1974, there has been extraordinary progress in the presence of women in these careers, yet this progress does not extend to the top of these fields, for example in government or party political decision-making. It is abundantly clear that the glass ceiling effect is in operation, in spite of the overwhelming presence of qualified women in universities, public administration and the world of work as a whole. A parity law governing the electoral lists of the political parties has recently been adopted and practical results are expected. On the path we must follow, numbers should not be our prime concern. Rather, we must recognise and highlight the qualitative difference made by the political representation of women in defining government agendas, in conflict resolution, in transparency and in presentation of accounts; in other words, in reinforcing the rule of law and democracy.

  Franco Frattini, Vice-President of the Commission. Madam President, I would like to start by congratulating the honourable rapporteur for this excellent report. The Commission works hard to promote gender equality both within and outside the European Union and in this regard the European Parliament’s sustained commitment to these issues is vital.

The world needs women leaders at all levels, be it in local communities or in international politics. Women and men must participate on equal terms in the drafting of agendas that affect us all and in the development of solutions to the problems we are facing.

However, if we look around us, what do we see? Men still make most of the decisions. The main examples given in your report clearly demonstrate that the picture is not ideal even for our European democracies and, as you correctly point out, further efforts are needed even inside our respective institutions, the Commission and the Council, to achieve a better gender balance.

Stereotypes and discrimination persist, biased recruitment and promotion systems are rampant, labour market and educational segregation hinder women in achieving their full potential.

One of the core factors remains the imbalanced division of work and family responsibilities. While the competence to act in this field remains at national level, I am convinced that the Commission can bring real added value by promoting awareness-raising, information gathering, research and analysis, networking and dissemination of best practice. This role of the Commission is clearly reflected in our March 2006 Communication ‘Roadmap to Gender Equality’. The future European Institute for Gender Equality will also help keep the issue high on the European agenda, collect and analyse data, conduct research and disseminate good practice.

One priority of the roadmap is promotion of the participation of women and men in decision-making processes. Considering that negative gender stereotypes are strongly related to the unequal representation of women, we have chosen their elimination as another key objective for our programme.

Amongst the Commission’s strategic actions for the next five years, the establishment of a European network of women in economic and political decision-making can be highlighted, as well as awareness-raising campaigns, data collection, analysis and exchange of good practices involving all stakeholders to combat gender stereotypes.

The roadmap also includes the promotion of gender equality outside the European Union. As an example of our action in the external policy field, I would like to mention the Five-Year Action Plan on Gender Equality being signed today in Istanbul by Ministers from the 35 countries of the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership. Women’s political participation is one of the key pillars of today’s Action Plan that will be supported by a regional project starting in 2007.

Through the European Initiative on Democracy and Human Rights, we fund several projects promoted women’s empowerment. As examples I would like to mention the regional project in West Africa aiming at enhancing women’s participation in five countries of the region, the regional project in Latin America, seeking to enhance the democratic participation of young people, particularly girls, and the projects undertaken in Egypt, Jordan, Nigeria, Morocco and Kyrgyzstan to empower women to actively participate in political life.

It is useful that a reference to elections is included in the report. In that context, the Commission has already incorporated the gender perspective into the election observation methodology and women’s participation is systematically monitored throughout the Election Observation Missions. A good example of this can be seen in the European mission recently deployed to Yemen.

As you know, the Commission has a strong and long-standing commitment to mainstream gender across the board in our external relations. Since 2001, the ‘Programme of Action for Mainstreaming Gender Equality in Community Development Cooperation’ has given us a framework within which we have implemented an extensive training programme and developed political tools. In 2007, in cooperation with the United Nations and the International Labour Organisation, we shall be launching a new capacity-building programme, this time directed principally at our partner governments, civil society and other programme-implementing partners in third countries. A specific thematic focus of this programme will be the promotion of women’s participation in peace building, along the lines of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325.

Finally, it is clear to me that, although progress has been made, tremendous efforts are still needed to progress towards gender equality and women’s effective participation in the political sphere. In that respect, the Commission is committed to continuing to mobilise all the instruments available. Pressing issues include the following: first, we need a stronger gender focus in electoral, constitutional, legal and judicial matters. We need to enhance our support of women’s active involvement in defining and implementing policies at national level. Secondly, companies need more women at board level to ensure that the widest possible range of thinking, perspectives, experience and abilities is brought to bear on high-level decision-making. Third, overcoming gender stereotypes in education, training, the labour market and in the media remains an important challenge in all countries.

Finally, to achieve gender balance in decision-making, men must be mobilised and fully involved if we want to move ahead. Family-friendly policies for women and men, such as more flexible working arrangements and quality childcare facilities, can be of much help.

  Marie Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (EL) Madam President, the initiative by Mrs Gomes to draft a report on women in international politics is praiseworthy because, as the Commissioner also pertinently observed, comparisons of the numbers and figures she presents – from Nobel prizewinners to the number of women who have reached key positions in international politics in the Member States or in international organisations – illustrate the lack of female participation.

It is incontestable that a democratic society must be represented in a worthy manner by both men and women and that equal participation should start with training and early initiation into the secrets of politics for men and women, without gender discrimination, and with the possibility of linking professional employment in international foreign politics with family life.

Alongside the rich action and promising plans of the European Union, the Gomes report would retain its value and topical nature if it did not include references to specific national governments and if it did not present lists of countries which have taken measures which cannot be evaluated merely by being referred to.

The participation of women as a mere physical presence on the international political stage is not enough. On the contrary, it must be due to qualifications and abilities evaluated independently of their sex. The constitutions and laws of the Member States should support the principle of equal treatment and the parties should promote worthy men and women without discrimination. Is this not, however, a question of subsidiarity? Can we dictate the composition of the UN? We shall not therefore support these specific points of the report.

I do, of course, congratulate the European Commission on its efforts and the European Parliament should support the principle of equality and promote commensurate numbers during the composition of its directorates, delegations representations and delegations.

We shall only support the specific points of the report to which I referred.

  Zita Gurmai, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (HU) Madam President, the balanced participation of women in decision-making is one of the main challenges of a policy of equal opportunity. This matter also figures on the upcoming action programme on equal opportunities. This effort must be brought to fruition in all spheres, including external policy, to name but one. For equal opportunity cannot be restricted to the territory of the European Union. We must promote the presence of women in political life around the world.

Our views remain voices in the wilderness if they are not accompanied by the necessary political will. For this reason, it is important that at the March Summit six prime ministers, namely those of the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Hungary and Sweden, approved the European Pact for Gender Equality, which extends the perspectives of equal opportunity to our collaboration with the Commission as well. This will, hopefully, provide further possibilities both for women’s advancement in the workplace and in the creation of a suitable work-family balance. My fellow representative has done excellent work, and I propose that we approve the report.

  Anna Záborská (PPE-DE). – (SK) I understand why, as a former diplomat and as a woman who has been involved in politics for years, Mrs Gomes has proposed this topic, and I congratulate her on it.

I fully support the idea that the equal and full participation of women in the political process and in decision-making should fully reflect the true make-up of society. Such participation is important for future generations and for the proper functioning of democratic systems. There is no doubt that equality between the sexes in terms of dignity and responsibility fully justifies the rise of women to public positions. Genuine support for women in politics requires a clear acknowledgement of their value as mothers and their role in the family and this applies in relation to all other public functions and professions.

In addition, these functions and professions must be closely interlinked if we want social and cultural development to be genuinely and fully humane. Let us be honest. Women are always deeply involved in life’s difficult moments, where they make great peacemakers and mediators par excellence. We certainly need to do much more to ensure that the conditions under which women and mothers live and work do not result in any discrimination in the world of politics. In the future, women will be increasingly involved in the serious, hotly debated issues of the day. It is unusual to see a strong social presence of women in all areas, as women are naturally opposed to a society organised exclusively on the basis of efficiency and productivity, and they insist on redefining these systems in a more humane way.

In conclusion, I would like to express the wish that all women who are active in politics may become preachers of a new feminism, capable of appreciating and expressing the true talents of women in all areas of social life, without being tempted to imitate the models created by our male counterparts. And these are talents aimed at overcoming all forms of discrimination in public administration and in political parties.

  Pia Elda Locatelli (PSE). – (IT) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, five days ago the United Nations celebrated the 60th anniversary of the creation of the UN Commission on the Status of Women. On that occasion Kofi Annan stated that the world is finally starting to grasp that there is no more effective tool for promoting development than the empowerment of women and girls, empowerment, says Annan, that raises economic productivity, reduces infant and maternal mortality, improves nutrition and promotes health.

The concept of empowerment, first developed by the European Union, was launched with great impetus by the Fourth United Nations Conference on Women, the Beijing Conference, eleven years ago. The time has come to revive the idea of empowerment by organising a new world conference. In this report we call on the United Nations once again to convene the Fifth World Conference, and we do so with one voice, the European voice, representing 25, soon to be 27, members of the United Nations out of a total of 191 members, a group carrying significant weight. This is one of the follow-up actions that we call for in voting for this thorough and balanced report, on which we congratulate the rapporteur.

  Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (PPE-DE). – (EL) Madam President, it is clear from the previous speeches that there is a lack of participation by women in the exercise of international politics, a record lack you might say, in comparison with other political sectors.

I therefore thank Mrs Gomes, who has given us the opportunity to debate this issue once again. Firstly, because it is a very important issue from the point of view of equilibrium and democracy in the modern world and is a particular dimension of the efforts to achieve equality, justice and, of course, prosperity, as we have already heard.

The second reason is because this dimension is not usually included in the strategies for equality applied by the Member States and the European Union does not, of course, have the competence to impose it, although it could promote it more bindingly and more effectively.

The current situation is not satisfactory, as we have heard, nor are the forecasts optimistic, given that, according to surveys, globally we could exceed a level of 30% in the participation of women in national parliaments alone after 2040. We therefore need to take a good look at ourselves and to apportion blame honestly, to recognise that simple truths and fundamental values are not being applied in practice as a result of the lack of awareness-raising of and information for society and, of course, the lack of political will in all the agencies, each for its part, as stated in the report and in the amendments tabled by my political group.

To close, I should like to comment on our responsibilities in the institutions of the European Union. Both the European Commission and the European Parliament should routinely include in their external relations the dimension of issues of concern to women and should seek balanced participation, both in their speakers in external relations and in the composition of their delegations.

  Edite Estrela (PSE). – (PT) I wish to begin by congratulating Mrs Gomes on her excellent report, which addresses a most topical and relevant subject. Women remain under-represented in both national and European political life, and this is no less true of the European Parliament.

It is incomprehensible that there should be more women than men in universities and increasing numbers of women with masters degrees and doctorates, and that at the same time it is rare to find women in positions of political decision-making or economic power. When they reach a certain level there is always a glass ceiling blocking their path.

Parity is a vital element of democracy itself. Experience has shown that a quota system has led to a more equal, and in turn, a fairer and more harmonious, society. The Member States must adopt laws that guarantee parity.

I should like to conclude, Madam President, with a rhetorical question. How different would the world be if it were governed by a female majority? Would Europe not be different, too?

  Anna Hedh (PSE). – (SV) Madam President, I should like to begin by thanking Mrs Gomes for a quite excellent report. This issue is extremely important from the perspectives of both gender equality and democracy. More than half of Europeans are women. The fact is, then, that it is also important from a democratic point of view for women to participate as fully as men in the political decision-making process.

European policy on equality is based on welfare – something that we must treasure and on which we need to build further, for there are now major deficits where both equality and welfare are concerned. It is a question of being able to combine private and professional life. We are concerned here with the unequal distribution of family responsibility and with discrimination in employment and professional education. We must help each other so that women too are enabled to participate in the political process. A country in which power is not divided equally between men and women is not a welfare state in which all are equal. In the long run, such a state is good for men too but, in the short term, men need perhaps to give way a little and allow women a little more room.

In spite of political statements, recommendations, action programmes and special legislation at national level, women are still under-represented in politics. What is needed if we are to have equality? I believe, unfortunately, that the only solution is to employ quotas and legislation, which should not be needed. If men were to take part in the work to promote gender equality, this major problem could be solved.

  Teresa Riera Madurell (PSE). – (ES) Madam President, we know that international conflicts affect women in particular: the majority of refugees and displaced persons, for example, are women.

We must be aware, however, that it is not women who take the decisions that lead to these situations because, as Mrs Gomes’s extremely interesting report makes very clear, there are practically no women in the places where decisions are taken on international policy, despite the recommendations of the Beijing Action Programme and Resolution 1325 of the United Nations Security Council and despite the fact that, according to experts, women have a particular gift for negotiation and reaching agreements.

It is a paradox that the majority of NGOs that play an active role in peace negotiations and post-conflict processes are made up of women. The EU institutions must support these women, as the report points out.

It is urgent that we take all the necessary measures to ensure that there is a balance between men and women in all areas where decisions that affect our collective fate are taken. An absence of women represents a democratic deficit.

The measures proposed by the report in this regard are very courageous and interesting and they are very much in line with those being taken by the government of my country, Spain.

Congratulations, Mrs Gomes.

  Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg (PSE). – (PL) Madam President, ‘Women represent half the potential talent and skills of humanity and their under-representation in decision-making is a loss for society as a whole.’ This is a quote from the Athens Ministerial Declaration, which was signed 14 years ago. In spite of many similar political declarations, special action programmes and corresponding legislation, the phenomenon of gender discrimination has not disappeared.

Out of nearly 44 000 members of parliament worldwide, only 16% are women. Out of the 191 countries that are currently members of the UN, only seven have a woman as a head of state and eight have a female head of government. The under-representation of women in the political and decision-making process is sometimes associated with the difficulties of trying to balance one’s social, family and work life, and is also often the result of discrimination at work and in professional education.

The European Union should set an example to the world in terms of equal opportunities and democracy. However, even here, in the European Parliament, women make up only 30% of MEPs. Some countries, such as Cyprus or Malta, have no female representatives at all. The Member States and political parties throughout Europe should aim to achieve a so-called ‘balanced participation’ of 40 to 60% of each gender on their lists of candidates. Then social representation would really be equitable.

I would like to congratulate Mrs Gomes on her excellent report. I hope it will contribute to changing the situation of women in political life.

  President. The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow.

21. Fighting trafficking in human beings (debate)

  President. The next item is the report (A6-0368/2006) by Mrs Bauer on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs on fighting trafficking in human beings an integrated approach and proposals for an action plan (2006/2078(INI).

  Edit Bauer (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – (SK) Human trafficking is now spoken of as unquestionably the greatest shame of modern times and the most blatant violation of human rights. It is also an exceptionally dangerous type of criminal activity, representing the third largest source of revenue after weapons and drugs trafficking, with a turnover in billions of euros and dollars.

Just today the Vatican issued a statement describing human trafficking as being worse than slave trade. Experts estimate that every year approximately one hundred thousand persons in the European Union become victims of human trafficking. The most recent findings by Unicef indicate that two thirds of Member States are among the countries of origin and destination. The view that this does not apply to us is therefore mistaken. Also incorrect is the idea that this is a matter concerning only a few thousand prostitutes, whose fates are often very tragic. There are, however, new developments. These include the increasing numbers of those affected by human trafficking in connection with forced labour, the provision of services, forced begging by children and petty crime, as well as trafficking for the purposes of illegal adoption or forced marriages. A Council of Europe report also refers to evidence of trafficking in human organs in European countries.

Even though in the vast majority of cases it is women who are the victims, there is alarming evidence that children account for 40–50% of victims. The report aims to offer an overview of the problem of human trafficking as a whole. It is not about people smuggling or about prostitution per se. It is about trafficking in human beings where early identification of the victim is of primary importance. In the absence of early identification, the victims themselves may well end up being accused of immigration offences or of involvement in illegal activities and they may be extradited from the country before being given a chance to assist in exposing well organised criminal networks, with a high probability of again falling victim to the same networks.

In this context it is necessary to emphasise the importance of the European Union’s plan as well as the tried and tested approaches, standards and procedures for combating human trafficking which are generally viewed as a major advance in this area.

I would, however, like to point out four problem areas in the report.

Firstly, despite the fact that this is an extremely serious crime, the situation in Member States with regard to the relevant legislation and its enforcement is far from satisfactory. Five Member States have yet to ratify the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organised Crime or its supplementary protocol, known as the Palermo Protocol, to prevent, suppress and punish trafficking in persons, especially women and children. As many as ten Members States have not acceded to the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child regarding the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography.

To date, the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings has been ratified by only one country, and seven Member States have not signed it. There are problems with commitments being honoured. In one Member State the crime of trafficking is only punishable by a fine; in another country it is not possible to prosecute trafficking in children who are then forced to beg, as begging per se is not considered a crime; in other countries legal entities may not be prosecuted for committing such crimes. Enforcement is also problematic in cases where Member States have all of the means available, for instance through labour law and the existence of labour inspectorates, despite which human trafficking still occurs.

Secondly, our failings in the area of prevention are no less serious. I would like to refer to a shocking finding in a recent Unicef report, according to which as many as 30% of children in the world remain unregistered. These children, along with those on the streets, can easily fall victim to criminals.

Thirdly, victim protection is more than just a humanitarian task. There is convincing evidence from Europol that without victim protection we cannot count on being able to expose the well organised networks of criminals and middle men effectively. And yet instead of protecting victims the easier option of criminalisation is often chosen.

Fourthly, it is obvious that an effective struggle against trafficking calls for enhanced cooperation between the Member States and Europol, Eurojust, Frontex, Unicef and other international organisations, including NGOs. A unified method of identifying victims and a unified definition of the underlying crime would greatly help towards a better understanding of new developments and of the overall scale of the problem. For now, we can work only with estimates that are regarded as totally unreliable by experts in the field. For now, the criminals will continue to have a head start on the law enforcement agencies.

In conclusion I would like to thank my colleagues who have contributed to improving the report. I would also like to express my agreement with an observation made some time ago by Helga Konrad, formerly OCSE special representative on trafficking in human beings. The trafficking problem is at a crossroads; we know a lot about it, but there are doubts as to whether we also want to take action. Many of us are of the opinion that the time has come for resolute action in combating this particularly serious, dangerous and shameful crime.

IN THE CHAIR: MR OUZKÝ
Vice-President

  Franco Frattini, Vice-President of the Commission. Mr President, I wish to begin by congratulating the rapporteur on this very important report. The European policy against trafficking in human beings is a priority not only for this Parliament but also for the European Commission and myself.

There is a need for further and more effective action to fight trafficking. Even though many initiatives have been taken at national and international level, the results are not comparable to the enormous scale of the criminal phenomenon. The European action plan approved, as you will remember, last December, is the framework for practical action aimed at tackling all aspects of trafficking.

I should like to stress some priorities that, in my view, are necessary. First, for the Member States, it is essential that they accelerate the application of Directive 2004/81/EC on the residence permit issued to third-country nationals who are victims of trafficking in human beings or have been the subject of an action to facilitate illegal migration and who cooperate with the competent authorities. It concerns, in particular, assistance and social reintegration measures, the reflection period and the issuing of the residence permit to victims of trafficking, taking into account also the Council of Europe Convention of 2005.

In this regard, it is important to point out that the reflection period and assistance measures are granted to victims irrespective of their willingness or capacity to cooperate with the law enforcement authorities and that, after the issuing of the residence permits, victims have access to the labour market, vocational training and education.

What is the situation so far? Unfortunately, it is very disappointing. So far only two Member States have transposed the European directive and only six other notifications of initiatives to transpose have been examined by the European Commission. There have been no notifications at all from 12 Member States. As you know, the transposition deadline expired on 6 August 2006 and I have therefore decided to start infringement procedures against all Member States that have not yet transposed this very important EU directive.

Concerning assistance and social reintegration, the need for close cooperation on a regular basis between public authorities, including law enforcement authorities, and NGOs must also be stressed. I believe it is very important to have close and permanent cooperation between public authorities and the private sector on protecting and reintegrating victims.

Concerning investigations, following the initiatives taken by Europol, international police cooperation between Member States’ special units should be enhanced. I am promoting and encouraging better and closer cooperation between all the specialised national units dealing with countering trafficking in human beings. However, on this point, there is a consideration I should like to submit to you. With regard to prosecution I note, with disappointment, that very often charges against criminals exploiting victims of trafficking – for example for sexual reasons – are very weak, focusing only on the simple exploitation of prostitution instead of on the very real charge, which should be the reduction of victims to slavery conditions. It is up to the prosecutors to decide charges, but I really hope that magistrates and judges will now take a much tougher line than in the past. That is the real situation.

There are also priorities for the European Commission. I have decided to set up an expert group on trafficking in human beings. That group of experts will deal specifically with indicators and criteria in order to identify different forms of trafficking for the purpose of labour exploitation. In the same context, at the beginning of 2007 I shall propose European legislation on sanctioning employers who exploit illegal workers, whose working conditions are sometimes akin to slavery.

Concerning trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation, we shall shortly be producing a questionnaire aimed at evaluating, inter alia, the possible impact of new legislation criminalising the use of sexual services in the knowledge that the person concerned is a victim of trafficking. I am therefore keeping my promise to you about this questionnaire.

Furthermore, the root causes of trafficking must be addressed, including poverty, lack of job opportunities, gender violence and gender discrimination. My departments will shortly be hosting an inter-departmental seminar on this issue, precisely to focus on the main problems that are emerging.

One last important point is awareness-raising. The Commission is supporting the designation of an anti-trafficking day, possibly on 11 June. That initiative aims at increasing the visibility of the problems connected with trafficking and the measures taken to counteract trafficking itself. It will call for cooperation from public institutions and civil society and evaluate the quality and the results of all the actions that are under way.

  Simon Coveney (PPE-DE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. – Mr President, I should begin by congratulating the Commissioner on his very positive speech, and on everything he is doing in this area. He is serious about making a difference in combating trafficking, and that needs to be recognised.

I also want to congratulate Mrs Bauer on her report. It has not been an easy report to put together, as various opinions from a number of different committees have had to be incorporated into the final version. I was responsible for the Committee on Foreign Affairs’ opinion on human trafficking, which concentrated specifically on the external relations aspects of this problem. A large number of paragraphs and recommendations from my opinion have been incorporated into the text of the report and I thank Mrs Bauer for her cooperation in that regard.

I wanted this evening to comment primarily on foreign relations issues. The report stresses the need for Member States to sign up to international conventions, ensuring a positive obligation on countries to address issues relating to trafficking. The Irish Government, for example, has not ratified the UN Convention against transnational organised crime and the protocol to that Convention to prevent, suppress and punish trafficking. This anti-trafficking convention and protocol have been ratified by 121 States across the world, including most European countries, but seven EU Member States are still to ratify, which is unacceptable.

The report also urges EU Member States to implement the Council Directive on residence permits so that the option of temporary residence can be granted to victims of trafficking. This is absolutely necessary in order to shift the focus away from viewing trafficked people as illegal immigrants and towards treating them as victims of abuse. It will also encourage victims to come forward to the police by assuring them of compassionate and fair treatment.

One of the core elements of the Committee on Foreign Affairs’ opinion is that the Council and the Commission should regularly raise the issue of human trafficking in political dialogues with third countries. The human rights clauses written into EU agreements with those countries should be used, where appropriate, to raise concerns on trafficking. There is clear evidence in various regions of the globe that pressure from governments, international organisations and NGOs is starting to have an effect on attitudes towards trafficking. The EU has a responsibility to raise the profile, by all available means, of the continuing scandal of what amounts to modern-day slavery.

Europe needs to set an example if it is to insist on other parts of the world following its lead. I am not satisfied – and this was confirmed to me by the Commissioner’s remarks – that EU Governments are serious about this issue. That has to change, and this report is a step in the right direction.

  Jean Lambert (Verts/ALE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs. – Mr President, I too would like to thank the rapporteur for the excellent work she has done on this report. As has been said, I drafted the opinion for the Committee on Employment, where we focused on those people who were effectively trafficked for labour purposes. Indeed, one of the things I welcome in this report is its recognition of the wide variety of reasons for people being trafficked.

My committee particularly welcomes the human rights-based approach of the integrated action plan, and recognises that this requires an emphasis, as the Commissioner said, on the forced labour or services, slavery and slavery-like outcomes of trafficking. We have seen evidence of these slavery-like outcomes only too recently, in the shape of workers who have no choice of when, where or how they work. They have no rights. Their accommodation is tied. They may find themselves beaten, deprived of any medical treatment, deprived of water in high temperatures, and sometimes, as was the case in Morecombe Bay in the UK, they are left to die.

When looking at the causes, the committee also examined the issue of demand and considered that the demand for low-cost, undocumented and docile workers in the European Union contributes to the illegal trade of trafficking in human beings. It believes that the existence of such a workforce may drive down costs but that this is at the expense of human dignity and an undermining of labour standards, health and safety measures and fair pay and of local and/or state income, through a failure to pay taxes and social contributions.

We welcome the view expressed in this report that we should be looking, for example, at the dubious employment agencies that apply both for EU nationals and third country nationals, and which have become a front for these slavery-like outcomes. We believe that there is a need to apply existing labour law and to network the information from labour inspectorates to bring it within the sphere of police intelligence so that we can stop or disrupt trafficking. We also consider training to be an important dimension of that for those inspectorates.

We recognise the importance of good company practice where compliance is genuinely sought all the way down the line, and we also recognise the valuable work of networks, trade unions and reputable companies in helping to prevent trafficking and deal with the victims.

On a personal note, I very much welcome the action the Commissioner has said he intends to take on the issue of temporary residence permits. I deeply regret the action of my own Member State, for example, which views victims, as Mr Coveney said, predominantly as illegal migrants rather than as victims. The police tell us that those who are deported are often retrafficked around and around in a vicious circle, rather than being seen as vulnerable individuals, or indeed as potential sources of information.

I very much welcome what the Commissioner has said, and the report, and look forward to this being followed up with very strong action.

  Maria Carlshamre (ALDE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality. – This report is the result of enhanced cooperation, pursuant to Rule 47, between two committees, LIBE and FEMM. I am therefore partly responsible for this report, specifically the parts dealing with trafficking of women and girls for sexual exploitation.

Seventeen years: that is the age of the typical victim of trafficking in Europe. She is a young girl ending up in a brothel or in a so-called escort service in Germany, Austria or the Netherlands.

Seventeen years: that is the same length of time that this Parliament has been debating and producing papers on the issue of trafficking. People say that we should stick to what we have been doing in this Parliament until now. But I say we have to stop the wishful thinking and the empty talk and resolutions and start dealing with this issue in a practical way.

First, we have to identify the enemy. It is organised crime. While we have been talking, they have changed their agenda from weapons and drugs to the more profitable buying and selling of human beings for the sex industry. We are talking commodities. We are talking merchandise. We are talking regular markets where naked young girls are sold to the highest bidder. We are talking about girls who are sold at the age of 17 and at the age of 20 are worthless and thrown aside. I have met them and listened to unbelievable horrors of being raped 14 times a day. Do we want to end this, or do we just want to go on talking? This organised crime industry feeds on the demands of ordinary men who believe they have a right to buy the body of a young girl as cheaply as possible.

Some people say trafficking in women and girls for sexual exploitation is already a crime, while prostitution is merely a matter of consenting adults making a business transaction. But more than 90% of the girls in the sex industry in Germany, Austria and the Netherlands, where prostitution is legal, are from abroad. How can you know that this girl is doing it of her own free will? How can you be sure she is not smiling only because she knows someone will threaten her family back home if she does not comply? If you see this as just another job, how come you would not want your daughter to do it? Or your own wife? The demand from men to buy sex is also a driving force in the trafficking business.

If you agree with me that we need to really do something about trafficking, please join me in voting against Amendments 23, 24 and 25 tomorrow.

Commissioner Frattini, I am very grateful for your work, but we are still awaiting the study on how the laws on prostitution in Europe affect the number of trafficking victims. That is needed if we are to find the best practice.

  Carlos Coelho, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (PT) Trafficking in human beings is a modern version of slavery. It is not a recent phenomenon. It has been growing in recent years and has reached alarming levels. The International Labour Organisation estimates, for example, that there are some 2.5 million people in forced labour throughout the world.

This is already the third most lucrative form of trafficking, after drugs and arms. It manifests itself in the form of sexual exploitation, as previous speakers have mentioned, as well as abusive working conditions, forced domestic labour, illegal adoption, forced begging and the sale of organs.

Fighting the trafficking in human beings is therefore one of the major priorities at both Community and international level. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats wishes to commend Mrs Bauer on her excellent report. We agree that there needs to be a coherent European policy on fighting the trafficking in human beings effectively, one that covers all aspects of the issue, including questions relating to countries of origin, transit and destination, people who recruit and exploit and other middlemen, customers and beneficiaries. Victims and witnesses must be protected, and prevention strategies must be put forward.

Trafficking in human beings is unacceptable and legal loopholes must not be allowed to facilitate it. The law needs to be clear and far-reaching, and must be implemented and correctly enforced by all Member States. There needs to be a legal platform acting as a basis for stepping up international cooperation, and I am appalled that it has taken such a long time to ratify and implement various international instruments, such as UN conventions. I would call on the Member States that have yet to do so to take the necessary measures at the earliest opportunity. In this connection, let me commend Mr Frattini for his remarks in the Chamber today regarding penalising those Member States that are late in adopting the transposed Community directives.

  Inger Segelström, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (SV) Mr President, Commissioner Frattini, fellow Members, ladies and gentlemen, I want to begin by thanking Mrs Bauer for her sterling report and the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs for its constructive cooperation and for its enhanced cooperation with the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality. I also want to thank Commissioner Frattini.

During the two and a half years that I have sat in the European Parliament, the issue of trafficking in human beings has assumed a prominent place on the political agenda, not only in the European Parliament but also in the Member States and among Europeans. That is a good beginning. I am very pleased that we are united in condemning people trafficking, as we were in condemning it in the context of the football World Cup. I welcome the fact that we are now also including other aspects of people trafficking and that we are agreed that what we are talking about in this case is a modern slave trade, at least 80% of whose victims are women and children.

What worries me is the lack of analysis of what happens to the women and children once they have actually reached the EU. It does not help to be outraged by cross-border trafficking if one does not see, or does not want to talk about, what happens subsequently in the EU. Those who purchase sexual services buy women and children indiscriminately in an equally indiscriminate EU market. Whenever I have met trafficked women, they have said that they have been bought and that they have been sold into prostitution and marketed to clients in a great many EU countries day in, day out, all year round. This has been possible because we, here in the EU, still do not dare to talk about those women and children who are here right now. It is time to change attitudes. The next step is for us to obtain more knowledge. The fact that 50% of those sold into prostitution are children is scandalous. We should be ashamed of ourselves every day for not doing more, because we in the EU have a responsibility for children’s rights.

I am proud to tell you that we in the Socialist Group in the European Parliament are agreed as to how we want to move forward. We wish to set targets, carry out studies and become better informed. We shall then perhaps be able to agree on what is required in the short and long terms. If you other political groups want to know what we are doing, I can tell you that we are preparing the way for a debate on various possible ways of putting an end to people trafficking in Member States, for example through the legalisation of prostitution or, as in Sweden, through a law prohibiting the purchase of sexual services. Why is the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats afraid of university studies? That is something I should like to know.

Merely to be opposed to people trafficking this evening is simply to say that we in the European Parliament are concerned about the matter. We are, however, putting our heads, ostrich-like, in the sand and not assuming responsibility for what is happening to all those women and children who are being exploited here and now. Many people say that we in the EU do little but talk when we should be setting practical targets. The PSE Group and I therefore want us to set the EU a target whereby it is to halve the number of people exposed to people trafficking within ten years.

The PSE Group also supports Amendments 1 to 22 and recital P. We shall abstain in the vote on recital O because we are not adopting a position either in favour of, or against, an individual investigation. On Amendment 25, we shall each vote in our own way. I shall vote in favour of paragraph 1(al) and against Amendment 25, and this on the basis of my political experience of the view taken of the sex trade and prostitution in Sweden. What is most important now is to pursue the 50% reduction in people trafficking and to implement the planned investigation in the EU in 2007. I want to thank all my fellow citizens for this debate. I also want to thank all those who have participated in the debate here in the House, together with the President and Commissioner Frattini.

  Margrete Auken, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DA) Mr President, I thought I would give a different speech to the one I have written down, as much of what I wanted to say has been said. This is a good debate in which it is important for us to underline the fact that the issue in question is one that must be dealt with, both through the ratification of conventions and through work on the great social inequalities. Let me state, then, that getting conventions ratified is not enough. They also need to be complied with. I am in a position to say that, in a country like Denmark alone, all too few resources are set aside for combating the sex trade. There is not enough investigation, and those women who are the victims of the trade have no more than 30 days before they are kicked out of the country. There is sufficient time neither for them to get the help they need nor for anything to be done about the problem. We then ask ourselves whether this is because we do, in reality, accept that there can be trafficking in women and children. On this point I personally do, in fact, agree with the Swedes that it has proved that, when there is a market, then it is all too very easy both to create an acceptance of the fact that this activity can take place and also, of course, to make things easier for the criminals. It is very easy for them to gain access to an already established market with their victims and, until something is done about that, I really do not think that we will truly be able to stamp out this trade.

This is a debate we must have because it is incredibly important that we get something done about this issue. As I say, I wish, personally, to support the Swedish proposal but I am also incredibly open to other things, as long as we establish that it is not just ratifications that are needed but changes of attitude and that funding also needs to be set aside to provide real help because, until all this happens, all that we shall have, as my Swedish fellow Member said before I got up to speak, is little more than words. I can tell you that even the finest of targets do not help the people who are being trafficked if they are not backed up by proper powers, political will and proper effort. I hope, then, that this is something we can agree on.

  Bairbre de Brún, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (The speaker spoke Irish)

Mr President, I want to thank the rapporteur, Edit Bauer, for the considerable work that has gone into the series of proposals contained in the recommendations for an integrated approach to fighting trafficking in human beings. Given that this problem is on the rise, an integrated approach is required and one which takes full account of the importance of prevention and the crucial issue of reducing demand.

I welcome the report’s call for EU Member States and the Council to strengthen the human-rights-based, gender-equality and victim-centred approach to this issue. It is essential that the trafficking of people be dealt with as a human rights issue, rather than being seen mainly as an issue of border control. Trafficking is primarily about exploitation, not illegal migration. It is unacceptable that in some countries there is no legislative provision for residence permits for the victims of trafficking and in other states, where provision is made; it is linked to the victims’ cooperation with police. Some victims clearly will not be able to provide useful information. They will be too traumatised to do so.

I too welcome the Commissioner’s comments here tonight. I think they underline the long overdue need for action by governments, including my own.

The report contains important measures for protecting victims and shows the extent of the protection measures that are needed. These have to be included and resourced as part, as a major part in fact, of any action plan and implementation of that plan. I agree with other speakers that ratifying conventions is good, action plans are good, but we actually have to see the action to see this worked through.

Identifying the victims of trafficking is, of course, crucial to ensuring that they receive the services they require. Training for those who come into contact with undocumented migrants is therefore important. The report also points out that measures are required to ensure the protection of not only victims of sexual exploitation but also victims of labour exploitation and other forms of trafficking.

European governments therefore have to understand that an integral part of the fight against trafficking is the introduction of measures to strengthen workers’ rights to protect migrant workers. I think we need to look not only at the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings but also at ratifying the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families. That too has to be an essential part of tackling trafficking in human beings.

  Irena Belohorská (NI). – (SK) I welcome this important report and I would also like to express my thanks to Mrs Edit Bauer for her work. I am glad that some of my amendments have been adopted in the Subcommittee on Human Rights, and I trust that they too have contributed to the quality of this report.

Trafficking in human beings is one of the most sophisticated, best organised and most profitable forms of criminal activity. This is a problem not only for the developing world, but also for the European Union. In my amendments I focused on the fact that most of the victims of sexual abuse and trafficking in human beings are minors, who constitute the most vulnerable section of the population. For instance, the consent of a child to prostitution may not be viewed in the same way as the consent of an adult who is aware of the consequences of his or her conduct. Many international agreements and treaties have been signed on this issue. However, many states have not even ratified these instruments and those that have ratified them fail to enforce them, which results in these documents becoming irrelevant.

Although at international conferences attended by various states we all agree that we really must implement these documents to which we all subscribe, such efforts frequently cease on the last day of the conference and the status quo remains unchanged. In addition to focusing on the customer-victim relationship, it is necessary to pay attention to employers, especially in countries where visa requirements are not applied. Cooperation must exist between the three elements, that is, the country of origin, the transit countries and the destination countries. It is necessary to monitor the operation and trustworthiness of employment agencies, including those that are thought to recruit only seasonal workers.

Companies that employ cheap labour obtained through human trafficking must be punished extremely heavily. Inspections at facilities providing sexual services will not suffice. It would be desirable also to have administrative inspections in addition to the penalties set out under criminal law. The funding available to the non-governmental organisations that deal with political rights is many times greater than that available to NGOs addressing human trafficking or women’s rights. Sadly, this appears to reflect how countries have set their priorities.

  Kinga Gál (PPE-DE). – (HU) Mr President, I can only congratulate Mrs Edit Bauer for having addressed this sad and very serious question with such professional expertise and commitment. We can only support her in this at the vote tomorrow. Thanks are due as well to Mr Frattini, for the same degree of commitment. For this is what is necessary, given that trafficking in human beings, and especially in women and children, has since the 1990s grown into one of the world’s most alarming phenomena.

No doubt everyone has heard astonishing figures – we have listened to and discussed these here today. I am particularly saddened by the fact that 40-50% of all victims are children. According to UNICEF’s estimate, one million children each year are caught up in the international trafficking in children.

One of the roots of the problem is the hopeless situation in the countries of origin. But we must also recognise that the principal motor driving the trade is demand. Human traffickers would not succeed if the host states did not have such a large demand for women and children to exploit, that is, for cheap labour.

It makes no difference that practically the whole world condemns this sexual exploitation or slavery of children, and the police forces of individual countries strive in vain to uncover paedophile rings, if trafficking in human beings remains largely international in scope. Therefore, we must strengthen cross-border cooperation to protect the victims, bring the offenders effectively to justice and work out comprehensive methods of prevention.

Currently, human trafficking is the most rapidly growing criminal activity within the European Union. The struggle against trafficking of women and children is a moral question as well, and I have no doubt that it is our duty to intervene against it. It is sad to see that the European Parliament has to debate this issue, here among these empty benches, for in my view, this question somehow affects all of us, since it is our children who are at stake.

  Francisco Assis (PSE). – (PT) Trafficking in human beings is a heinous crime that, in a particularly insidious fashion, debases the very nature of what it is to be a human being. Unfortunately, it has become one of the most lucrative forms of international organised crime. It affects hundreds of thousands of people throughout the world, and in particular the weakest and the poorest, women and children.

The fight against this scourge ought to be an immediate priority. For this fight to be successful, international cooperation must be stepped up in the areas of investigation, exchange of information, identification of victims, law enforcement and reintegration. Accordingly, those Member States that have yet to do so must speed up the process of ratifying and implementing the many existing international conventions that could make a decisive contribution towards gradually eradicating this utterly abhorrent crime.

The EU, too, must strengthen its commitment to promoting initiatives aimed at combating the causes of this most disgraceful trade, and must support the weakest countries in which most of this trafficking originates.

As we debate this matter here in the Chamber, we must all be aware of the enormous difficulty of the war that we must wage together. We must be clear in our minds that we are fighting to defend human dignity. There is therefore, ladies and gentlemen, no more urgent fight than this.

  Leopold Józef Rutowicz (NI). – (PL) Mr President, the fight against human trafficking is a great challenge for the twenty-first century. In the struggle for human dignity, and in order to limit this phenomenon, international and national organisations have signed a series of declarations, conventions and directives, and are implementing a series of action plans. As the rapporteur has pointed out, these action plans may restrict human trafficking in its broadest sense, but they do not eliminate its causes.

The causes include: unemployment, hunger, poverty affecting large parts of society, high indirect labour costs, competition and the desire to achieve maximum profit. They often encourage illegal work and permit local communities to turn a blind eye to slave labour (an example would be the case of the area surrounding the Italian town of Foggia), sexual abuse, ethnic conflicts and wars.

This report could provide the basis for drawing up a programme for further economic, legal, political, educational, informative and institutional actions. Implementing this programme would restrict human trafficking, which goes against the principles of democracy and human dignity.

  Hubert Pirker (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Bauer’s report not only affords us an in-depth analysis of this ghastly state of affairs, but also very wide-ranging proposals as to how strategies to combat people-trafficking – one of the cruellest branches of organised crime – may be successfully implemented. These proposals range from the improvement of the legal framework to improved coordination of the most diverse measures at national and European level, taking in also the action needed in order to reduce demand and to protect the victims.

While I support them, I would also suggest that corrections be made at a few points, with it being prescribed in detail to the Member States what measures they are to take in order to protect victims, with regard to such things as access to the labour market, to accommodation, to education and so on, irrespective of whether or not the said victim is willing to cooperate with the authorities. It is in these respects that the Member States should take appropriate action to protect the victims, albeit not of such a nature as to drive more of them into the clutches of the people-traffickers.

I am particularly grateful to Commission Frattini for taking very definite action that will have a lasting effect, and am very supportive of his action in now threatening that those Member States that have not hitherto been willing to implement and transpose the relevant directives, regulations and international conventions will have to face the consequences. Their attitude is simply unacceptable, and the Member States must now do something in response to the requirements imposed by the UN and the European Union.

  Andrzej Jan Szejna (PSE). – (PL) Mr President, first of all, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur, who has addressed a very important issue which is of great socio-political significance.

Human trafficking is a problem on a global scale and is a modern version of slavery which infringes fundamental human rights. The trafficking of women and children is a particularly tragic side of this phenomenon. In my speech, I would like to focus on the economic aspects of this phenomenon.

It should be stressed that human trafficking is driven by the forces of both supply and demand. In some developing countries, in contrast to the levels of social and economic development in Europe, there are few prospects for the future in terms of the economic and social situation, unemployment is high and there is growing poverty. These factors contribute towards a situation where it is easy for criminal organisations to profit through human trafficking.

However, we should also take into account the fact that the demand for cheap, unregistered and obedient workers in the European Union contributes to the illegal trade in human beings, as using such a workforce can cut costs. However, this is done at the expense of human dignity and undermines employment standards, health and safety, fair pay and local and national budgets through unpaid taxes and social security contributions.

Human trafficking is the fastest growing criminal activity amongst the forms of organised crime in the European Union. The measures taken to restrict human trafficking to date have yet to produce tangible results.

There are obvious difficulties involved in combating this phenomenon, but the European Union must take decisive action. That is why we should gladly adopt the report before us, which proposes an integrated approach, and the proposed action plan.

  Ivo Belet (PPE-DE). – (NL) Mr President, Commissioner, it is women and children who are most vulnerable to human trafficking, and it is unfortunate that the world of sport deserves some of the blame in this respect. More and more, professional sports clubs resort to attracting ever younger players, particularly from Africa, for the obvious reason that they pay very little, if anything, for them. These players are often simply dumped along the way, and subsequently go underground. Too little attention is given to this.

In our draft report on the future of professional football in Europe, we demand that the Commission should deal with this in the context of the Council's framework decision on the fight against human trafficking. Since, Commissioner, this decision makes no bones about the fact that the exploitation of children is punishable, we want the Member States to introduce hefty penalties for it. May I remind you in this connection of the agreements that were concluded at the European Summit in The Hague two years ago? The European Council then recommended that a European plan be drawn up in order to develop common standards, best practices and suchlike to prevent and fight human trafficking.

I have to tell Commissioner Frattini that this issue is becoming all the more urgent and acute because some professional football clubs intend to circumvent and undermine the so-called ‘home-grown’ rule by attracting ever younger players to Western Europe, or Europe in general. This often involves entire families moving, only for many of them later to be left to their own devices.

I would like to add that we give our 100% backing to this home-grown rule that has already been implemented by UEFA, because it benefits the training of young footballers. Moreover, on the basis of initial discussions here in the parliamentary committees, it seems that this home-grown rule meets with broad support here in Parliament. We must, whatever we do, rule out the risk of this measure being undermined, and that is why I urge you to support the amendment which I, along with the rapporteur, have submitted to that effect. My question is, of course, addressed to the Members in this Chamber, but also to the Commission and ministers.

  Justas Vincas Paleckis (PSE). – (LT) I would like to thank the rapporteur for doing such an enormously important work.

Europe has long been proud that slavery was eradicated here sooner than on any other continent. Sadly, it is returning in other forms that are equally repulsive, along with scorn, distress and, ironically, unimaginable profits.

What should we do first? We should coordinate the actions of the EU and all neighbouring countries better, eliminate legal gaps enabling offenders to evade law enforcement without being punished, even hand out to all Members of the European Parliament a kind of 'shame list' of states, which have failed to ratify United Nations conventions on trafficking in human beings, and draft a code of conduct for officers of EU institutions and bodies, which would even be useful for some Members of Parliament.

We must make our citizens, especially those in the new EU Member States, clearly aware of the possible threats of becoming a target of traffickers in people. The victims of offenders must not only have the courage but also the right to be able to address governmental institutions without being afraid of deportation.

  President. The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow at 12 noon.

Written Statement (Rule 142)

  Alessandro Battilocchio (NI). – (IT) I worked as draftsman for the Committee on Development on the Financial Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights, together with the members of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. Our committee has voted for an amendment including the fight against trafficking in women and children, who represent almost all the people trafficked, among the projects that can be funded using this instrument, primarily to help the countries at the origin of the trafficking to combat this dishonourable practice.

However, few projects, even if well targeted, are not enough to combat a problem concerning over a million victims a year, above all women, teenage girls and children. A legal framework regulating prostitution, close collaboration between the Member States and, above all, with the countries of origin of the majority of victims, as well as extremely harsh punishments for those promoting this trafficking, are necessary tools to try to bring an end to this scourge. However, we also need to implement a strong dissuasion and awareness campaign for all Europeans that feed people trafficking, primarily through sex tourism.

Finally, I would like to extend my support to the committee's proposals for actions supporting victims, helping them to come out into the open, denounce their traffickers and become rehabilitated in European society.

22. Agenda for next sitting: see Minutes

23. Closure of sitting

(The sitting was suspended at 11.30 p.m.)