Verbatim report of proceedings

Wednesday, 17 January 2007 - Strasbourg

1. Opening of the sitting

IN THE CHAIR: MR POETTERING
President

(The sitting was opened at 9.35 a.m.)

2. Documents received: see Minutes

3. Programme of the German presidency (debate)

  President. Ladies and gentlemen, I welcome you to the debate on the programme of the German Presidency of the Council, and to the President of the European Council, the German Federal Chancellor Mrs Angela Merkel, I extend a warm welcome to the European Parliament.

(Applause)

I also welcome the President of the Commission, Mr Barroso, whose very frequent participation in our debates is something we very much value, and, while he does attend as a matter of duty, I do hope he always enjoys the experience as well.

(Applause)

In your person, Madam Federal Chancellor, you symbolise the change that has occurred on our European continent. In 1979, when this Parliament was first directly elected by what were then the nine peoples of the European Community, Germany and our European continent were divided by minefields and barbed wire, and Berlin, the capital of your country, by a wall. You yourself were obliged to live in the unfree eastern part of your fatherland, which was eventually reunited on 3 October 1990. On 1 May 2004, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Slovenia, together with Malta and Cyprus, joined us, to be followed at the beginning of this year by Bulgaria and Romania as members of the community of values – now comprising twenty-seven peoples – that makes up the European Union. You, Madam Federal Chancellor, are the first President of the European Council to come from that part of Europe that was formerly not free. Today, you represent the community of free peoples that is the European Union. Today, you will be addressing the democratically elected representatives of twenty-seven European peoples, amounting to nearly 500 million people. The European Parliament before which you will be standing is strong, self-assured and committed to European unity. That which, in 1979, appeared to be an unattainable mirage has now become reality, and that shows just how right it was and is that the policy of European integration should be founded on the values we share.

I will now invite you, Madam President of the European Council, to address the representatives of the citizens of the European Union.

(Applause)

  Angela Merkel, President-in-Office of the Council. (DE) Mr President, Mr Poettering, Mr President of the Commission, Mr Barroso, honourable Members – whom, as a representative of a national parliament, I am tempted to call colleagues – ladies and gentlemen, I am glad to be able to address you today, for the first time as President of the Council, and, standing before a Parliament whose Members are now drawn from twenty-seven Member States, so please allow me once more to extend a particularly warm welcome to the Members from Romania and Bulgaria.

(Applause)

I would also like to congratulate again – not least on behalf of the Council, the President of your House and the Vice-Presidents, who were elected yesterday, and would like, at the beginning of the German Presidency, to offer you good, close, constructive and hard-working cooperation, as is only fitting when one is working together with what your President has just described as a self-assured parliament.

I have spent all my life in Europe, but, in the European Union, I am still only a teenager, for I grew up in the former GDR, and it was only 17 years ago, following the reunification of Germany that resulted from the downfall of socialism, that I – like many millions of other people – became a citizen of the European Union. It follows, then, that, until I was 35, I knew the European Union only from the outside, and have known it from the inside only since 1990.

It is a fact of life that, almost always, everything looks different from the inside to what it does from the outside; that is the case with every house, and it is true also of Europe. Viewed from the outside, the European Union is an historic success story without parallel, one of the most impressive peaceful endeavours on this planet. European unification has been a stroke of great good fortune for the peoples of Europe, securing their freedom and making prosperity possible for them.

(Applause)

The Treaties of Rome will soon be 50 years old. We will be celebrating this anniversary on 24 and 25 March in Berlin, a city that is itself unequalled as a symbol of the reunification of Europe after the end of the Cold War. Let us be honest, though; 50 years is, in essence and in terms of history, no more than the blink of an eye. It has to be said, however, that, in this brief period of time, an unimaginable amount has been achieved in Europe. That, then, is Europe as seen from the outside.

Yet seen from the inside, too, the European Union makes a wonderful home, even more beautiful, I think – and that is my experience of the last seventeen years – than when seen from outside; it is a home that I wish never again to leave. There is no better place than our common European home for our life in Europe – of that I am convinced.

(Applause)

Today, we are extending it, enlarging it, in several places, restoring it; and sometimes I find myself thinking that, if we are so very occupied with extending and renewing the building, so that, today almost half a billion Europeans can call it home, then it would be easy for us, with all this building work going on, to miss what is so great, so unique, about it, to be sometimes scarcely able to grasp what it is that really makes this building what it is, what is at its heart.

That is how many people in Europe feel today; one feels it back home. They ask themselves: what is Europe meant to be? What do we need it for? What, at its very core, holds Europe together? In what does this European Union consist?

There are those who think there is little to be gained from trying to determine Europe’s nature; I have to say, speaking frankly, that I take a completely different view. I think back to Jacques Delors, who, famously, said: ‘We have to give Europe a soul’. To that, I would add, putting it in my own way, that we have to find Europe’s soul, for the fact is that we do not need to give Europe a soul, for it already has one.

Is this soul diversity? Scarcely anyone has expressed that more beautifully than the author Karel Čapek, a great European from Prague, and I quote: ‘He who made Europe made it small, even dividing it into tiny pieces, so that our hearts might rejoice, not in its size, but in its diversity’.

Diversity? It is true to say – there is no doubt about it – that it is from its diversity that Europe lives; the differences between our nations, between the regions of Europe, the various languages and ways of looking at the world are all things that we want to retain. We have neither the ability nor the desire to harmonise all the things that are capable of being harmonised.

Yes, it is true: Europe lives from its diversity, but it is also true that diversity as such cannot be the universal European principle that helps us to understand what holds Europe together at its deepest level, in other words, what its soul is.

Even so, by recognising the diversity of nations and people, we do achieve something else; it is this that brings us to what actually is the right question, the one we have to answer. That question is: what is it that makes Europe’s diversity possible?

I think the answer to this question is crystal clear; it is freedom that makes our diversity possible.

(Applause)

It is freedom on which our diversity depends, and by that I mean freedom in all its aspects: the freedom to express one’s opinions openly, even when they disturb others; the freedom to believe or not to believe; the freedom to engage in entrepreneurial activity; the freedom of the artist to shape his work according to his own conceptions. It is this freedom that Europe needs, in the same way that we need air in order to breathe. When it is restricted, we are stunted.

It is, for Europe, a matter of life and death always to be aware of the fact that freedom is not something that, once gained, can never be lost. Freedom must be won anew virtually every day.

(Applause)

Freedom is not without its obligations; it is inseparable from responsibility. If, then, we are to talk about freedom, we are actually talking about the freedom of others; it involves us saying, in Voltaire’s celebrated words, which I quote: ‘I may detest what you say, but I will give my life to defend your right to say it’. I see Voltaire as embodying the soul of Europe,

(Applause)

He does so because that saying of his shows that what distinguishes Europe, that which constitutes its soul, is the way we handle our diversity.

We Europeans have learned from our history how to make the most of diversity, and that characteristic that enables us to do that, that fits us for freedom in responsibility for others, is a valuable thing. That characteristic is tolerance. Europe’s soul is tolerance. Europe is the continent of tolerance. It has taken us centuries to learn that, and the process of learning tolerance has led us through suffering and calamity as we persecuted one another, attempted to exterminate one another, laid our homeland waste, and imperilled those things we hold sacred. The worst period of hatred, devastation and destruction lies less than a human lifetime in our past. What was done then was done in the name of my people.

This history, stretching over centuries, certainly does not entitle us Europeans to look down on the peoples in various regions of the earth today who are finding the practice of tolerance difficult. Those same centuries of history do, though, impose on us, in Europe, the obligation to promote tolerance the length and breadth of Europe and throughout the world, and to help everyone to put it into practice.

(Applause)

Tolerance is indeed a demanding virtue; it demands our hearts and minds, it is something for which we have to make sacrifices, but not under any circumstances is it to be confused with indifference or the refusal to take sides, and, moreover, tolerance – of the sort we need in Europe – is about more than renouncing violence, it is about more than merely tolerating the other; on the contrary, it calls on us to want the other.

There is a quite simple way to reach the soul of Europe, to achieve tolerance; it necessarily involves us seeing things as other people see them. Just try it sometime; discovering the diversity of our continent – wherein our wealth resides – with the eyes of Europe’s many peoples is an exciting adventure, but we must not, in our fascination with it, forget that tolerance constantly faces new challenges. Let me make it clear, then, that Europe must never show even the slightest sympathy with intolerance,

(Applause)

never even the slightest sympathy with the violence of extremists from left or right, or with violence in the name of a religion; if it fails to defend itself against intolerance, tolerance digs its own grave, or, as Thomas Mann put it, ‘Tolerance, when it extends to evil, becomes a crime’.

It is tolerance without yielding to intolerance that makes people human. In Lessing’s famous parable of the rings, Nathan the Wise tells the story of a dispute between three brothers as to who is the rightful inheritor of their father’s ring, and hence of religious truth, and the status as heir manifests itself only through good deeds, in which the brothers are to strive to outdo one another. Here, I think, we encounter anew the soul of Europe, in seeking the best in peaceful coexistence with, indeed, in peaceful commitment to, one another.

For me, as one who, as a Christian, explicitly affirms the Christian principles that underpin Europe, the finest thing in the play is the request that the Sultan makes of Nathan, when, despite all the boundaries of faith that divide them, he, as a Moslem, asks the Jew to ‘be my friend’.

That is indeed what we are seeking after and striving for; the co-existence of peoples one with another that was, and still is, the great goal of European integration.

(Applause)

It was from that starting point that the first steps towards Europe were taken after 1945: neither the treaty on the Coal and Steel Community nor, indeed, the Treaties of Rome had much – if anything – to say about our culture, and it is mentioned only marginally in the Treaty of Maastricht. None of these treaties, though, would have been possible without a vision for a shared Europe, a vision, that is to say, of what Europe, at its very heart, is all about. They did, however, already touch on important questions concerning European coexistence and manage to answer some of them.

It is, then, on that basis for our present tasks that I can affirm my belief in a Europe in which all Member States – large and small, old and new – coexist as equals. It is only if we stick together that Europe will be a success. It is precisely because Europe is something we can achieve only together that our presidency is under the motto of ‘Europe – succeeding together’– and to that I would add that it is only if we stick together that Europe will be a success.

I believe in a Europe that concentrates on the things that are best managed at European level, but does so really effectively and with the necessary dedication. On the other hand, though, I believe in a Europe that quite deliberately leaves areas of policy where European regulation would tend to be a hindrance to the Member States, to their regions and to their local authorities to deal with.

(Applause)

I believe in a Europe that explicitly backs European solutions where it needs and wants to take joint action in order to be equal to such challenges of the twenty-first century as globalisation and the threats posed to peace and security by new dangers, terrorism being one of them

It is my conviction that it is only our understanding of tolerance that, ultimately, enables us to face all these challenges. The draft constitutional treaty is the first European treaty document to make explicit reference to tolerance as a characteristic of the Member States of the European Union, and as something with which we create the basis on which the Europe of the future can devise new and rational rules, by which I mean rules that will be commensurate with the new size of the European Union and with the challenges facing it and will have to make us capable of acting effectively. The fact is that we know that the rules as they stand at present neither enable the EU to be further enlarged, nor do they equip it to take the decisions that have to be taken. This is a state of affairs that we must put behind us.

If we are to do that, the EU’s powers and responsibilities, and those of the Member States, will have to be clearly described, Procedural rules will have to be defined with greater clarity than they have been before. To put it another way, the treaties that serve as our foundations must be adapted to changed conditions if the European Union is to survive in tomorrow’s world.

It is with those facts in mind that I will, at the European Council’s behest, be consulting with all the Member States, the Commission and your House on how to find a way out of the crisis around the ratification of the constitutional treaty. The period of reflection is behind us; we now have to come up with new decisions by June. I am committed to making it possible for a timetable for the remainder of the constitution-making process to be adopted by the end of the German Presidency of the Council.

(Applause)

It is in the interests of Europe, of its Member States and of its citizens, that this process be satisfactorily completed before the spring of 2009, when the next elections to the European Parliament will be held. Not accomplishing this would amount to an historic failure.

(Applause)

Let us get stuck in to this task, and, in doing so, let us – as we have been before when taking historic decisions about Europe – bear in mind the way we handle our diversity, in other words, be guided by the spirit of tolerance, for the political, economic and social challenges that we face are indeed great, and they are very real.

I think there are two priority areas. For a start, the European Union is beset on every side by challenges to its foreign and security policies. In Kosovo, it will be monitoring the implementation of a solution to the problem of that region’s status. Stability in the Western Balkans is in the interests of all of us, and to that I would add that, this stability will be elusive if the states of the Western Balkans have no prospect of being Member States of the EU.

(Applause)

In the Middle East, the European Union must work together with the United States of America, the UN and Russia in moving the peace process forward; this can be summed up as a task for what is known as the Middle East Quartet, but further progress, and the achievement of peace, stability and sustainable development in the Middle East, will be dependent on the European Union presenting a united front. The same can be said of the way we handle Iran and its nuclear programme.

In exactly the same way, Europe has an intrinsic interest in successful developments in Afghanistan. We know that only a combination of military and civilian endeavour will bring success; all the alternatives lead us into a dead end.

In its own neighbourhood, the European Union must show itself more willing to be politically creative than has hitherto been the case, for, while many countries desire accession, some of them will have to be disappointed. A neighbourhood policy is the rational and attractive alternative to that, and we will, under our presidency, be giving particular attention to developing a neighbourhood policy of this kind for Central Asia and the region around the Black Sea.

(Applause)

We also need to make every effort to make the Doha Round a success, for there is too much at stake, not only for us, but also for the developing countries. There is little time left in which to achieve a successful outcome, and we are determined to do everything possible to bring one about.

(Applause)

We are not, however, standing still in this respect, for we want to hold a summit between the European Union and the USA at which to consider a deeper economic partnership across the Atlantic. The USA is the European Union’s most important trading partner. We are each others’ most important partners in investment. It is in the interest of our global competitiveness that we must bring down even more trade barriers in such areas as patent law, industrial standards or access to stock markets. I am firmly convinced that a single trans-Atlantic market is in Europe’s intrinsic best interests.

(Applause)

We must not look only towards America; the partnership with Russia is also of strategic importance for Europe, and it is because it needs to be developed to its utmost extent that a new partnership and cooperation agreement must be negotiated.

In those negotiations, cooperation in energy matters will assume crucial importance. We will do everything in our power to get negotiations on that started before the end of the German Presidency. Let me make it perfectly clear that we need a stable relationship with Russia, for there can be no growth in trust without one. At the same time, of course, we cannot leave on one side such issues as the freedom of the media and of civil society or Russia’s conflicts with its neighbours.

(Applause)

It is our intention that the cornerstone of a global climate agreement from 2012 onwards be laid at the European Council in March and at the summit of the G8, over which Germany will also be presiding. If this is to happen, we know that Europe must blaze a trail, but we also know that we need to have the United States of America, among other countries, on-side, and so it is important that the USA be encouraged, where energy and climate policies are concerned, to work more closely with the European Union than it has done to date, for I am not exaggerating when I say that access to energy and the handling of climate change constitute the two great challenges that the human race will have to face in the twenty-first century.

(Applause)

We also want to redefine our relationships with Africa. Africa is changing. It is our neighbour. Investment in it – in both economic and political terms – is worthwhile and also a smart move, and so we will shortly be embarking on preparations for an EU/Africa summit, to be held under the Portuguese Presidency.

My intention in taking your House on this brief global round-trip is to set out important challenges in the spheres of foreign and security policy, but, brief as this review has to be today, it will surely already be clear to you that it is only together that we can meet them. What we have to do we must do together; it is for precisely that reason, and in order that our words may be backed up by our deeds, that European foreign policy calls for a European foreign minister. That is another reason why we need the constitutional treaty.

(Applause)

Just as Europe must find new directions in its dealings with the outside world, it must do the same on the domestic front, for what our citizens expect of Europe, and of their governments, is that they will secure our standard of living, promote growth, create jobs and establish social security – in short, that they will maintain and develop our European model of the social state, and, moreover, enable it to withstand the pressures of globalisation. That, therefore, is the second priority of our work during our presidency of the Council.

The Lisbon Strategy is founded upon the vision of a thriving and social Europe that also has a responsible approach to its environment. The economy is now growing, and this tendency is set to accentuate itself; that must not, of course be seen as an end in itself, and so when I hear the word ‘growth’ it is jobs that come to my mind. I am convinced that employment must be our first and principal concern, that that is what the social Europe is all about. We must also, of course, concern ourselves with the conditions under which jobs can be created; that is why energy will be a subject of pre-eminent importance at the March Council, at which we will be debating the Commission’s proposals and considering them from every angle.

Something that I regard as inseparable from the question of how we can create jobs and how we can be competitive and more efficient is the reduction of superfluous bureaucracy, which is another long-term task for the European Union.

(Applause)

We will therefore be monitoring very closely the Commission's initiatives to this end, with which you will all be familiar under the heading of ‘better regulation’.

What I would also like to see, although I am aware that it will be difficult, is a debate on the related subject of what is termed the ‘discontinuity principle’ according to which legislative projects that have never actually become law are erased when new elections to the European Parliament fall due.

(Applause)

This is what happens in most of the Member States, and it is a good democratic practice, so why is it not also done at the European level? If it were, then a new political start could be made when a new Commission was sworn in and the Members of the new Parliament took their seats. I am certain that this sort of democratic pause would make the elections to your House even more significant, and I ask you, honourable Members, to support the Council Presidency in this by submitting to it your own suggestions and ideas as to how this might work.

By no means will all of these tasks be accomplished in the space of six months. We have to – and we want to – overcome the limitations on breathing space occasioned by Council Presidencies lasting six months. It is because Europe needs continuity that the idea of a trio presidency is so important.

I am glad that I will, at midday today here in Strasbourg, be inaugurating, together with my Portuguese and Slovene counterparts, the European Union’s first trio presidency. I might also mention that this idea for achieving more continuity in Europe is one of the innovations contained in the constitutional treaty.

It is not fortuitous that, as I finish sharing my thoughts with you, we come back to the need for reform of the Treaties.

What is not a matter of doubt is that a slow, bureaucracy-ridden and divided Europe will not be equal to any of the tasks I have mentioned, whether in foreign and security policy or in climate and energy policy, in relation to European research policy, in the cutting back of bureaucracy or in enlargement and neighbourhood policy. All these challenges demand united action on Europe’s part; they demand rules that make that sort of action possible; they call for additional effort, and for the willingness to accept change and renewal.

With this in mind, I find it worth the effort to take a look at the conditions under which the regions of the world develop with the greatest success. In his researches into this, the American scientist Richard Florida has come up with three significant factors – technology, talents and tolerance. Only when all three of them occur together is sustainable growth in forward-moving sectors possible.

Technology, talents and tolerance – what good news for Europe, and what a good watchword for our actions! Technology, talents and tolerance – Europe lives from innovation. It is from scientific and technical progress, economic progress and social progress that Europe lives.

It also lives on curiosity. That is why Europeans invented something wonderful: universities. They are among the many European ideas that are nowadays taken for granted the whole world over, and curiosity cannot freely unfold without tolerance.

The reason for that is that only those who do not think their own opinion is the last word or in every respect superior to someone else’s can have any sort of interest in finding out what others think, what they have experienced and what they have learned. It is only those, too, who concede that others can have smart ideas, can have a moral stance and act in a responsible manner who are ready to learn from them, and in doing so they can win, grow and develop themselves.

Learning from one another leads to new insights. We might well, nowadays, call that innovation, but I mean that in a far wider sense than the merely technological. It has to do with cultural creativity, political concepts, and intellectual ideas. Without its outstanding capacity for innovation, Europe would not have become what it is today.

I would encourage us – no, I will go further and urge us – to remain curious in a spirit of tolerance, curious because we believe that, even in the twenty-first century, we are capable of shaping the world around us.

The German author Peter Prange, in his book, ‘Werte. Von Plato bis Pop’ [Values, from Plato to Pop)] wrote something very true, in the words, ‘Everything we Europeans have ever achieved, we owe to the contradictions within us, the eternal conflict inside ourselves, the constant jostling between opinions and conflicting opinions, ideas and opposing ideas, theses and antitheses.’

And why, I ask you, in the wake of countless wars and immeasurable suffering, is it that, out of all our inconsistencies in Europe, out of all our contradictions, something as magnificent as the European Union managed to emerge from the Treaties of Rome 50 years ago? What has enabled us to make the best of all this? You guessed it: It is that which, in my view, distinguishes Europe, the way we handle our diversity, which is tolerance.

Why should we not manage to do the same over the next 50 years?

(Sustained applause)

  President. Ladies and gentlemen, I extend very warm thanks to the President of the European Council, Federal Chancellor Angela Merkel, for that impressive and great speech, which has earned such mighty applause from this House.

  José Manuel Barroso, President of the Commission. – (DE) Mr President, Madam Federal Chancellor, I would like to start by extending a very warm welcome to Mrs Merkel and wishing her and her team every success in the course of their presidency of the Council, before reiterating my congratulations to Mr Poettering on his new office. Both of you will be able to count on the Commission’s full support. Europe’s success depends on our sticking together.

(Applause)

2007 is a crucial year. The 50th anniversary of the Rome Treaties is certainly a time to celebrate past achievements, but also to build on those achievements to the benefit of a new generation of Europeans, a generation for whom Europe’s original rationale is in the past, but for whom Europe can and does offer so much for the future.

It is a happy coincidence that this anniversary falls during the German Presidency. Many of our core policies – social and economic cohesion, the euro, the internal market, enlargement – owe much to Germany, and as Europeans, we should always have a word of gratitude for everything Germany has done for the great cause of European integration. As we have just heard from Chancellor Merkel, Germany’s commitment to Europe remains as powerful as ever.

The German Presidency offers an opportunity to demonstrate why the European Union matters so much in the age of globalisation. I agree with the priorities presented just now by Chancellor Merkel. Indeed, I welcome the fact that those priorities are now the priorities of a trio of Presidencies – that gives increased consistency and coherence to the work of the European Council. Therefore, I will not go into detail, but will just concentrate on two immediate priorities, bearing in mind our work leading up to the March European Council: energy and climate change, and the declaration that we hope to adopt in March.

Let us take the March European Council. The Commission’s proposals from last week on energy and climate change form a central part of the Lisbon Agenda for growth and jobs. These are issues which touch the lives of every European, where Europe must continue to show leadership and where the European dimension is absolutely essential. We need that European dimension. You cannot tackle global warming, you cannot deliver sustainable, secure and competitive energy, without Europe. So what must be agreed at the European Council in March?

Firstly, we in the Commission believe that we should agree on the strategic goal of an agreement by developed countries to cut their emissions by 30 % by 2020, which is essential to ensuring that global temperatures exceed pre-industrial levels by no more than 2°C. This will be our first objective.

Europe must continue to lead, and to provide an incentive for others to follow. The leadership comes with the European Union commitment now to at least a 20 % cut in emissions by 2020; the incentive by making clear that we will go further if others join us. It is, after all, global warming, not just European warming. Others have to join our efforts.

Secondly, three pillars to deliver our objectives of sustainable, secure and competitive energy.

A single market in practice as well as on paper, to give real choice to European Union energy users and to trigger investment. This will require a clearer separation of energy production from energy distribution, and stronger independent regulatory control with a European dimension.

The Commission also makes proposals on improved interconnections, on transparency and on a new Customers’ Energy Charter. A 20 % target for energy efficiency by 2020, with detailed proposals for how to get there. A new drive for clean energy, through a binding commitment to triple renewable energy use by 2020. A 50 % annual increase in the energy research budget and commitments to advance clean hydrocarbon technology. There is a role for the European Institute of Technology in this.

It is essential to hear Parliament’s voice on these issues in the run-up to the March European Council. The European Union could find no better way to launch its anniversary than by showing its ambitions for the future and to make it clear that today climate change is one of the most important challenges – if not the most important challenge – we face in this 21st century.

This is indeed the first part of the twin-track approach of policy delivery for Europe’s citizens alongside working towards a constitutional settlement, starting with the Berlin Declaration: a declaration on the future of Europe which the Commission proposed last May, and the European Council agreed in June.

I believe the Berlin Declaration is an opportunity for the Member States to commit themselves to the values and aims of the European Union. It must look forward and deliver a political statement about the Europe we want for the next 50 years and, as I proposed last May, it must fully involve Parliament and the Commission because, now, we are no longer only an economic community but also a political community, and only by involving the three main institutions – Parliament, the Council and the Commission – can we do what our founding fathers did 50 years ago to show our political will for the next 50 years.

It provides an opportunity for the 12 Member States that joined in 2004 and 2007 to contribute, as full members, to the vision of our common future. This time they will not only sign up to what has been agreed but will also have a say on the Europe we all want to build. It is appropriate that this Declaration – a declaration for the future of Europe – will be signed in Berlin, the symbol of a reunited Europe, a Europe reunited in the values of freedom, peace and the rule of law.

What should the Declaration say? I think today’s leaders should stand on the shoulders of the founding fathers and look ahead to the next 50 years – to the challenges which could not be imagined in 1957 but which Europe must face in 2007. Put simply, they must equip Europeans for globalisation, in a Europe of open economies, open societies, in a Europe which must engage with citizens, not ignore them. A Europe built on citizens’ consent has solid foundations. A Europe which does not work for that consent is built on sand.

I have five practical proposals for this Declaration. First, solidarity: an enlarged and open Europe requires greater cohesion – social cohesion as well as economic.

Second, sustainability: the fight against climate change, through energy and other policies, should be a defining mission for Europe’s future. This was not perceived as a priority in 1957. This must be a priority in the Declaration and in the constitutional settlement in 2007.

(Applause)

Third, accountability, transparency and access to information should become not only rights for European citizens but also obligations for Europe’s institutions. At the beginning of the European Community, that could be done diplomatically, but today diplomacy is not enough: we need real democracy.

Fourth, security: Europe must guarantee the security of its citizens whilst preserving fundamental freedoms.

Fifth, the external dimension: promoting Europe’s values in the world, as well as its interests. Sustainability, accountability, solidarity and security cannot – indeed, must not – stop at Europe’s borders. I believe the European citizens want us to have a more coherent approach on the global scene. This is also one of the reasons why we need a constitutional settlement.

These are five specific suggestions for the Berlin Declaration, a declaration which should create the momentum to settle the constitutional question. Chancellor Merkel has set out the Presidency’s ambitions. We need, by the end of the Presidency, a common roadmap towards an institutional settlement, before the next European elections in 2009.

However, not only do we need a roadmap; we also need a settlement to clear the clouds of doubt which hang over parts of Europe, to show vitality and confidence to our partners, and to make the European Union more transparent, more effective, more democratic and more coherent in the world. As I have said before, Nice is not enough.

(Applause)

Our task today is to show leadership, translating the principles and values that were at the core of the foundation of our Community for the global challenges of the 21st century. Europe was never more needed than today. We need it not only for ourselves but also for this unpredictable, unstable world. We cannot build tomorrow’s Europe with yesterday’s tools. We have a great opportunity to start changing that in the next six months. Let us go to work.

(Applause)

  President. President Barroso, thank you very much for your strong commitment to our common project.

  Joseph Daul, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (FR) Mr President, Mr Poettering, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Mrs Merkel, Mr President of the Commission, Mr Barroso, I should like to express my emotion on the occasion of the first major debate under the presidency of Mr Poettering, Mrs Merkel and our Commission President. These three figures are members of our political family, but if I express a favourable opinion on the proposals made by the German Presidency, it is not only because of that. It is also because of the path taken by Mrs Merkel herself, because of her political choice, the choice of Europe, as you explained so well this morning, Mrs Merkel.

What is the role of an elected representative? To anticipate, to make decisions, to take responsibility for those decisions before his or her public. As a European, I can only welcome the Presidency’s proposals not only on such crucial issues as energy, climate change, environmental protection, security and justice, immigration policy, the coordination of economic policies, development policy and international trade, but also on relations with the United States and Russia. On these issues, the German Presidency is developing a resolutely European, and even pro-European, approach.

On the institutional issue, you stated, Mrs Merkel, that you would not adopt a minimalist approach but that you would try to strike a balance between the position of the 18 countries that ratified the Constitutional Treaty, that of France and the Netherlands, which rejected it, and that of the countries that have not yet adopted an official position: it will be difficult to do so, I grant you that.

Some say that it will be very difficult, even illusory. However, there is a long list of political ambitions that seemed unachievable but that nonetheless became a reality because courage prevailed over demagogy. Let us think about peace in Europe, about the return of prosperity and growth up to the creation of the euro, about the end of Communism after the fall of the Berlin wall and about the reunification of the European continent: the only battles lost are those that are not fought.

Your Presidency, Mrs Merkel, has decided to take up the institutional challenge. You are right to do so, and our political family will help you to do so. Why are you right? Because, in the same way that we welcome the recent enlargements of the Union, we must point out that the challenges facing us require Europe to provide itself with an effective decision-making system as quickly as possible. The European Convention was created in 2002 and drew up a draft Constitutional Treaty precisely in order to put right the inadequacies of the Treaty of Nice. How is it that what was considered urgent five years ago in a Europe of 15 is considered less so today in a Europe of 27? You will have the full support of the political family of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, which has played a leading role on this issue in terms of seeking a new approach enabling Europe to provide itself with the tools it needs to make progress.

As I was saying, the German Presidency has chosen Europe, a Europe that suffers from a public image that is not, let us say, always positive, a Europe that, paradoxically, is also perceived by a large majority of citizens as the level best suited to respond to a number of everyday problems.

That does not mean, of course, that everything can and must be dealt with at European level. As far as our political family is concerned, the principle of subsidiarity constitutes a major principle of governance. Following the events of early 2006, and then those of the last few days regarding the Union’s and its neighbours’ energy supply, Europe must speak not only with one voice but also with a firm voice in order to protect its strategic interests. I would like to reaffirm my group’s support for the German Presidency’s and the Commission’s position regarding Russia. The Presidency has also announced that one of its main priorities will be to strengthen transatlantic relations. I welcome that move.

Cooperation founded on dialogue and on balanced relations with the United States is a key factor of stability, as you said. The prospect of a transatlantic market can only stimulate our economies, boost growth and create jobs. We must therefore work towards this.

On 25 March, the people of Europe will commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome. This is a very important event, which will be marked by the staging of a European summit and by the adoption of the Berlin Declaration. Let us remind everyone of the common values that unite us, but let us also highlight the future priorities of European integration.

The world has changed over the last 50 years. The reasons for us to unite and to close ranks have certainly changed somewhat, but they are at least as relevant now as they were in the past. The role not only of political decision-makers but also of economic players and the media is to be strong and convincing in sending out a positive, clear and perceptive message – a message of responsibility, quite simply.

The new reality is that major challenges can now only be addressed within the framework of large regions. Europe is one of those regions, perhaps one of the most powerful, the most prosperous and the most stable, one of the most democratic too, and therefore one of the most attractive.

I am sure, Madam President, that, with your determination and with that of your entire government, the next six months will be put to good use. We offer you our full political support so that, for all the complexity of the task, we might see progress made in June and assess the work left to do.

(DE) I wish you much happiness and success, my dear President-in-Office.

(Applause)

  Martin Schulz, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the President-in-Office’s speech was an encouraging one, and I am grateful to her for everything in it that had that effect, for it is the spirit of that speech that Europe needs, and it is that that will enable us, under the German Presidency of the Council, to make headway. With that end in mind, you will find the Socialist Group in this House right alongside you.

Please permit me, though, Madam Federal Chancellor, to make a number of comments on what you had to say about the social Europe – which was not, in fact, very much at all. You have the right idea about freedom, and we agree with you on that score. Yes, indeed, freedom of opinion, the freedom of religion on our continent, to which we are committed, entrepreneurial freedom, artistic freedom – all these things are right and fundamental to the realisation of what we call the European model, but these freedoms cannot be made real without freedom from fear and freedom from social threats.

(Applause)

It is in social security that freedom is made real. What people on this continent expect of this Union, Madam President-in-Office, is that it should be social. If the Europe we are building does not give people the feeling that it is offering them social security, that Europe will have no foundation and will not be accepted.

You asked what it is that enables us to hold this Europe together, and that something is, indeed, technology, tolerance and the fostering of talents, but the model of success that we have derived from the second half of the twentieth century is about combining economic progress with social security. If we do not continue to do that, I can tell you, Madam Chancellor, that we in Europe are going to be in big trouble, and that is why I would ask you to add to your concept of freedom – which I unreservedly endorse – the idea that freedom is about social security too.

It is for that reason, Madam Chancellor, that I urge you to do something, something very important, and it is this. You spoke about the Constitution. This Constitution incorporates the European Union’s horizontal social commitment; the only thing is that it has not yet entered into force, but we can make this social commitment even before it does so. I call on you to join with the Commission in putting forward the machinery that will make it possible for the social impact of the EU’s legislation to be assessed. Everything we do happens in a single economic area, but also within the territory of twenty-seven sovereign states with their own specific national social security systems. Let us then gauge beforehand what effects the laws we make will have on the social mechanisms in the Member States. If we do that in advance, we will not have to do what we did with the Bolkestein directive, with us in Parliament making up afterwards for what the Commission lost.

(Applause)

Madam President-in-Office, eighteen Member States have said ‘yes’ to this Constitution. It has been rejected in two referendums, but endorsed in two others. It is together that Europe succeeds, and it is always one thing that makes shared success possible, namely the ability to compromise, the capacity for solidarity. What you have said about the constitution shows us the right way. Given that this Constitution enjoys majority support in Europe, let us start with what is at its heart and ask those who are sceptical about it to come up with their own suggestions as to how we, in a spirit of solidarity, might arrive at a satisfactory compromise, and then you will be on track.

Along with secure energy supplies, Europe needs fair partnership, especially with those states on whose cooperation we rely. You said what had to be said about the partnership and cooperation agreement with Russia, but what we also need is to realise that climate change is not going to be beaten unless we abandon the economics of waste.

We need to use less energy and to use it more efficiently, and that, let me add, means that we also need technology – you got that right – and the faithful observance of contracts.

You are at the head of a government that has abandoned nuclear power. It is a good thing that you have done that, and you have a chance to win others in Europe over to your government’s line, which would be even better.

(Applause and laughter)

If, however, you want to use the Council Presidency to gain an advantage on the domestic political front and to go back to nuclear power – which is what you wanted to do as leader of the CDU – then I have to tell you that what coalition agreements have in common with contracts for the supply of gas is that those who do not keep to them lose credibility.

You also said what needed to be said about Africa and international policy. I am grateful to you for the Council Presidency’s commitment to peacemaking in the Middle East and around the world, and, above all to fair sharing as a means of securing peace. Your making reference to Africa is something that we wholeheartedly endorse.

You invoked the spirit of this Europe of ours. Sixteen years ago today, on 17 January 1991, Helmut Kohl was elected the first Federal Chancellor of a reunited Germany, and you were a member of his government. Opinions differ on Helmut Kohl and there is much that can be seen differently from the way he – and you as a member of his government – saw it, but there is no disputing the fact that Helmut Kohl’s achievement was an historic one, in that he took Germany – reunited, free of every nationalistic attitude and of the desire to become a major power – and made it part of the European project. By so doing, he created confidence in the continent that had been reborn after the fall of the Wall, confidence in our country, a confidence that grew and spread throughout Europe. It is that spirit of confidence that indwells the Treaties of Maastricht and of Amsterdam.

That was the Europe of Helmut Kohl and François Mitterrand, the Europe of Felipe González and Jacques Delors, the Europe of Jacques Santer, too; the Europe of many great men and women. I might add that it was also the Europe of Margaret Thatcher and John Major, who gave their assent to these Treaties. This was the Europe that had the will to achieve the re-ordering of our continent to the end that hatred and intolerance might be done away with, that division might be replaced by the common good.

There is one thing I would like to add, and it is that this was not easily arrived at; it had to be achieved and fought for; people had to commit themselves to it, and that is what these men and women did, and they did so for one simple reason, namely that they had learned from shared experience that the opposite of tolerance and the desire for peace is hatred and warfare, and if you do not want Europe to go back to that, you have to dedicate yourself to what you, Madam President-in-Office, called the soul of Europe, and for that soul you must fight. We are all alongside you and ready to do so!

(Applause)

  Graham Watson, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – President-in-Office, Liberals and Democrats wish you every success for the German Presidency of the European Union. You have presented to us a bold programme entitled ‘Europe Succeeding Together’, firmly in the cooperative tradition of our most powerful Member State. Liberals and Democrats welcome the commitment in the opening paragraph, where you say that European integration is the foundation of our common future and that its dynamic development must continue. I commend to you, Chancellor, the words of the poet Goethe when he wrote:

(DE) ‘Bleibe nicht am Boden haften, frisch gewagt und frisch hinaus’ – bidding us not be rooted to the spot but venture out and risk new things.

Progress will be built on the pillars of a strong economy. I am disappointed that the word ‘social’ appears in this programme almost twice as many times as the word ‘competitive’. The word ‘liberal’ appears only once. I fear this document owes more to the SPD side of your coalition than to others. However, even the SPD in Germany is lagging behind the new socialist consensus at their conference in Oporto. It is no good trying to protect energy giants like RWE or EDF in the hope that they can stand up against GazProm. We need free markets and energy security and there is no contradiction between the two.

(Applause)

We welcome your plans for technology and talent, but you will not do it if you cut the budgets that the European Union has for research, innovation and education.

(Applause)

We will work closely with you on justice and home affairs. You talk of intensive police and judicial cooperation between Member States, but we are deeply concerned and we will work to change your plans, which focus too much on the repressive aspects of policy and not enough on freedom. You said fine words in your speech about tolerance. However, data collection is mentioned in your document, but there is nothing about data protection: there is not a single mention of it in the section on civil rights.

(Applause)

In your document we find border guards, but on development aid policy to relieve the misery that pushes people towards our shores, there are just a few platitudes on the final page. We may be in danger of creating in Europe what Dieter Lattmann once described in your own country as eine lieblose Republik.

If I may cite one sentence from your document, it is this: ‘if a common European area of justice cannot be achieved in the field of civil and criminal law, the European single market will remain incomplete’. I welcome the fact that you see justice and home affairs as part of the European single market, but then why do you stubbornly resist demands from citizens to make policy in the same way as you make policy for the single market: qualified majority voting in the Council and codecision?

(Applause)

You speak of the role of national parliaments, but there is nothing about the role of the European Parliament. You seek to adopt the Prüm Treaty on data-sharing outside Community competence. It is no surprise that a former president of your country, Roman Herzog, said that Germany is no longer a parliamentary democracy because so many of its laws come from Brussels. But we need at least to make Europe a proper parliamentary democracy.

In common foreign and security policy too – another area that should come under the first pillar – the EU is incapable. We watch the disintegration of Iraq: last year alone there were 34 000 civilian deaths; people saying that today is better than tomorrow. That is the most urgent geopolitical issue of our time. As you say in your programme, we need a more effective and a more coherent foreign policy.

We welcome what you say about the environment. The Green Party in your country may have biodegraded, but it clearly had some impact. We support, in particular, your plans for environmental technology and the Leipzig Charter on Sustainable European Cities. We hope you will work towards a European Union budget in 2008 that gives us the means to act.

Chancellor, on the Constitution I wish you success. Many in my group are not optimistic that the conditions exist in London, Paris or Warsaw for a move forward. Please work on bringing the EU closer to its citizens, on better regulation and on greater transparency. Build the basis of support for the Constitution, but remember what Theodor Fontane said:

(DE) ‘Good digestion is better than a million, but a thick skin is better than good digestion.’

I wish you every success in your Presidency. We will judge you on your achievements at the end of your term.

(Applause)

  Cristiana Muscardini, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this is now my fourth parliamentary term in this House, and it was a pleasure for me to listen to your speech and to your hopes for the future, Chancellor, but we also need something more definite.

You quite rightly referred to the responsibilities of freedom: we must not abuse our own freedom to the detriment of others. We believe that, but we would also recall something else that Voltaire said: ‘If you wish to converse with me, define your terms.’ Today the terms are perhaps the need for clearer internal and external rules that we can all share, the need to have not only a charter of rights in Europe but also a charter of duties: the citizens’ duties towards the institutions, but most of all the institutions’ duties towards the citizens. It is essential to have tolerance and goodwill towards others, and to see everything through other people’s eyes. Hence we need greater generosity both within the EU and outside it.

You are both the first woman Chancellor and the first President-in-Office of the Council to have been born and brought up beyond the Iron Curtain. To me, that is a good omen and a sign that our Europe is growing both morally and politically.

This Presidency’s term is starting with two significant events: the entry of Bulgaria and Romania, consequently requiring a greater spirit of cooperation; and the election of Mr Poettering, who has received both many plaudits and also many calls to do all he can to carry through the major institutional reforms that are essential for us to function effectively.

The Union is represented by three institutions, but its full political role, if I may say so, lies both with the Council and with Parliament, which must not be sidelined in the dialogue on reform that has to be restarted at once. The new treaty needs to be made more intelligible and suited to our needs, respecting our peoples’ roots and showing that it can cope with the breakneck changes occurring in our society and in other peoples’. We must now reopen the debate in Parliament, and not just go along with the intergovernmental method.

We share the Presidency's alarm at the energy problem, which must be solved within a European framework and not, of course, through bilateral agreements between Russia and individual Member States. We must also throw out the idea of eastern, southern, northern or western Europe. The standard of living of each and every one of our citizens is an issue for the whole Union. Energy guarantees our development, economic stability and daily life; energy and development go hand in hand with environmental issues and respect for factors that will lead to disaster if abused.

Europe cannot make do with a lack of information about what is happening in Africa in terms of economic development, living standards, human rights or security policy, if we want to eradicate terrorism. The EU must not be seen to be in disarray and unwilling to take a firm stand on the death sentences handed down on European citizens in Libya or the ongoing kidnappings of technicians in Nigeria.

What has happened in Somalia shows how little information the European Union has about the situation on the ground there and how little Europe knows about international jihad movements. The Union has a duty to support legitimate governments, help people achieve a better standard of living, and defeat terrorism wherever it may be.

Both personally and on behalf of our group, I call for a commitment by the German Presidency to combat the spread of paedophilia and the use of information networks and the media to snatch away children’s dignity, lives and hopes. We have a duty to protect the weak, including abused and exploited children, whose physical and mental wellbeing must be safeguarded. We must also enable our society to develop in peace. We therefore call for a new path that will lead Europe towards having shared rules governing technology and communications, in order to safeguard our citizens and our countries.

Mrs Merkel, in our opinion it is important to have you here with us often, so that our separate responsibilities may together give rise to a Europe with improved living standards, greater certainty in international relations and more development for the less-fortunate countries.

  Daniel Cohn-Bendit, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Madam President, Mrs Merkel, Mr President of the Commission, what I have to say to you, Madam Federal Chancellor, is that we in the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance share your youthful romanticism and your youthful love for Europe. That is what we have in common, and no further word needs to be written on the subject, but we do also have a certain impatience, and that baffles me. What then? We love Europe, and we want to shape it. On the subject of tolerance, you should have quoted not only Voltaire, but also been magnanimous enough to quote Rosa Luxemburg, who said the same thing and is also part of our shared European history. That is the way of life; I love Voltaire, and I love Rosa Luxemburg, and in an age of women we are also allowed to quote women.

It is because Mr Daul mentioned the subject that I should also like to add that it is diversity, too, that leads me to dream of diversity during a Presidency, and so I close my eyes and imagine Mr Daul having to deliver a speech in 2008, when a woman, as President of France, will stand before this House and restore this diversity. It will be wonderful, and I am dreaming of how you and Segolène Royal will go about it, hand in hand and cheek by cheek, in Berlin or in Paris. In Europe, a new era has begun, with diversity and more women – wonderful, tremendous!

(Laughter)

That was my thought for Sunday. That is political stuff rather than a comedy performance. Just as you, in Germany, made the right choice in Mrs Merkel, it is a purely political statement when I say that those in France who are backing Segolène Royal are right. This is not an act, but deep and serious politics.

(Applause)

Let me now turn to the points that you made. Yes, the constitutional process needs to be driven forward – a wonderful idea, but how to do it? Earlier on, our good friend Mr Barroso said that Nice is not enough. It is not just that Nice is not enough; we do not want an intergovernmental conference of the kind that made Nice such a dreadful result. If you think, then, that the constitutional process can again be restarted in the darkened rooms of an intergovernmental conference, then the people of Europe will turn their backs.

What we need is public debate, a Convention, with votes. The Sherpa policy, the period of reflection, is over. I can tell you everything that the governments think; when it comes to the constitutional process, the last word was said long ago. How are we to compel all the governments? How are we to compel the diplomats to arrive at their compromises in public rather than in a darkened room? That, at the end of the German Presidency, will be your challenge.

Who says, too, that it was the Convention that created these problems for us? It was the Convention that adopted the first and second parts, then along came the governments and – in Thessaloniki – obliged us to accept the third – and then the Convention had to spend two or three weeks sorting things out. It is the inter-governmental votes that are always the problem in the Constitution, and that is why we do not want them.

(Applause)

You talked about the challenges Europe faces in the Middle East. Right, but how do we deal with them? I will give you a tip: here in this House …

(Interruption by Mr Ferber)

You have enough problems with your CSU, so just shut up! I have a tip for you, too: Mrs Pauli is right.

(Laughter)

Another woman: women are wrecking everything these days.

I wanted, however, to talk about the Middle East: here in this House, we adopted a resolution to the effect that we needed a major regional conference. That sort of thing takes preparation, of course. That is why – since the European Union started out with coal and steel – it might perhaps have been a good idea for Europe to set in motion a big regional conference on water, for it is water that all these states have in common, that Israel has in common with Palestine and Syria with Israel. If we were to manage, by way of a specific project, to get these countries to trust one another, I do think that would be the first step towards longer-term understanding in the region.

You said we should join with America in taking action; by all means, but let us not be tied down in the way they are in America, with innovations constrained by undemocratic patent laws. That sort of thing destroys diversity, so not everything needs to be learned from America.

You then had something to say about the climate problem, but let us not be dependent on California where climate is concerned. Forget Bush! Let us go to California and see what progress can be made on the climate front.

(Applause and interruptions)

Martin, there are some conservatives who do something intelligent.

(Interruptions)

I was talking about climate, not about the death penalty.

Finally, you want to foster talent. In that case, you also need to consider the way in which German schools, and others, do that. The German school system does not foster talent; it destroys it. That is what we have learned from Europe.

To sum up, Madam Federal Chancellor, we are of one mind …

(Disturbance)

Darling, shut up!

(Disturbance)

We are of one mind where Europe is concerned, but there will inevitably be argument about how we achieve what we want.

(Applause from the Verts/ALE Group)

  Francis Wurtz, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (FR) Mr President, Mrs Merkel, Mr Barroso, I should like to thank you, Mrs Merkel, for your fine speech, your remarks about freedom and tolerance and your quotation of the great Voltaire.

Of the heavy responsibilities incumbent on your Presidency, certain issues will unfortunately be more mundane, not least that of the launch of the process that is due to lead to the adoption, in two years’ time, of a new European treaty. It is on this one point that I should like to make some brief comments. My colleague, Mrs Zimmer, will expand on my speech in a few moments’ time.

My first remark concerns the joint declaration on the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome, which, in this context, will constitute an important message to our fellow citizens. Allow me to make a suggestion: beware of too much backslapping, of overly polished assessments, of commitments that are abstract and wordy on the major principles but evasive on the issues that cause anger! That kind of approach will in no way lessen the crisis of confidence that we are experiencing, but will be liable, instead, to increase the scepticism that is growing a little bit everywhere.

My second warning concerns the initiative – which is certainly not incumbent upon you personally – to gather together at the end of January representatives solely from the countries that ratified the draft Constitutional Treaty. I regard this manner of pointing the finger at the so-called bad pupils of the European class as unfortunate and counterproductive. What we need to do, instead, is to hold an open, frank and respectful dialogue with all of the nations of the Union, and not avoid contradictions, because, if we do avoid them, we will just be keeping ourselves happy and we will not make any progress.

I firmly believe – and this is the final point that I wish to highlight – that the unrest being caused by the Union’s current approach is not just French and Dutch. It is European. And, as Mr Schulz said, it is primarily social in origin. This is where we need to change the substance. In the German Presidency’s programme, you propose what Mr Schulz has just requested of you, which is that – and I quote – in future, European projects should be examined in the light of their social repercussions, too. Marvellous! Let us start straightaway, then! Let us start with the third rail package on the liberalisation of rail, for example, or by extending this approach to directives that already exist, such as the Services Directive or the Working Time Directive, or to forthcoming decisions such as the one on the modernisation of labour law.

As your fellow countrymen, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, used to say, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. The proof of social Europe is in its being used in practice. Thus, to quote your Presidency's logo, together, we will make Europe succeed.

(Applause)

  Nigel Farage, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – Mr President, we have witnessed the beginning of a dishonest and downright dangerous German Presidency. To revive the EU Constitution, but to do it in such a way that you want to avoid referendums in the key Member States, is not just an insult to the French and the Dutch, it is actually a classic example of the new phenomenon that I see all around me this morning: EU nationalism, where you never ever take no for an answer!

Perhaps there is one small ray of hope from your speech this morning, Mrs Merkel, because you talked at great length about freedom. I agree with you, it is important. So I ask you: will you please allow the peoples of Europe to have the freedom to determine their own futures in free and fair referendums, and not to have this Constitution foisted upon them?

(Applause from the IND/DEM Group)

If you fail to do this, if you go on ignoring the peoples of Europe, you will breed and create the very intolerance, extremism and racism that you say yourself you wish to stop. For goodness’ sake, let the people speak!

(Applause from the IND/DEM Group)

  Andreas Mölzer, on behalf of the ITS Group. – (DE) Madam President-in-Office of the Council, as you seek to resurrect the constitutional treaty from the grave to which the plebiscites in France and the Netherlands long ago consigned it, do not forget that those who approved this EU constitution in the other Member States were an aloof political class rather than anything resembling a majority of their populations, and that class is still baffled by the lack of enthusiasm and the scepticism about the EU manifested by the people, who, of course, are sovereign.

They then attribute this weariness with Europe to the fact that the constitution is not yet in place, and blame its absence for the fact that the Council still conducts its business behind closed doors, believing that the way to remedy democratic deficits is to hand over even more powers to the Commission. What a perverse way of looking at things!

Things really are getting comical when the proposal is made for a Europe-wide referendum on the constitution with the suggestion being made at the same time that those states that do not accept it might want to consider whether they want to stay in the EU at all. We do not though, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, need a constitutional monster with centralising tendencies; on the contrary, we must, at last, allow our citizens to play their part in taking important decisions and resolve, as is long overdue, such problems as globalisation, migration and unemployment.

You would be better advised to concentrate on delivering on one of your core election promises by preventing Turkey from joining the EU, for that is something you owe not only to your German compatriots, but also to Europeans as a whole, and to spend Germany’s time in the presidency in seeking to resolve, once and for all, the problem of mass illegal immigration in the south of the EU; you would thereby be doing a far better service to the European identity of national and cultural diversity, which you so rightly praise, than you would be reanimating a long-dead constitutional treaty.

  Hans-Peter Martin (NI). – (DE) Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, you certainly, Madam Chancellor, deserve much respect for what you have accomplished in your life so far, and so I would like to appeal to you to again take all your courage and tenacity in your hands and, rather than walk into the trap your governmental counterparts have set, put something together around what you call regulation.

You have had a lot to say about the House of Europe, about its soul, and about tolerance, but nothing so far about what underpins it – the foundation of democracy. Your former President Mr Herzog’s contribution is worth reading over and over again, and you should not lose sight of the fact that, without democratic legitimation, without a foundation, the European house to which you have referred will not work. I urge you, then, to be bold and venturesome once more, to play the big move, and not only talk about rules, but work on something very fundamental – you yourself talked in terms of three Presidencies of the Council – instead of cobbling together something that will demand too much of the people, will leave Parliament out in the cold, and will end up – like the Republic from which you originally came – being thrown on the rubbish heap of history.

  Werner Langen (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Madam Federal Chancellor, Mr President of the Commission, we, the Group of the European People’s Party, and the German CDU/CSU Members of this House in particular, rejoice in your presidency of the Council and in your splendid programme, which is an ambitious one, and I am sure that, by the end of your six months in the presidency, it will have been achieved. With that end in mind, you have, at any rate, our unconditional support.

I am sure that you will succeed in reinvigorating the spirit of trust to which Mr Schulz referred earlier, although he did, to my surprise, omit someone from his list, namely the former Federal Chancellor Mr Schröder, by whose foreign policy this spirit of trust in Europe was in fact destroyed. We are right behind you!

I would also ask that there should be no debates in this House on domestic policies such as nuclear energy or schools – such things are irrelevant. Instead, we want to support the German Presidency in its priorities of moving the constitutional treaty forward and revising the way Europe makes its laws. I also welcome the proposal for discontinuity; it is right that the European Parliament – and the Commission too – should have a greater part to play, but it was, in the past, often because of the Council that proposals for legislation took as long as ten years before appearing again above the surface.

We are glad, Madam Federal Chancellor, that you have set yourself the particular goal of prioritising Europe’s external policy problems and the problems of energy policy during your presidency of the Council. I am sure that you will succeed in this, and we, in any case, are behind you.

It may, of course, be the case that, as Mr Schulz says, Europe is a model of peace, of prosperity, of how to run an economy. If it is to be developed as a social model, then we will have to give some thought to where the European Union’s powers lie. It is the Member States who should discharge their responsibilities where matters are within their remit, no more and no less.

We rejoice and wish you much success.

  Hannes Swoboda (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, I congratulate you on your speech and on your reference to values. The only value we find missing is that of solidarity. You affirmed your belief in a social Europe, but you would get even more support from our side if you were to include solidarity in the list of values that is very important to Europe.

I am thinking here of the unemployed and of the vulnerable members of society, to whom you too made reference. Poverty is on the increase in certain European countries, and that is a scandal, something that we must deal with together. I would recommend the open expression of this sort of solidarity – as well as of solidarity between the individual Member States – as an addition to your programme. One thinks, here, of energy policy; we will not achieve a common energy policy without solidarity between the individual countries on that front.

As regards foreign policy, it is to be regretted that the American President did not take Chancellor Schröder’s advice, and ended up in the mess in which we now all find ourselves. I do not want to use that to score anti-American points right now, but Richard Haas, an American moderate, recently had some things to say on the subject, and I shall now quote him word for word:

‘The American era in the Middle East is over. More than anything else, it was the Iraq war [...] that brought it to an end.’

(DE) This is where Europe must help, this is where it can jump into the breach. There is much for the German Presidency of the Council to do when it comes to seeing how we can help the people of this crisis-torn region, particularly the socially vulnerable.

The Germans have taken some good initiatives with regard to Syria; France has taken a good one with regard to Iran, too, but I urge you, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, to see to it that we get a common foreign policy founded on solidarity, for it is only then – when we give pride of place to solidarity – that we will be able to help people in the Middle East, not to mention the people of our own continent.

  Silvana Koch-Mehrin (ALDE) – (DE) Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Mrs Merkel, I should like to extend the warmest of thanks to you for your marvellous words, which were full of feeling. I do not doubt that what you had to say about the values that bind us together – tolerance and freedom among them – mark an important step towards finding the soul of which you spoke.

You will of course be aware of what is expected of the German Presidency, and, in particular, of you as President-in-Office, for courage and the strength for leadership are completely absent from this EU of ours, and the expectation of you, Mrs Merkel, is no more and no less than that you will demonstrate that courage and that strength that fits you for leadership, so get down to brass tacks! That is what everyone in this House expects of you.

I am glad that you have declared yourself willing to work very hard and constructively with us. You can rely on us. I would like to see the presidency of what is both your country and mine become a success.

I am also glad of your forthright statement about the timetable for the constitutional treaty, and think you are right to say that it needs to be ratified by the spring of 2009. You want to get the other Heads of Government committed to this, but, of course, saying this naturally involves saying something else too, namely which constitutional treaty we are actually talking about here. The present one is a busted flush, having been rejected, and so I would like to ask you to say, in quite definite terms, what you think about this. Do you want a shorter version of the kind already proposed, or are you holding fast to the present constitutional treaty? How is it meant to be ratified? Is every country to adopt its own procedure and do it at its own speed? Are there to be national referendums, or is that something you want to steer clear of?

Mrs Merkel, you have said on repeated occasions that you want to put the citizen centre stage in European policy, and that is precisely what is needed. That is the response we need to increasing euro-scepticism or rejection of the EU – a citizens’ Europe, rather than a Europe of secret diplomacy. The constitutional treaty is more than just a document laying down processes and voting procedures; it can be the foundation of the shared values that bind us and which are summarised in it. It is for that reason that Europe’s citizens should be given the chance to themselves say what they think about it. What, Mrs Merkel, do you think of the idea of a Europe-wide referendum held on the same day throughout Europe? That would be an historic event. The people could say what they think.

What I need to say before I wind up is that more than a million people would like us to conduct this sort of debate in Brussels. That, too, would make me happy. It is up to you.

  Gabriele Zimmer (GUE/NGL). – (DE) Mr President, Madam Federal Chancellor, your speech obliges me both to express agreement with you and to contradict you. I approve of the way in which you follow Marxist dialectics in referring to great Europeans from Plato to Rosa Luxemburg by way of Voltaire, and it is a good thing that you did, but – and this is where I have to contradict you – we, in Europe and the EU, are still a very long way away from putting civil liberties and human rights into practice. People without personal documentation cannot enjoy them, nor do the numerous refugees who turn up on a daily basis at the EU’s external borders. We have not forgotten the images from Ceuta, Melilla, and Lampedusa.

You are also right, Madam Federal Chancellor, to say that freedom must be won anew time and time again, but it is also true that freedom can exist only where there is social equality. As I see it, the implementation of individual freedoms and human rights in society faces an obstacle in the shape of the millions of people who are marginalised every day, without work, unable to live on their incomes, not to mention the deepening social divisions caused among other things and in particular by the enforcement of the Lisbon agenda. The same goes for access to culture and education for everyone living in the EU, including, and particularly, in Germany.

It is unfortunate that you did not cite one single concrete initiative that would reposition the EU as a social Union, that aims to bring in binding minimum social and environmental standards and minimum incomes in the EU, and that would also make a consistent policy of combating poverty and social exclusion the number one priority for the German Presidency of the Council.

I have something else to say about the European Constitution. On top of all the critical comments that have already been made about it, we also expect attention to be given, in any debate on the Constitution, to the need for minorities, too, to be able to live with a constitution in the future and not to feel permanently obliged to say ‘no’ to it. Any constitution must be forward-looking and must also be compatible with changing political majorities. That is not possible if it is to be characterised by undiluted free-market economic thinking.

  Jens-Peter Bonde (IND/DEM). – (DA) Mr President, Chancellor Merkel, thank you for the warm welcome you gave to the group chairmen in Berlin. It was a constructive beginning to the German Presidency. Today, moreover, you talked in splendid terms about diversity, freedom and respect for national and regional parliaments. You also want to ensure that, in future, 84% of German laws will no longer be enacted in Brussels, a state of affairs deplored by the former President of Germany, Roman Herzog, a few days ago. The process is now under way of negotiating in smoke-filled rooms and going through the rejected Constitution in order to see which of its clauses can be sneaked through without having to have referendums. If this exercise is continued with, the result will be a serious crisis of confidence between citizens and their elected representatives. It makes much more sense to map out the future in conjunction with our citizens, rather than in opposition to them. Why not say right now that the text on which you agree will be put to referendums in all the countries in which that is constitutionally possible, and preferably on the same day. In that way, we should know people’s position on the matter, and the final clauses might quickly be negotiated and put in place. We should also have ground rules that people actively support, instead of having a situation in which people react with further disgust to all elected representatives.

– (DE) Madam Federal Chancellor, Mr President, I, who come from Northern Schleswig, thank you most warmly.

  Jean-Claude Martinez (ITS). – (FR) Mr President, I should like to thank Mrs Merkel, because, with there being 27 of us now, the next German Presidency of the Union will only take office in 2020 and because you now have to control and steer the Union’s destiny. There are, of course, technical matters, and it would be good, for example, to guarantee our farmers’ future after 2013.

Our destiny lies elsewhere, however. If the aim is to find the soul of Europe, Mrs Merkel, there are only two paths to take. The first is that of Orpheus, who went to the underworld for trying to find Eurydice – the European Constitution – whom he lost because he looked back. Mrs Merkel, look forwards! Do not go back, even to constitutional treaties. Instead, make a strategic offer to France that goes beyond the 1963 Elysée Treaty. For instance, faced with the challenges of which you speak, be Churchill rather than Bismarck; propose sharing a symbol – Franco-German co-nationality, for example.

However, since you are searching for the soul of Europe, the second path is that of the world that Europe, from Vasco de Gama, Mr Barroso, to Goethe, has enlightened. The real challenge of the 21st century is to build the world starting with the shared dimensions of planetary co-ownership, that is to say, the collective management of food – eating – of water – drinking – of medicines – caring for oneself – and of education – acquiring knowledge.

Mrs Merkel, you represent the people of Germany; I am the elected representative of the people of wine-growing lands. I raise my glass to you: viel Glück.

  Gianni De Michelis (NI). – (IT) Mr President, Chancellor, ladies and gentlemen, you are taking on the Presidency, Chancellor, at a very sensitive time for Europe, but you will be helped by the fact that, as President Poettering has rightly emphasised, you personally and your country represent the main success story in the European integration process, which aims at the reunification of our continent in the freedom of democracy after the divisions of the two World Wars and the Cold War.

Despite that success, however, Europe is in crisis and too many of our fellow citizens have lost confidence in integration. We need to turn this situation round as fast as we can. The programme that you have presented to us appears to be effective and well thought through, but priority should be given to those areas where somehow we can quickly and effectively demonstrate with real facts that Europe is better than no Europe. I should like to point out three such areas: the Balkans and Middle East questions, the fight against terrorism and the energy problem.

In particular, a special opportunity is opening up in relation to energy, associated with the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome. What better occasion could there be to go beyond mere words and to relaunch an institution that was introduced at that time and which would probably prove to be more useful today than it was then?

A Euratom II might let us address at European level something that cannot be done everywhere at individual country level, and in which Europe cannot risk being left behind: I mean research and the management of sensitive stages, such as enrichment and waste disposal. Think about it, Chancellor, and, in the meantime, good luck!

  Timothy Kirkhope (PPE-DE). – Mr President, Madam Chancellor, as leader of the British Conservative Delegation and on behalf of the European Democrats part of the PPE-DE Group, I would like to add my own warm welcome to you to the European Parliament today. I begin by congratulating you on your early meeting with the American President. For too long there has been an apparent schism between Europe and the United States and it is time to move things in the right direction. You are laying some solid groundwork for future cooperation.

I also welcome some of the key measures outlined in your Presidency work programme – the emphasis on economic reform, the need for less regulation and your emphasis on the fight to combat climate change which should concern us all far more from now on. As a British Conservative, needless to say I do not welcome the emphasis on resurrecting the European Constitution. This could reinforce a sense of alienation within Europe which would be unhelpful and would complicate matters at a time when we need to make some progress.

I think the remarks of the former President, Mr Herzog, are very important and he has deep concerns at the possibility of centralising forces in the EU. I believe that there is much the nations of Europe can do working together, and as the leader of my party has said, it is because we want to see a future for the EU and believe in a strong Europe that we want to see it confront its failings. I agree with that.

(DE) You are right, though; freedom, diversity, tolerance and cooperation show us the way ahead. I wish you the best of luck.

  President. Had I known that you speak German, Mr Kirkhope, I would always have taken the opportunity to speak to you in German – maybe we will do so in the future!

  Robert Goebbels (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, having had a successful enlargement, it is now time for the institutions to be deeper entrenched if the EU is not to degenerate into a free trade area, which is what some Member States want it to do. Germany is strong enough to turn the rudder around. Those who voted ‘no’ must not be allowed to set our course. Come June, there will have to be some plain speaking done. What is needed is a renewed basic treaty to restore the Union’s effectiveness, or else a two-speed Europe is inevitable.

It was originally five Member States that gave us freedom of movement and the Schengen Agreement. The eurozone is the heart of Europe; it has a lower rate of inflation than the USA or the United Kingdom. The Prüm Convention sets new benchmarks in the fight against crime. We are all in favour of tolerance, Mrs Merkel, but the moment of truth for the nay-sayers and the freeloaders must come all the same. That also applies in the fields of energy and climate change. Out of 180 member states of the United Nations, only 30 have signed up to the Kyoto commitments. Last year, the fact that the EU was responsible for 14% of the world’s CO2 emissions was attributable not to our having improved so much but rather to others putting out more of it. This is what makes energetic energy diplomacy long overdue.

Let me close by saying something about the internal market. The market lives by free competition, but it cannot do everything. As one very intelligent woman said recently, the Commission sees policy as a distortion of competition. It and its officials must get back to acknowledging the primacy of policy-making. Europe is not merely a market, but also, and most urgently, a service meeting the public's social needs.

  Lena Ek (ALDE). – Mr President, as a member of the Committee on the Lisbon Strategy and as the ALDE Group coordinator in the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, I have three wishes at the start of the new year.

First, with regard to research and innovation: put pressure on developing the technical platforms to provide European industry with the opportunities that they can have with this.

Second, use the Lisbon Agenda to combine economic, social and environmental development and start to create a truly European green industrial policy, because that is one way of competing with the Americans.

Third, with regard to energy: develop a new strategy on production, distribution and consumption of energy. In the negotiations with Russia, we have to build on reciprocity, which is lacking. The rule of law, discussion and transparency are also lacking.

Finally, the Baltic gas pipeline has to be judged according to Swedish environmental rules. Furthermore, it is totally unacceptable to have Russian forces defending a pipeline through the territories of Member States.

  Bairbre de Brún (GUE/NGL). – A Uachtaráin, a Sheansailéir, tá lúcháir orm go n-aithnítear anois mo theanga féin, an Ghaeilge, mar theanga oifigiúil agus oibre den Aontas. Leanfaidh muid linn in GUE/NGL brú a chur ar mhaithe le comhionannas iomlán do chainteoirí Gaeilge i bParlaimint na hEorpa.

Ó thaobh Uachtaránacht na Gearmáine de, tá mé buartha go bhfuil sé de rún agaibh béim chomh mór sin a chur ar iarrachtaí chun Bunreacht na hEorpa a athbheochan, ag léiriú neamhaird i dtaca le toil thoghthóirí na Fraince agus na hOllainne.

B'fhearr i bhfad don Uachtaránacht díriú ar dhul i ngleic le bochtanas, le neamhionannas agus le ciníochas; ag daingniú Eoraip Shóisialta; ag cosaint saoirsí sibhialta, cearta daonna agus trádáil chóir, agus ag dul i ngleic le éagothromaíochtaí domhanda.

Spreagfainn an Uachtaránacht nua chun éisteacht le guthanna na saoránach fud fad na mBallstát agus freagairt dá réir sin le clár oibre atá níos dírithe ar dhaoine agus a bhfuil ceartas sóisialta agus eacnamaíoch agus comhionannas polaitiúil agus cultúrtha ag a chroí.

  Bastiaan Belder (IND/DEM). – (NL) Mr President, although I think the German Presidency is right to give priority to the Union’s future on the basis of the Treaty, I am disappointed about the way it has gone about it. It is, I think, a fundamental mistake to stick with the rejected constitution rather than start fresh negotiations. Much precious time is being wasted by doing this.

I also regret the informal consultation to which only those countries that have already ratified the constitution are welcome. I can assure you that this counterproductive attitude will do nothing to make the Dutch or French public any more enthusiastic about Europe. I hope you will agree with me that the last thing public opinion in those two countries needs is an extra helping of euro-scepticism.

I should like to ask you, Madam President of the Council, whether consultation of this kind forms part of your strategy for the presidency. How can you be a good President of the entire Council if you simultaneously take part in closed consultation that excludes certain Member States? Is not now the time to consult France, the Netherlands and the countries that have not yet ratified collectively, that is to say within the regular Council context? Madam President of the Council, Ich wünsche Ihnen Gottes Kraft und Gottes Segen für Ihre Arbeit – I wish you God’s strength and God’s blessing for the work ahead.

  Maciej Marian Giertych (NI). – (PL) Mr President, Chancellor, Germany is currently in charge of the European Union, the European Parliament and the G8. As if that were not enough, it has now emerged that Germany plans to impose its line on the Portuguese and Slovenian Presidencies, which will follow its own. This involves adopting a single line in relations with Russia, at a time when presidential and parliamentary elections are to take place there. It amounts to toeing the German line.

Consider the implications this will have for us, ladies and gentlemen. Germany is to renegotiate the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement on behalf of the Union. The agreement is now to be more pragmatic than regulatory in nature, and there is a danger that the negotiators will not take the interests of former Soviet bloc countries into account. That has been evident in the case of the undersea pipeline across the Baltic and also in connection with the cargo ferry between Baltijsk and Sassnitz. Bilateral relations between Germany and Russia are to be repackaged as Union relations.

The revival of the rejected Constitution has a bearing on all this too. As it stands, the Constitution is beneficial to the largest Member State of the Union, because it deprives smaller ones of the right of veto. It is that veto, however, that allows us to defend our interests when they are overlooked.

  Íñigo Méndez de Vigo (PPE-DE). – (ES) Mr President, I am delighted to be able to take the floor today, on a very special day, when you are presiding over the House, and you are aware of the great admiration and brotherly friendship I feel towards you.

I am also delighted to have heard the speech by Mrs Merkel, particularly the first part of it. I believe that a political leader is someone whose political action is guided by their vision, and today we have seen a lot of that vision, and that is necessary, Mrs Merkel, because in Europe today there are too many accountants, too many prophets of doom, too many people who complain about everything, and I believe that we need a little vision, founded upon values and principles, in order to restore our dream. I therefore congratulate you.

I also congratulate you on having made the Constitutional Treaty the German Presidency’s priority from the outset. President Barroso has explained why the Constitutional Treaty is better than the existing Treaties very well. That is a reality that nobody denies. If we compare what we have to the Constitutional Treaty, the Constitutional Treaty comes out infinitely better.

There is, however, also a psychological reason: many Europeans believe that Europe will be in crisis until the constitutional issue is resolved, and therefore, in order to put an end to this interminable crisis, we must find a response.

I do not believe, Mrs Merkel, that this is the day to give us the key aspects of the response. That is not possible. We still have much talking to do. But you have said something. You have said: ‘I want the European Commission and the European Parliament to be consulted’. I would like to say to you that, in my view, consultation is not enough. The European Commission and the European Parliament must take part in the solution. They must participate because history shows that governments essentially put national interests first and the interests of everybody else second, and the Commission and Parliament, which are European institutions, institutions for everybody, have a more general vision.

We therefore need ambition, Mrs Merkel, if only to comply with the words of Schiller, ‘den Mutigen hilft Gott [God helps the brave]’

  Jan Marinus Wiersma (PSE). – (NL) Mr President, I should like to thank Mrs Merkel for her impressive speech. We agree with the priorities she formulated where foreign policy is concerned; her view that stability in the Balkans depends on a European perspective is one with which we could not agree more, and it is good that that has been confirmed here on behalf of the Council.

The most urgent issue is, of course, as Mrs Merkel observed, that of Kosovo, where some form of independence appears inevitable. The question now is what the European Union can do to make a solution of that kind acceptable to Serbia, and in some ways also to Russia, which has declared itself unwilling to accept an agreement that has not been thrashed out with Serbia in the Security Council. I hope that the presidency can contribute in the shape of an active dialogue with the Serbian Government following the elections there at the end of this week or the beginning of next week, but will also capitalise on our good relations with Moscow in a bid to find a solution that is acceptable to everyone. In this connection, we definitely want to distance ourselves from the comparison that is sometimes drawn by Moscow, where the issue of Kosovo is lumped together with conflicts in other parts of Europe.

Which brings me to my second point. You have made a number of observations with regard to relations with Russia. We agree that a balanced approach must be found which can accommodate economic relations, energy, human rights, as well as the situation in Russia itself and the issue of a number of conflicts in the shared neighbourhood.

I hope that in the next few months, you will be able to take a balanced approach when working on these three issues, not least in the framework of the negotiations about a new partnership agreement. As I see it, the European Union must now make an effort in order to be able to help find solutions for the issues of Transnistria, with reference to Moldova, but also with regard to the problems Georgia is facing. These are the three core elements, and I hope that in the next few months, you will be able to work them out whilst maintaining the right balance in your dealings with Russia.

  Alexander Alvaro (ALDE) – (DE) Mr President, Madam Federal Chancellor, the European Union’s primary interest lies in protecting the freedom and security of 480 million people. You were right, in the programme for your presidency, to prioritise the area of justice and internal policy and equally right to lay special emphasis on citizens’ rights. Although there are sensible proposals to be found in it, what I would like to have from you is a clear commitment concerning the balance of freedom and security.

What, then, is your position on the introduction – already carried out – of biometric identifiers in identity documents, on the retention of data, on the handing over of air travellers’ data and of data relating to financial transactions to the United States, on the creation of European databases and on the Prüm Convention? What we see happening here is the octopus of data management spreading its tentacles ever wider. Will the German Presidency see the conclusion of the negotiations on the Framework Decision on data protection in the third pillar, and hence the restoration of balance to the scales of freedom and security?

  Georgios Karatzaferis (IND/DEM). – (EL) Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the European Council, Chancellor, you received sustained applause to your inaugural speech, which is important. However, it is equally important that you receive the same sustained applause in your farewell speech in six months' time. Many have received a great deal of applause and been sent off with their tail between their legs, such as Mr Blair from Great Britain.

So if you are to receive a good round of applause at the end of your term of office, you will need to remain consistent in your opinions, with the consistency for which Germany has been known in the past and which we have seen fail recently. You have changed opinion several times on Turkey; I would like to believe that you will remain consistent in one view. We at least need that because, just yesterday, your ambassador called on Turkey in Ankara, saying that we would finance trade in the occupied area.

You come from a country which is almost occupied and you know what occupation means. So will you finance the occupying army? Call for the occupying army to leave Cyprus and openly finance the northern part of Cyprus. You cannot, however, finance the occupying army.

You must also make sure that there are equal rights. Here in this Chamber we have a German President, a German chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, a German leader of the socialist opposition and even a German leader of the Greens. There should be equality for all groups. So demonstrate respect for the smaller countries and you will make progress.

To close, I have this to say: Madam Chancellor, remember that Moscow is a two-hour flight from Berlin, while Washington is nine hours away.

  President. Mr Karatzaferis, I would just remind you that it has happened before that there have been two Presidents from the same country. At a time when my esteemed Irish predecessor Pat Cox was President of this House, his country held the presidency. There is nothing extraordinary about that, and, in any case, all these things shall pass.

  József Szájer (PPE-DE). – (HU) Mr President, it is a great pleasure for me and a long-awaited moment to be given the floor by you here in the plenary. We MEPs from the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats have great expectations of the German Presidency. Europe today needs new impetus and courage.

Madam Chancellor, we look to the German Presidency to move the constitutional process beyond the current crisis. Today there are very real dangers on account of the delay. If by the end of 2008 we will have not closed this matter, and if the unresolved question of the Constitution becomes the main topic of the 2009 elections to the European Parliament, then we simply add fuel to the fire of marginal political forces.

There is a danger that these forces, with their shrill and destructive campaigns, may get elected to the next European Parliament in much greater numbers than before, and the current crisis may be accompanied by a serious institutional crisis. Parliament’s decision-making process could grind to a halt. We do not wish to see this happen, and therefore we must take urgent action.

The new Member States on the eastern borders of the newly reunified Europe are much more dependent upon external suppliers of energy. This is not merely an economic dependence, but there is today a real danger that former political influence will be rebuilt by means of economic tools. This matter is of concern not only to the new Member States, but to all of Europe.

A common European approach to energy policy is more important today than ever. The advantages of cooperation in this regard are clearer than day. If we work together, we are strong, but if we opt for separate deals on energy policy, others will get the better of us. The new Member States are counting on solidarity to help reduce their dependence, not only in their own interests but for the sake of Europe as a whole.

  Poul Nyrup Rasmussen (PSE). – President-in-Office, I respect your European engagement, your commitment, focus and ambitions.

Within my one-and-a-half minutes, I shall focus on one message to you, which is that for Europe to move forward we need to regain confidence and trust among ordinary people, those without jobs and those hard-working families all over Europe who have hopes. Therefore my appeal today is that following this speech, with its great vision and great ambitions, we must make that become reality.

Just one month ago at my Congress of the European Social Democratic Parties, we gave you an idea for a roadmap for a better social Europe, because we need better, not less, social policies. We are proposing to you a roadmap for reviewing and modernising our social model and making it more dynamic. We call it ‘The New Social Europe’. It is about ensuring the continuation of our welfare states in the global economy; it is about ensuring that the market is the servant and not the master of people.

You talked wisely about talent, technology and tolerance. I want to add just one thing: yes, yes, yes, but for all and in a coherent society and based on the concept of freedom, which is also – as you know and have underlined on other occasions – that you are not free if you do not have a job, you are not free if you do not feel secure, and you are not free if you cannot see your future.

I know that your fight with other governments will be hard. Let me give you just one commitment from our side: when you fight with the Polish, with all your colleagues in the European Council, I think that we in the European Parliament have a duty to support you to make progress on that roadmap by telling our governments that it is not only about thinking about their own states but also about the Community.

Viel Glück!

  Hannu Takkula (ALDE). – (FI) Mr President, Chancellor Merkel, first I want to thank you for an excellent speech. It was profound and well-argued, and it showed leadership and the kind of commitment which stems from European values and convictions. Your speech at long last conjured up prospects of hope for the Europe we share. I admire you and your coherent policy on the European Union’s future. I hope and believe that this six-month term will also yield concrete results.

You mentioned a number of important issues: the Constitution, energy, climate and the situation in the Middle East. I also genuinely hope that further steps can be taken towards peace in the Middle East and that they might start, for example, with the release of the three kidnapped Israeli soldiers, thereby promoting prospects of hope, not only for Europe, but also for the Middle East, which is important for our future too. I hope you will have the strength needed to work for a more unified Europe and wish you every success.

  Guntars Krasts (UEN). – (LV) Chancellor Merkel, the German Presidency has not shrunk from including difficult tasks in its work programme. The Presidency’s goals to continue the full liberalisation of Europe’s postal services markets and its commitment to complete the creation of the internal market in gas and electricity are highly laudable. I hope that, by using its influence, Germany will indeed manage to achieve a shift in Europe’s security of energy supply policy, and that this will include forging a unified policy with Russia which has support from all the Member States. All in all, most of the Presidency’s programme should be seen as a genuine instrument for furthering the process of integration in the Union and garnering the support of European citizens. In my view, the same cannot be said of the Presidency’s first priority, which is to return to the debate on the Constitution. The rejection of the Constitution by two large Member States is, at the least, a signal that the European Union has become too distant and incomprehensible even for voters in the founding Member States. I was one of the members of the European Convention who urged that we should not write a European Constitution, but instead improve the existing treaties to bring the European Union closer to citizens in the Member States, both large and small, old and new. I urge the same course of action today.

  Markus Ferber (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, a great deal of detail has already been gone into in the course of the debate on how the constitutional treaty is to be resuscitated, which occasioned some comments at the weekend from Roman Herzog, the former Federal President of Germany, and also a former president of that country’s constitutional court. I would like to make it perfectly plain that what we jointly drafted in the Convention was the right response to Roman Herzog’s analysis of the need for the national parliaments to be involved at an early stage.

I would also, however, appeal to our counterparts in the national parliaments to do their duty. When I consider just how much of what has been accused of ultimately tending to centralise Europe is attributable to the initiatives of Councils of Ministers, then I have to be frank in saying that these things were concocted, not, Mr President of the Commission, by the Commission in Brussels, and not by the European Parliament meeting in this place, but, in the main, by the Ministers with their several responsibilities meeting in Councils of Ministers.

I therefore find it very regrettable that our friend Mr Cohn-Bendit is no longer present, for he came up with a very pertinent analysis of the way intergovernmental cooperation functions, citing as an example the Treaty of Nice, which goes back to the year 2000, and having something to say about the work of the Intergovernmental Conference that followed the Convention. In response to all that, though, I would point out that, at that time, it was his old friend and fellow commune-resident from his Frankfurt days, his fellow-Green, Joschka Fischer, who, as foreign minister, bore some responsibility for this, so, instead of boring this House with it, these things ought better to be discussed in his commune.

I have one final comment to make on this: we are talking about the social Europe, something that we all want, but the question arises of what this Europe of ours can afford if it is to be social. What do the Member States have to do to give people a social home? I do not believe that we can solve problems by handing more and more over to Brussels, but rather by delegating downwards where matters such as responsibility and social security are concerned; that is the only way in which we will get anywhere. We wish you much success in your Presidency, and will support you to the best of our abilities.

  Bernhard Rapkay (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, Mrs Merkel, in her speech, used the well-worn image of the house created by European integration, and I believe that image is a good one; that is why it is used so often. I particularly liked what she said about that house having a soul and about the need for us to find it.

It has to be said, though, that building a house involves a variety of people. It involves architects; many of the architects have now spoken. It also involves, though, small-time artisans, and those who have to add the finishing touches to the work, and such artisans are an honourable trade, among whose number I count myself. You have to be rather careful what tools these craftsmen are allowed to get their hands on. I would ask you not to allow the couple of references you have made to the subject to be taken too far.

We are all alongside you and alongside those who advocate cutting back bureaucracy, but it is when that is used as a means of agitating against regulations that we actually need that I have a problem with it, for a proper community cannot live without proper rules. As our former President, Mr Borrell, said, ‘better lawmaking’ does not mean the absence of regulation; that is what you have to look out for, and, above all, you should also take care that the European Union is not always left to introduce those rules alone.

If you want to press on with cutting back bureaucracy, then you will have to take action, not only at Member State level, but also across the European Union as a whole, for I can tell you from personal experience of the way things are in my own country – although I cannot speak about the situation in other Member States – that the bureaucratic hindrances thrown up by the Member State itself are far more numerous than those originating from the European Union.

(Applause)

  Andrew Duff (ALDE). – Mr President, Chancellor, for your Presidency to succeed in resolving the crisis, you will have to demand and expect the faithful support of all the Member States. Do you agree that the recent Spanish-Luxembourg proposal to corral 18 Member States into a separate process will not only accentuate the division between the two camps, but also brutally expose the wide division among the 18 themselves? Will you please discourage such an initiative?

  Margie Sudre (PPE-DE). – (FR) Mr President, Mrs Merkel, Mr Barroso, ladies and gentlemen, in a few weeks’ time in Berlin, we are going to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome, which arose out of the Franco-German reconciliation and which at the time required boldness, courage, desire and clear-sightedness on the part of the politicians of the founding countries.

It is these same qualities that the people of Europe expect from you, Mrs Merkel, when it comes to outlining our future prospects. As you said, as far as the Constitutional Treaty is concerned, the time for reflection has passed, the time for negotiation has come and soon will come the time for decision making. Rest assured that you will have all the support you could wish for from our group when it comes to overcoming the current difficulties.

Our priority is to find a solution that enables Europe to make effective decisions, a solution that respects the people who endorsed the Constitution, those who rejected it, and also those who have not yet expressed an opinion on it. An institutional reform that is focused on improvements on which there is consensus strikes me as being a beneficial option in the short term. It would enable the Union to make progress on a number of significant issues and thus to restore the citizens’ faith in their institutions. It is a matter of responding in a precise manner to the expectations and concerns of our fellow citizens faced with the major challenges of our times: the means of acquiring economic, industrial and scientific power, demographics, co-development, the management of migratory flows, energy security and climate change, food security, the preservation of our social models and also the dialogue between cultures and religions, integration and the rise in power of China, India and a great many other emerging countries.

The key to all of these issues, Mrs Merkel, is political will. We know that you have this will. We, on our side, need to do our duty and influence the political leaders of our countries so that they follow you along this road. I wish your Presidency every success.

  Jo Leinen (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, I give the warmest possible welcome to Mrs Merkel’s great dedication to ending the crisis around the ratification of the constitutional treaty, for that is the German Presidency’s first priority, by which its success or failure will be measured. This House has – in both cases by a very large majority – adopted two resolutions on the subject, in which we state that the treaty, as negotiated and signed, is the starting point for all discussions, and, in this case as in others, the pacta sunt servanda rule applies, so that trust may prevail between what are now twenty-seven Member States.

One possible solution could be solidity in substance combined with flexibility in form. What we would find unacceptable would be a mini-treaty that would contain institutional rules and nothing else, and would – to use your own words – deny Europe a soul, the ‘soul’ meaning all those elements with which people deal directly, things like not only the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, but also all the elements of direct and indirect democracy such as the citizens’ initiative, the strengthening of this House’s citizens’ chambers and also of our counterparts in the national parliaments. If this constitution is to be acceptable to this House, then those are the things that will have to be in it.

A shorter constitution might perhaps be one way of dealing with the crisis. What we have here is a book of 448 articles that hardly anyone can read and understand, and the third part of which is simply wrong-headed. Work will have to be done on producing a document with perhaps 100 articles that can be read in any school classroom. As for the timetable, I would recommend that this be completed perhaps as early as the Portuguese Presidency, since the problem has to be got out of the way before the next European elections. In that, Mrs Merkel, you will have this House’s support.

  Hartmut Nassauer (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, you, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, as the Head of the German Government, are heir to a great European tradition; Mr Schulz was right to point that out, and I must spring to his defence against the charge unjustly levelled at him by my colleague Mr Langen of having forgotten your predecessor when listing the significant Heads of the German Government. I can assure you that Mr Schulz is not absent-minded and that he does not say things without thinking first.

Our efforts are focused on the constitutional treaty, and so are our expectations of your presidency. If I might use your image of the European house, it is a house in which there is an audible murmuring, a house in which everyone would like to live, but the fact that the Netherlands and France have said ‘no’ means that the constitutional treaty is straddling two levels – the councils and governments on the one hand and the citizens on the other, and it is obvious that it has, for the moment, been brought down not by the councils and governments, but by the public, which is why it is they that we must endeavour to win round. The proverbial sixty-four thousand dollar question is: how are we going to do that?

Coming back to your image of the European house, we all want to live in it, but the people who actually do, want to organise the interior decorating themselves. The interior décor of the European house is subject to too many European rules, and that tends to make people annoyed. There is excessive European regulation, including of things that do not need to be regulated by Europe at all. In many cases, this is attributable to the requirements of national governments, but occasionally – with all due respect to its President – to the Commission’s excessive enthusiasm for regulating things. That is why the reduction of bureaucracy is an essential consideration, and you have our fullest support in trying to achieve it.

  Bernard Poignant (PSE). – (FR) Mr President, Mrs Merkel, in order to reconcile our two nations with others, we struck a deal: a peace treaty. When your nation reunified, we created a currency: the currency of confidence. When the nations of Europe came together, we drafted a Constitution: a welcome treaty. And it is here that we have come to a standstill. Everything rests on you, Portugal, Slovenia and France: this matter needs to be settled in the next two years.

Allow me to express a few ideas. As far as the word ‘constitution’ is concerned, do not dig your heels in; this is an issue that angers people: there are countries that do not have one and there are countries that have had too many of them. As regards the preamble, do not meddle with it too much, because people are going to argue in the good Lord’s name, and, having consulted him, ‘He’ believes it to be a very good preamble: do not change a word of it. As regards the institutions, keep the bloc, keep the core and leave it at that. As regards the charter, make it a rule of law. Our British friends may not be too fond of that idea. Perhaps we ought to give them a little time. You know full well that they always come round after a while. Let us be patient.

As for the third part, let us take what is new from the social clause for public services and let us ratify more or less at the same time. You do not have a right to referendums; we are obsessed with holding referendums, as you well know. Be that as it may, let us ratify more or less at the same time. As regards the revision, be more flexible and heed Jean Monnet’s advice: ‘Nothing is possible without men; nothing is lasting without institutions’.

  Marian-Jean Marinescu (PPE-DE). – Doamnă Preşedinte, domnilor preşedinţi, sunt onorat să fiu primul parlamentar român care vorbeşte în plenul Parlamentului European, şi profit de această ocazie să mulţumesc instituţiilor europene pentru sprijinul acordat ţării mele în drumul către Uniunea Europeană.

Apreciem în mod deosebit că în programul dumneavoastră sunt menţionate priorităţi pentru noile state membre. Programul de asistenţă practică în utilizarea fondurilor structurale pentru cercetare şi dezvoltare vine în întâmpinarea dorinţei noastre de a utiliza eficient aceste fonduri pentru un proces cât mai rapid de integrare. Politica de vecinătate este un subiect extrem de important, care va aduce beneficii Uniunii Europene şi vecinilor ei. Dorim să ne implicăm în proiectele care se vor derula în Balcanii de Vest şi în zona Mării Negre, inclusiv Moldova. Dosarul „Energie” este o provocare care poate fi depăşită doar dacă este tratată unitar de toate statele membre. Susţinem, de asemenea, găsirea unei soluţii în ceea ce priveşte Tratatul constituţional, pentru că, aşa cum spuneaţi, Europa poate avea succes numai unită.

Doamnă cancelar, dorim să contribuim şi noi la finalizarea acestui program extrem de complex, vă dorim şi ne dorim succes împreună.

  Dariusz Rosati (PSE). – (PL) Mr President, the European Union is at a difficult juncture. Support for the European dream is falling due to the lack of a clear vision of the future. There are signs that the German Presidency could break the current impasse, but it will have to cope with difficult challenges. I should like to mention three issues in particular.

The first relates to the revival of the constitutional process. Europe needs new institutional solutions, so it can act efficiently, effectively and more democratically. We trust the German Presidency will present a road map leading to the adoption of a new treaty in the course of the next two years. Such a treaty should strengthen the Union, enable it to act more efficiently, and enhance solidarity and competitiveness. It should equip the Union to deal with the challenges of the 21st century.

Secondly, the Eastern dimension of the European Union’s foreign policy requires strengthening. Our policy towards our Eastern neighbours needs to be firmer and more consistent. It should be governed by the principles of effectiveness and solidarity and the need to promote democracy and reform. We are confident that other countries, including Poland, will be involved in work on this policy. Poland can contribute vital knowledge and experience.

The third issue I would like to raise concerns the security and reliability of energy supplies. Europe urgently needs a common energy policy aimed at ensuring the security of supplies, solidarity, and the lifting of barriers in the common market in energy. Investment in new sources of energy is also called for. It is to be hoped that Germany will be able to come up with a common policy based on the common interests of the Member States and solidarity between them.

Chancellor, Europe is suffering from a leadership crisis. Germany must live up to its responsibilities as the largest Member State of the European Union. The German Presidency has to be successful, not just for Germany’s sake but for all our sakes, for the sake of the European Union as a whole. I wish you that success, Chancellor.

  Mathieu Grosch (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, as a German-speaking Belgian, and hence a neighbour, it gives me pleasure to welcome the German Presidency of the Council, for we know of your commitment to Europe.

I can speak from my personal experience as a frontier-dweller when I say that I had the good fortune to have a multilingual and multicultural upbringing, and that it is Europe that has given us the freedom to live this diversity, a freedom that we have used to bring people together in their day-to-day lives, at work, in education and at leisure too. We have also made use of such European programmes as Interreg, Leonardo and Socrates, so that, on the frontiers, regions have come into being that are constituted as European, and that will be the prescription for the future too. It is not behind closed doors, but among people together, that Europe comes into being.

Back home in Belgium, our Prime Minister Martens once told us not to allow anyone to prevent us from building bridges; that is what we have to do – build bridges between the twenty-seven Member States. I believe that you in particular, Madam President-in-Office, have a particular awareness of what is meant by the old and the new Europe.

I also hope that we pro-Europeans will be able to answer the public's many questions and will not leave this task to those who preach only disappointment or intolerance. We are on your side, and we wish your presidency much success.

(Applause)

  Gunnar Hökmark (PPE-DE). – Mr President, the biggest threat to European welfare societies is unemployment. We cannot fight unemployment with more regulations and more legislation, because the problem of unemployment today is not the lack of social regulations in Europe or the lack of legislation. The problem is that we have a lack of employers. The problem is that we have a lack of competitiveness, investments and innovations.

(DE) The fact is, Madam Federal Chancellor – and please excuse my German as I say this – that the problem in Europe is not only that there are people who lack jobs, but that there is also a lack of enterprise and a lack of entrepreneurs – phenomena for which, I know, there are no words in German.

... and not in Swedish or English, either – and maybe that is the problem.

I would urge you to launch an initiative for deregulation and better regulation. Not all deregulation is better regulation, but we can achieve better regulation by deregulation. That is the way to fight unemployment, Mr Schulz, not by more regulation. I wish you all good luck.

  Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE). – (IT) Mr President, Chancellor, ladies and gentlemen, your long-awaited speech, Chancellor, ended up being a very important one, and we agree with both its content and the path it traces out for the Union in the coming months.

The people are today asking Europe to provide solutions to those problems of theirs that the Member States and the regions cannot solve. That is why we need a Union capable of acting on the basis of what you call a Grundnorm in German, a basic rule, in order to confront the major challenges facing us. These range from globalisation to the fight against terrorism, from immigration to peace keeping, from energy security to the climate crisis, and from unemployment to the issue of Africa. We need a Constitution to sanction Europe’s role, not least through having a seat on the United Nations Security Council.

Europe also needs to achieve the victory of politics over bureaucracy, Chancellor, and we welcome the reference you made to the values that make up our European identity: freedom, subsidiarity and the central importance of the individual are values without which we cannot build our future as European citizens, and it is these values that keep us firmly rooted. Lastly, we welcome your plan for a common market with the United States, the other face of the West that is rooted in freedom.

  Angela Merkel, President-in-Office of the Council. – (DE) Mr President, I am most grateful for this wide-ranging debate, and would just like to give particular attention to a few points.

Firstly, there are those to do with the constitutional treaty. With all due respect to Mr Cohn-Bendit, I must of course object to his comparison of the Council with a darkroom. I do not think that characterising the Council as a darkened room into which the light of transparency – in the shape of your House – shines, is an accurate description of the relationship between the two.

The Treaties of Rome were the Council’s handiwork, and Parliament can be said to have emerged from them. We want Parliament to be of major importance as a venue for wide-ranging debate, for we must not forget that it is you, its Members, who bring Europe to the people, you who are a vitally important link alongside all the other opinion-formers, but I would also ask you to bear in mind that the representatives of the governments – which are themselves, of course, democratically elected too – are doing their work to the best of their knowledge and ability, and that the only way we will be truly effective is for the Commission, the Council and your House to work together.

If I may turn to the subject of a referendum, to which reference has been made, I will be frank and say that I have no time for the idea of a referendum on the same day throughout Europe, or in the countries where one can be held, and not only because Germany would not be able to take part in it, but also because we need to make clear what is stated in the constitutional treaty, namely that it is the Member States that have the final word where the Treaties are concerned – that is the fact of the matter, and that is why it is the Member States that must decide for themselves whence the legitimacy of this treaty is to be derived, and what shape it should take, in order then to transfer powers to Europe. I would also say, however, that I favour a democratic Europe in which the Commission and Parliament work very closely together.

How, then, are we now to proceed? The situation is, of course, a complex one; we all know that. We have to take the existing Treaty as our starting point. I am highly sceptical about the idea that another Convention will be of any use to us now. We have to endeavour to move forward those things that the Convention got right, some of which the Council then altered, and there is scope for a long debate about those.

There is something I would like to say to our friends from the United Kingdom. What makes your attitude almost antagonistic is that this constitutional treaty is one that gives the national parliaments more of a say, setting boundaries more clearly and achieving clarity, and the opposition to this constitutional treaty on the part of those who want greater clarity, more of a say, and more subsidiarity, makes matters so much more difficult for us since our recognition of the need for greater public involvement was the very reason why it was drafted in the first place. The treaty now gives people the opportunity to lodge appeals; it enables us to speak with one voice where powers are at the European level, but also makes us hold back more when they are located elsewhere. The simple request I have to make of you – and yes, I know it will be hard for me to make myself heard – is that you should not commit an historic mistake by preventing Europe from taking a step in that very direction in which many of you want it to go.

(Applause)

After all, the only practical thing we can do is to carry out confidential consultations and find out, for a start, precisely what objections the various Member States are having to deal with. The time for highly generalised debates about whether the thing is needed in the first place and how one should go about this or that is long gone; we now have to tackle very specific things, or else I do not think we are going to achieve our objective.

Let me reiterate something to which I only very discreetly alluded in my speech earlier, that those who are so keen on enlargement – and I am not necessarily one of them – must be aware that, if they, at the same time, take a sceptical view of the constitutional treaty, then, the present legal basis being what it is, enlargement is not going to happen.

(Applause)

This is precisely the point we are reaching with Croatia, which will perhaps be the next candidate for accession, but it has to do with the whole of the Western Balkans too. As I said, we have thousands of soldiers stationed there. What do we have to look forward to? Disputes about whether we are going to move forward, and, if so, how?

Leaving aside for a moment the question of whether a meeting now would be well-advised as the way to proceed, we will, in the course of our presidency, take care that members are not divided into ‘good’ and ‘bad’, but that we achieve a result together. It has to be said, though, that those eighteen Member States that have already ratified, have done so in the full conviction that this was the right thing to do. Germany is one of them. These eighteen are certainly not going to say, ‘OK, let us do something about enlargement and let everything else go hang’. Europe will certainly not work like that. That is why we have to take on board the fact that the draft constitutional treaty has already been ratified by 18 Member States.

(Applause)

That, for today, is all I have to say about the constitutional treaty. We will of course keep you informed about it. We will be meeting in Berlin with that purpose in mind and will then have another meeting in June. I hope that your House will be supportive, and ask those who have sounded a sceptical note today to have a rethink about it all.

What we do agree on is that climate change and energy are crucial issues, and it is for that reason that the Commission has come up with a number of proposals, many of which I think are absolutely spot-on, and the President has already had something to say about them. A number of them will have to be discussed at Council level. I shall do everything possible to ensure that the Council on 8/9 March produces as specific a response as possible to the Commission’s big package, and that will not be easy.

Anyone who has ever looked into the subject of energy will know that the cooperative line currently taken by the Council is, in essence, in advance of the Constitution, for, where powers are concerned, it is in the Constitution that that issue of energy is mentioned for the first time, in a modern response to the challenges we face.

The work of European integration began with coal and steel. In our modern society, energy efficiency, security of energy supply, solidarity between the Member States and foreign policy in relation to energy assume the same importance that coal and steel did then.

If we can find no answer to these problems, then we really are in trouble. Climate change is of course one of them, and another, self-evidently, is the need to promote renewable energies, to improve energy efficiency and promote the admixture of biofuels.

What I have to say to Mr Cohn-Bendit is that nuclear power will, of course, continue to be a bone of contention. Speaking personally, and as one who is all in favour of it, let me say that I believe that we must nevertheless apply some vigour to saving energy and finding renewable varieties of it. I believe that these must not be seen as mutually contradictory but should instead be seen as belonging together.

(Applause)

I would also like to say something about the social state model, and it is that Europe is unthinkable without it. It is because globalisation has put this social state model under pressure that we must consider how we can continue to guarantee people’s standard of living; it will not be easy. In 1900, Europeans made up 26% of the world’s population; we now make up something between 12% and 14%, and, by the beginning of the twenty-second century, that figure will have dropped to 4% or 5%. We must see to it that we hang on to what we have worked so hard for.

I have looked into this. The Council has already decided that impact assessments are needed in social security matters too, and it will be again asking the Commission to make more use of them, to the point where it becomes normal practice.

I have to say, though, that Germany’s experience of the social market economy has been that it makes it possible for capital and labour to be reconciled, and so I ask you not to make us play the one off against the other. There are those who want less bureaucracy, and there are others who want to defend social provision. The two are not contradictory; on the contrary, in the European social state model, they belong together. That is why, of course, freedom without the necessary social conditions is no more than highly deficient or not even viable at all. It is only through freedom, competition and confidence in people that individuals can be enabled once more to achieve something that makes for prosperity for every citizen. That ‘social’ always means compensating those who are weaker is not a matter of doubt; without that, the social market economy and the European social state model are not even conceivable.

(Applause)

I have two final comments to make, the first of which has to do with internal and justice policy. This week, in Dresden, an excellent informal council meeting was held. Yes, we are committed to the Prüm Convention! I believe that the common area of justice and security is something people want at a very fundamental level. Yes, of course, the balance between protection of data and the exchange of information is a recurrent topic of serious debate, and my less than total enthusiasm for the line taken by the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe has something to do with the fact that I would not be one of their members if I were a Member of your House, but this is a debate we will have to keep coming back to.

My last word has to be about the trimming of bureaucracy. The nation states know what they have to do. Although the constant mutual recriminations get us nowhere, the simple fact is that the much-lauded acquis communautaire has, over the years, grown rather than diminishing in size.

As I discovered from my own experience, one of the blessings of German reunification was that the German legal system became effective as a whole and at a stroke. If I may now make so bold as to speak for the new Member States that have been fortunate enough to be presented with the whole acquis communautaire, so to speak, all on one plate, there are certain questions I would just like to raise. There is in fact nothing anti-European about wanting to review whether all our legislation is still relevant to present circumstances, about considering whether it has piled up to such a degree over time that some of it could be summarised, about looking to see if there are modern methods that make ten-page application forms redundant.

I will never forget seeing what the fishermen on Rügen in my electoral district did with the first applications for fisheries subsidies; they simply threw the forms in the waste-paper basket, because they could not imagine how they could ever complete them all.

This really is not about making things less certain; it is about making Europe – despite people’s experience of red tape – an attractive place in which it is possible to live, so, with that in mind, let us address that issue as well.

(Applause)

  President. I extend very warm thanks to the President of the European Council, Federal Chancellor Angela Merkel, for that significant speech, which has given so much encouragement to most of us in this House. It is evident that, in your thinking and convictions, you are going down the same road as the great majority of MEPs, and that is what made this such a good debate. You have a difficult, but also splendid, task ahead of you, and in it I wish you much success. I am also glad that you will be back in this House again on 13 February, when the President of Parliament will be unveiling his work programme.

  José Manuel Barroso, President of the Commission. Mr President, I would just like to refer to some of the points that were highlighted during our very fruitful debate, especially now that Chancellor Merkel has also referred to energy.

Many speakers referred to energy and to the importance of energy in relation to third countries, namely Russia. Mr Daul said that we need to speak with a common voice externally – I agree. But let us be frank: to speak with one common voice externally, we cannot go on speaking with 27 different voices internally. We need a common market, an integrated market, for energy. We also need a clear energy policy internally. Without coherence we are not credible.

I emphasise the issue of energy very strongly because, apart from its value in itself, it is one of the most powerful drivers for the European project. Let us not forget that the European Communities started after the creation of the European Coal and Steel Community. The same day that the Treaty of Rome was signed for the European Economic Community, the Euratom Treaty was also signed. Since the very beginning, energy has been at the core of the European project.

Today, if there is a matter where the idea of solidarity applies, it is precisely this issue of energy. But we are linking energy with climate change because climate change is one of the most important challenges – if not the most important challenge – of the 21st century. Our founding fathers could not make a reference to it in the Messina Declaration or in the Rome Treaties, but we now have a duty to put that as a very important global challenge.

That brings us to the nature of our European Union. The old question of more or less Europe belongs in the 20th century. The debate now is not whether we need Europe, but how to make it work properly and in a more efficient way. We need more efficient decision-making, more democratic accountability in an enlarged Europe and a more coherent external position of the European Union. Those are the basic reasons why we need a constitutional settlement, not because of any theological discussion about a superstate in Europe. No one is really proposing a superstate, a centralised state in Europe. What we are proposing is a European Union dimension that is indispensable to meeting the challenges of the 21st century. That is quite obvious! Even Germany, the biggest Member State, or Britain, France or Italy, cannot meet those challenges alone. That is why we need the added value of our Union.

We must also look pragmatically at areas where we can do more and at areas where we can do less. One area where we can and should do less is bureaucracy. We have to reduce bureaucracy, and we must have better regulation to improve the conditions for our companies and for our citizens. Therefore, it is not a question of more, or less, Europe, but of a better Europe.

If we work in the spirit of partnership we have seen today – of course, with democratic debate – between Parliament, the Council and the Commission, we can achieve results during these six months. I should like to promise the President-in-Office and the President of Parliament that we will try to achieve real results during these six months so that our European Union can make progress and so that we can look forward to the next 50 years with hope and with pride.

(Applause)

  President. President of the Commission, thank you for your statement and for your commitment. I think this was a very good day for the European Parliament. It was a very good day for the future of our Union.

Colleagues, I thank you all for staying until the end of the debate. I wish you a good day and good work for our commitment for the European Union.

(Applause)

Written statements (Rule 142)

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE-DE). – (FR) I too should like to pay tribute to the quality of the German Presidency’s programme presented by Mrs Merkel. It gives meaning to European integration where a great many issues are concerned: more specifically, values, the institutions, the international role of the Union, the Doha Agenda, transatlantic relations, the partnership with Russia, the forthcoming Europe/Africa summit, energy and environmental issues, the development of our internal market and the need for better legislation in order to prevent bureaucracy.

I have two comments to make regarding the start of this presidency. I regret that the President-in-Office was not present during the election of the President of the European Parliament on Tuesday 16 January 2007. Moreover, pursuant to Article 105 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, I believe that, without prejudice to the objective of price stability, it would have been useful to have addressed the issue of how the euro can be used to serve EU economic policy. I will support this excellent programme, which was drafted in political agreement with the future Portuguese and Slovenian Presidencies and which will be crucial to the major debates of the forthcoming European elections in 2009.

  Alessandro Battilocchio (NI). – (IT) I thank Mrs Merkel for the commitment and enthusiasm that she expressed with regard to reviving the European project, and I hope that this momentum will be maintained for the next six months and then taken up equally seriously by the subsequent Portuguese and Slovenian Presidencies. It is difficult not to agree with the priorities that have been outlined (growth, work and foreign policy) but, as I have pointed out on other occasions and Mr De Michelis has reiterated this morning, what we need before any conceivable strategy on either economic growth or diplomatic cooperation is, in my opinion, a sound energy self-sufficiency policy if, as we have seen, all it takes is a ship or a tree – not to mention the whims of a political leader – to bring economic activity to its knees for hours across entire regions.

Such a policy does not mean just cooperating with our partners, but also having a strategic plan aiming at research into clean and renewable energies and at their use in practice, especially by industry, so as to respond both to the challenge of energy supplies and to environmental problems. The EU has a duty to its own citizens to solve this problem, and it can set a good example that its international partners can follow for everybody’s benefit.

  Gyula Hegyi (PSE). – One Parliament, one seat: quite a simple idea all over Europe, except the European Union, where we have three seats for the European Parliament, and the Members and thousands of other people actually use two seats for the same goal – one in Brussels, and one in Strasbourg. It costs EUR 250 million per year for our taxpayers, not to mention the environmental damage caused by the hundreds of journeys and thousands of cars travelling between the two cities. During Strasbourg weeks MEPs spend their Mondays and Thursdays making unnecessary trips instead of working and meeting their voters. The German Government has a tough economic policy at home, and it recommends the same measures to other countries, like my homeland, Hungary. I hope the German Presidency will be brave enough to push forward the same economic reform in the EU, not allowing our taxpayers’ money to be thrown away. Let us respect our voters, let us respect the environment, let us encourage Chancellor Merkel to fight for a single seat.

  Filip Kaczmarek (PPE-DE). – (PL) Chancellor Merkel has presented her vision of a Europe based on values. That is an excellent approach. It would be difficult not to endorse the set of values underpinning Europe, such as diversity, freedom, tolerance, Christianity and mutual support. There is, however, one further value that should be added to the list, namely solidarity. Without a deep rooted sense of solidarity experienced not only by individual Member States but also by their citizens, it is difficult to conceive of a common European Union foreign policy and an EU Foreign Minister, for example. I therefore support President Barroso's proposal to make solidarity the top priority of the planned Berlin declaration.

As I see it, the current constitutional crisis will not be resolved unless we can inspire greater confidence amongst the citizens. One way of doing this would be to convince the citizens of the Community that their collective security is in safe hands with the European Union. In my experience, people have a very broad understanding of the concept of security, considering it to include solidarity over energy issues, neighbourhood policy, social security and relations with third countries attempting to set Europeans against each other. Solidarity could become Europe's strength, allowing us to disseminate our values. If there is no solidarity amongst us, we shall forfeit our unity and our ability to achieve our objectives. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.

  Katalin Lévai (PSE). – (HU) I wish the German Presidency much success in realising its ambitious programme, which can be another great step towards the transformation of the Old Continent’s economical, social and environmental profile. Indeed, Europe has to regain its economic vitality in order to sustain growth and jobs in the long term.

We are facing enormous tasks! The internal market must be carried to completion, the competitiveness of European businesses must be strengthened, our regulatory systems must be modernised. We have to move beyond the constitutional crisis, which jeopardises faith in the future of integration. Efforts must be made to improve economic growth and employment opportunities, to strengthen Europe’s global political and economic weight, to institute a common energy policy and climate protection and to create a European zone of security and stability.

The joint fight against terrorism and organised crime cannot be put off, and we have to tackle the ever mounting flood of refugees. In addition, the menacing spectre of racism and xenophobia must prod the German Presidency to take a firm stand.

At the same time I welcome the emphasis given to the basic values that form the foundation of Europe. Let us not forget that 2007 is the Year of Equal Opportunities for All, a fundamental European value that may have been the first to be set down in the founding Treaties. The German Presidency’s motto is very pertinent here: ‘Europe can only succeed together’. All of us, together and in our own countries, have to work towards furthering equal opportunity. It is in this spirit that I announced, together with the competent Hungarian minister, the national programme of the 2007 Year of Equal Opportunities.

I hope this will be followed by numerous others, not only at European but also at national levels.

(The sitting was suspended at 12.25 and resumed at 15.00)

IN THE CHAIR: MRS KRATSA-TSAGAROPOULOU
Vice-President

4. Approval of Minutes of previous sitting: see Minutes

5. Membership of Parliament: see Minutes

6. Order of business

  President. – As this is the first time I have presided over this House, allow me to start by thanking you for your applause, for your welcome and for the trust you have placed in me.

The final draft agenda has been distributed. The following amendment has been proposed:

Wednesday:

I have received, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, a request for the oral question to the Commission by Mrs Pervenche Berès on greater convergence of supervisory practices at European Union level (Ο-0126/2006 – Β6-449/2006), which was planned for today's debate, to be postponed to a later sitting, so that it can be examined jointly with the oral question to the Council on the same subject.

  Pervenche Berès (PSE) Chairman of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. – (FR) Madam President, I should like to congratulate you on your election.

The Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs would like to put a question both to the Council and to the Commission regarding the convergence of supervisory practices. However, the question to the Council has clearly got lost in the preparations for the Conference of Presidents. We are still happy to be able to debate these kinds of subjects with the Commission, but there is a major issue at stake in the matter that we are discussing, including for the German Presidency. We are therefore counting on its support to find a slot in the agenda of one of our forthcoming sittings so that we can deal at the same time with the oral question submitted to the Commission and with the one submitted to the Council on this absolutely crucial issue of the convergence of supervisory practices in the field of financial markets.

I am also counting on the support of the presidency of this Parliament to obtain a good slot for this debate.

(Parliament approved the requested postponement)

7. Imposition of the death penalty on medical personnel in Libya (debate)

  President. – The next item is the Council and Commission statements on the imposition of the death penalty on medical personnel in Libya.

  Günter Gloser, President-in-Office of the Council. (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to express the Council’s serious concern about the death sentence passed, on 19 December 2006, and for the second time, on five Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor.

I would remind the House that the presidency of the Council, in its statement of 19 December 2006, condemned this ruling by the judges and at the same time expressed the Council’s hope that the Supreme Court, to which the case has again been submitted, will review the decision without delay.

In this regard, it has to be observed that this case has already been dragged out for some considerable time – since 1999, in fact – and that these medical workers have been in custody for seven years now. The first death sentence was pronounced on 6 May 2004, only to be suspended on 25 December by the Supreme Court, which had re-opened the case.

I would also like to take this opportunity to point out that the Council, for the entire duration of the case, had been calling on the Libyan authorities to do everything in its power to ensure a just and fair trial.

It also pointed out that it had expressed very serious doubts about the justice of the accusations giving rise to the nurses’ and the doctor’s prosecution, as well as grave misgivings as regards the conditions under which they were held and the unjustified delays to the proceedings.

I would also like to state that the Council has been very concerned about the Aids tragedy in Benghazi and has at every opportunity expressed its deep sympathy with the victims and their families, and would also stress that the Council has supported the HIV Action Plan and the International Benghazi Fund in a spirit of solidarity and with humanitarian ends in mind, using all means possible and in close consultation with the Commission and with the support of international partners.

I would also remind your House of the Council’s position on its relations with Libya, which was set out in the conclusions of the October 2004 Council meeting, in which the Council had called on Libya to take a positive view of the European Union’s involvement, reminding it of the Council’s desire that Libya should pay due attention to the EU’s concerns, particularly in relation to the case of the medical personnel.

We take note, with interest, of the points raised by your House in its resolution. We would also like to point out that the Council shares the concerns expressed therein and assures your House that it, together with its Presidency, is continuing to give high priority to this matter.

We also wish to reassure your House that the Council will spare no effort in seeking the most satisfactory solution possible to this problem on a humanitarian basis.

  Jacques Barrot, Vice-President of the Commission. (FR) Madam President, whom I congratulate on her brilliant election, honourable Members, following on from what we were just told by the Council representative, Mr Gloser, I am going to try to inform Parliament of the latest developments in the problem posed by the death sentence handed down to the Bulgarian and Palestinian medical personnel in Libya, on 19 December. I will provide you with some background information from the Commission.

As you just pointed out, Mr Gloser, the Libyan Supreme Court quashed the first death sentence on 25 December 2005 and ordered a retrial. This retrial ended on 19 December 2006 with confirmation that the five Bulgarian nurses and the Palestinian doctor had been sentenced to death. According to the Libyan authorities, the case will be referred again to the Supreme Court in the next few weeks. Therefore, the judicial procedure has not concluded and is continuing. However, on 30 December, the Libyan President issued some public statements reviving the theory of an international plot against Libya, which has caused widespread concern.

At the same time as the judicial procedure is taking place, political consultations are under way to try to resolve this problem on the basis of humanitarian principles, with account being taken of the suffering of the child victims of the infection and of that of the medical personnel. What is the desired outcome? On the one hand, to guarantee the children and their families appropriate medical treatment and financial support and, on the other hand, to secure the release of the medical personnel.

In this context, an international fund for Benghazi has been set up. This fund receives contributions in the form of money or benefits, services or equipment, from public and private donors. It will enable three actions to be carried out: medical care for treating AIDS in Libya to be improved, sick children to be treated abroad and each family to be given financial support. I must also stress that the children’s treatment has already been guaranteed thanks, on the one hand, to the solidarity of several Member States and of the European Commission and, on the other hand, to the funds made available to the families by the Libyan Government.

The Commission clearly regards this as a high priority matter. It is devoting all the resources, all the efforts necessary to find a solution. We have made sure that we have provided technical and medical assistance to Benghazi hospital, where the infection broke out among the children. This work began in September 2005 and is continuing. It has meant that the quality of treatment and the practices carried out inside the hospital have been improved.

At the same time, the Commission is playing an active part in the political consultations already mentioned. We were obviously very disappointed that the death sentence was decided for a second time. True, this is the responsibility of the Libyan judicial authorities but, at the same time, we have begun a dialogue between the parties concerned and we believe that the strategy for getting out of this crisis must be defined in the context of this dialogue. The Commission remains fully involved in this process.

To conclude, and to echo Mr Groner, speaking on behalf of the German Presidency, the dialogue is still under way. It is true, however, that this is a very sensitive matter, which requires the European Union to act with discretion, but not, for all that, to be soft on the need to secure the release of the Bulgarian and Palestinian medical personnel. Furthermore, we feel that it is necessary for the European institutions clearly to show solidarity with the medical personnel, while being very careful not to compromise the development of the work begun and not to affect the climate of discussions with Libya by carrying out impromptu actions.

Following on from the German Presidency, I can simply confirm, honourable Members, that the Commission is very motivated when it comes to continuing the efforts to find a solution to this problem which, it really must be said, has a particularly tragic dimension for the parties concerned and for our Bulgarian friends.

  Филип Димитров Димитров, от името на групата PPE-DE. – Поздравявам Ви с Вашия избор. Уважаеми дами и господа, благодаря Ви, че сте готови да разгледате тази резолюция, засягаща съдбата на петте български медицински сестри и палестинския лекар, които се намират от осем години в либийски затвор. Вносителите на тази резолюция представяме на Вашето внимание един текст, който с всичкото съчувствие, което изразяваме към трагедията на либийските деца, станали жертва на епидемията от HIV/AIDS, едновременно с това отхвърля категорично смъртните присъди, предлага ясно ангажиране на Европейския парламент със съдбата на българските сестри и палестинския лекар и призовава към извършването на конкретни действия от другите европейски институции в тази посока.

A resolution of the European Parliament is a political act. This act is necessary because, as the representative of the Commission said, on a number of occasions the Libyan leadership has referred to this trial in purely political terms.

For eight long years the detention, which started with torture, gradually developed into a trial, which was held in a non-transparent way, with breaches of the general rules of procedure and with a challenging neglect of the conclusions of leading medical experts in the field concerning the matter.

The political character of this trial can be easily traced in the fact of the re-indictment, in which it was claimed that this was a conspiracy inspired by the CIA and Mossad, which shows the rhetoric of hatred, a rhetoric which is typical of either totalitarian regimes or pieces of art with conspiracy theory and an anti-systemic approach.

It has become clear that the epidemic started in Libya a long time before the Bulgarian nurses stepped on Libyan soil. This has been proven by leading experts in the field, in their conclusions, which, as I said, have been neglected.

Last but not least, the most sacred duty of state institutions is to defend their citizens. The Bulgarian nurses are citizens of the European Union, so please stand in their defence.

(Applause)

  Евгени Кирилов, от името на групата PSE. – Благодаря Ви, госпожо председател, и поздравления за Вашия избор. Към г-н Баро бих желал да кажа, че не съм особено възхитен от тона на неговото изявление. Тези деликатни, чувствителни теми, за които Вие говорихте, г-н Баро, не ни помагат в случая и струва ми се, че трябва да помислим сериозно по този въпрос.

Madam President, dear colleagues, I would like to thank all those who supported the initiative to hold the debate on this burning issue during the first part-session of the year. I am sure that a number of speakers today will touch upon the drastic violations of our nurses’ human rights, severe torture and the forced signing of confessions in Arabic without interpreters. In general, we are discussing an eight-year farce involving the Libyan justice system and the political nature of this human agony.

However, I feel that it is now time to take stock of all this and state clearly that, in spite of all the efforts of the Council and the Commission, and in spite of long negotiations, for which I am deeply grateful, the results are appalling. The Libyan regime is, like every dictatorial regime, afraid of its people. It is afraid to admit that the HIV epidemic and the tragic deaths of so many children are caused by its healthcare system. As has been pointed out, although the charges of a plot were dropped at a certain time, Libyan officials and even Colonel Gaddafi himself have recently continued to blame certain Western countries and their secret services for a plot. He says he is not interested in the fate of the nurses; he is interested in the countries that were behind the plot. He is skilfully manoeuvring for compensation, which will convince his people of European and American guilt. He says there is no money in the specially created humanitarian fund, as he does not care about the significant resources spent already by the European Union or treatment of infected Libyan children.

If this absurd and monstrous charge of a plot to infect and kill hundreds of children – a crime against humanity – is still being made, why not challenge the Libyan authorities to create an international criminal court on this? Why not challenge them to seize the UN Security Council? We are not afraid of justice.

The pressure on Libya so far has borne no fruit. I fully support the text in the resolution that, in the absence of positive developments in this case, a review of the policy towards Libya should be absolutely necessary. Libya should very soon understand that there cannot be business as usual. Otherwise, cynical voices will claim that, whenever it smells of oil or gas, governments are tempted to forget about human rights.

  Annemie Neyts-Uyttebroeck, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Madam President, it is pleasure to see you in the Chair, I congratulate you.

To demonstrate clearly that this is not a strictly Bulgarian issue, the Bulgarian ALDE MEPs have requested colleagues of other nationalities to speak on it, which, of course, we all gladly do.

As you know, five citizens of the European Union – and I stress this – are languishing in a Libyan jail. Since 1999, five Bulgarian nurses, a Palestinian doctor and nine Libyans have been detained on charges that are now well known. On 19 December 2006, the detainees were again sentenced to death. We express our total opposition to the death sentence. We protest strongly against this wrongful conviction. We highlight the disregard for the conclusions of renowned international HIV/AIDS experts, who stated that the HIV infections were due to an in-hospital infection that began long before the Bulgarian nurses arrived. We also express our concern with regard to the allegations of torture.

The European Union and the European Parliament, in particular, must monitor this case very closely. The Commission and the Council must keep the European Parliament informed of any developments at all stages, and next week at their meeting the Member States’ Ministers of Foreign Affairs must put this affair very high on their agenda.

Finally, Libya should realise that her standing in the world and her relationship with the Union and its Member States is at stake. Libya should not forsake this opportunity to demonstrate that she abides by the fundamental principles of international law and human rights. Most of all, Libya must be aware that we are all in full solidarity with the Bulgarian nurses and the Palestinian doctor.

  Hélène Flautre, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (FR) Madam President, I should like to congratulate you on your election. In this debate, I should like to begin by pointing out the European Union’s stance against the death penalty and this, in all circumstances, whether it be in the case of the Benghazi medical personnel, of Saddam Hussein, of the political opponents in China or even of all the unknown persons about whom less is said, especially in the United States. The right to life is a fundamental, essential right to human dignity, and that is why the abolition of the death penalty is one of the conditions for accession to the European Union and why it is a priority for the external action of the Union, which has developed specific guidelines along these lines.

The situation of the Benghazi medical personnel is tragic; it is a tragedy that affects families and children infected by the AIDS virus. It is therefore crucial for the European Union to continue to help implement its action plan so that it can come to the aid of the victims and their families.

However, is there any need to add horror to the tragedy? The Palestinian doctor and the Bulgarian nurses who have been in prison for more than seven years now and who have been going through non-stop hell since their arrest did not commit this crime. Countless independent analyses have proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that they did not do it, and their so-called confessions were extracted by torture, as everyone knows.

The Benghazi medical team is therefore being held hostage by a shameful form of bargaining, and it is time for this travesty of justice to end. The European Union’s actions have not yet succeeded in getting the entire medical team out of this hell, and we ought perhaps now to question the European Union’s relations with the Libyan authorities.

Indeed, since we are talking about the Benghazi case, everyone agrees that Libya is not a democratic country, that its judiciary is not independent, that torture is commonplace and that rights are flouted there. However, as soon as we talk about the management of migratory flows, it is as though all of that were no longer true. Speeches become sugary, calling on Libya to continue on the road to democracy and giving the impression that people’s rights could be respected there.

Do you not believe that, if this matter is to have a happy ending, there needs to be a policy for promoting human rights and democracy that is credible, coherent, free of any double standards and implemented at every level? That is, I believe, the condition for success.

  President. – Ladies and gentlemen, please allow me to welcome former President Borrell Fontelles to the Chamber

  Geoffrey Van Orden (PPE-DE). – Madam President, I would like to add my congratulations on your election.

Today we are talking about a tragedy in three parts. There are five Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor, innocent of wrongdoing, who have been in a Libyan jail for some eight years now, much of that time under sentence of death. This frightening situation is an enormous tragedy for them and for their families.

There are hundreds of Libyan children who have contracted HIV, probably through faults in the Libyan blood transfusion system. We know from impeccable international expert analysis that the HIV strain afflicting the children was already present and spreading locally in Benghazi years before any foreign medics arrived in Libya. It should also be noted that there have been many other cases of HIV and BSE transmission through infected blood transfusions in the United States, in the United Kingdom, in France and in other countries. None of this attaches any culpability to the medical staff giving transfusions.

It is an enormous tragedy for the children and their families and, in response to this, the European Commission launched its Benghazi AIDS action plan in November 2004. By March of last year, EUR 2 million had been allocated to this programme, and more is being done through NGOs.

The third element of the tragedy is the impact that this issue is having on the relationship between Libya and the international community. Over the past five years, Libya has begun to come in from the cold since admitting responsibility for certain past terrorist acts and giving up its WMD programme. The thawing of relations is of enormous potential benefit to Libya, with its need for access to Western technology and assistance in order to upgrade its oil industry and to diversify its economy, and we welcome close relations with Libya. There is, then, so much at stake for so many people over an issue that could be resolved very quickly.

Once again, I implore President Gaddafi and the Supreme Court in Libya to exercise their powers and bring about the speedy release of the imprisoned medical personnel. I feel sure that the status of President Gaddafi is such that he would not for a moment be disturbed by any trivial accusation of loss of face. I feel sure, also, that he would not wish to undo all the progress of recent years by giving in to those who seek to use the nurses as some sort of political hostages.

I know that Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner has personally been very involved and committed on behalf of the nurses and that she has visited them and had discussions with President Gaddafi. From my recent conversations with her, I know that she, too, shares our disappointment over lack of progress and hopes for early resolution of this matter.

I acknowledge the need for some sensitivity and discretion. On Monday, the General Affairs and External Relations Council will meet. We hope that the parallel processes of diplomatic dialogue and action by the Supreme Court in Libya will produce rapid results. At the same time, I ask that the Council and the Commission draw up measures that they will take, a range of positive and attractive steps to assist Libya if there is the desired outcome, and a number of other measures if there is no progress. Let this issue not become yet another example of the EU making statements but failing to deliver a useful outcome. Both the Bulgarian and Libyan people deserve better.

(Applause)

  Атанас Папаризов (PSE). – Нека и аз на свой ред да Ви поздравя с Вашия избор. Бих искал да започна с благодарност към колегите от Европейския парламент, които и преди нашето присъединяване, от 2004 г. насам следят внимателно този въпрос. Заедно с г-жа Катрин Ги Kен (Catherine Guy-Quint), в Съвместния парламентарен комитет, ние неведнъж поставяхме въпроса. Г-н Ван Орден (Van Orden) като докладчик за България го поставя на няколко пъти пред Вас.

Сега ние имаме изключителната възможност, с пълно единодушие, надявам се, тъй като проектът за резолюция е подкрепен от всички политически сили, да покажем на либийската страна, че Европейският парламент стои зад петте европейски гражданки и зад палестинския лекар, че Европейският парламент отстоява ценностите на хуманността, на човешките права и ще кажа ясно и точно, независимо от дипломатическите процедури, преговорите, че ние сме за това, българските сестри и палестинският лекар да бъдат освободени незабавно.

Мисля, че силата на една резолюция на Европейския парламент, силата на това, което правят неправителствените организации, ще могат действително да повлияят на това отношение към българските медицински сестри и палестинския лекар, които нямат нищо общо със законността и хуманността. Надявам се, че нашият общ глас ще има реално значение за свободата на българските медицински сестри и палестинския лекар. Благодаря Ви, госпожо председател.

  Alexander Lambsdorff (ALDE). – (DE) Madam President, I, too, warmly congratulate you on your election.

Libya’s unjustified sentence passed on the Bulgarian nurses and the Palestinian doctor has horrified people not only in Bulgaria, but throughout Europe, including in my own home country, Germany. At the same time, we all still have clear recollections of the former President of the Commission, Romano Prodi’s, almost historic handshake with Libya’s President Ghaddafi. That was at the end of April 2004, at a time when Libya was talking in terms of a strategy of serious rapprochement with Europe, a strategy that it has not officially abandoned.

Three years on, though, we find ourselves discussing a court sentence that cannot but strike us as grotesque in the way it flagrantly violates the principles on which the EU rests. Five Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor have been sentenced to death for having – allegedly – deliberately infected children in the Al-Fatih hospital with the Aids virus. No evidence has been produced in support of this allegation. The court proceedings were not fair. These children are not the victims of nurses, but of Aids.

The EU’s values and principles are inalienable, and among them are the repudiation of the death penalty and the upholding of the law and of justice, both of which are imperilled by the proceeding we are debating today. The fact is that citizens of the European Union have been sentenced to death in a trial that was discriminatory and legally highly dubious. In April 2004, Colonel Ghaddafi and Mr Prodi spoke of a bilateral relationship of trust, but such a thing can exist only if it is backed up by actions.

Libya must be in no doubt about the fact that this trial is a serious obstacle to the closer partnership with the European Union to which it aspires, and President Ghaddafi must be made aware of the solidarity Europeans feel with the prisoners and their families. For their sakes, we hope that they will, as soon as possible, be reunited in each others’ arms back home, and it is for that reason that we declare that if Libya wants to draw closer to the European Union, to the enormous benefit of both parties, then the implementation of the resolution, the release of the European and Bulgarian citizens and of the Palestinian doctor will help us achieve that end.

I should like to add that I believe that this is another debate that we should be conducting in Brussels rather than in Strasbourg.

  Mario Borghezio (UEN). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, my compliments. In 2004, Romano Prodi, then President of the Commission, spared no efforts to get Libya to join the Euro-Mediterranean process. Today, as the Italian Prime Minister on an official visit to Sofia, he is sparing no words, but they are like crocodile tears: they are pouring out, gushing out like crocodile tears. In fact, we should have taken a stand against this regime and this despot a long, long time ago, rather than protesting about Minister Calderoli’s T-shirts!

We are facing an unprecedented situation, unless we count the Stalinist trials of doctors and others. It is scandalous, and an insult to the principles of international law and human rights. The whole affair of these nurses and the Palestinian doctor is typical of the arrogant violation of human rights by a country bordering the European Union: we Italians have that country right opposite us, and we can hear the hypocritical threats that its petty tyrant is always uttering about the suffering of African emigrants. Europe needs to change its tone towards him: we cannot suffer insults, and we cannot tolerate such serious, arrogant and unacceptable violations of the rights of European citizens or, indeed, of anyone else.

  Eoin Ryan (UEN). – Madam President, I also wish to join with others in congratulating you on your election.

The very sad and tragic situation of 462 children being infected with the HIV/AIDS virus in Benghazi in the 1990s must not be compounded with death sentences being carried out on six people for crimes that they did not commit. Two wrongs will never make a right.

The decision of the Libyan court of 19 December 2006 to reaffirm the death sentence of five Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian medic is simply unacceptable. These sentences were handed down notwithstanding the body of international expert advice that was given to the Libyan court, from the International Council of Nurses and from Luc Montagnier, the French doctor who first detected the HIV/AIDS virus.

I have written to President Gaddafi, whom I have met before, and I have urged him to reach a solution with the international community, based on humanitarian grounds, in these cases.

Last week in Brussels I personally met with the Libyan representative to the EU, Sifaw Hafiani, and I urged the Libyan Government to resolve this issue humanely and diplomatically. I do not believe, in this situation, that confrontation will work.

The Libyan Government has also agreed to meet shortly with a delegation from the Irish Nurses’ Organisation in Brussels to discuss this case. Nurses and medical staff from Ireland and from Europe work in hospitals all over the Middle East and they face certain difficulties. I believe that this issue and this situation are only compounding those difficulties. They are deeply concerned, as is the International Nurses’ Organisation, about these cases and the precedent it sets for their members.

I would ask everybody to work in a diplomatic way to try to resolve this situation with the Libyan Government. I believe that we can bring it to a satisfactory conclusion.

  Kathalijne Maria Buitenweg (Verts/ALE). – (NL) Madam President, today, we would do well to ponder the nightmare in which the five Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor have been trapped since 1998 – a nightmare, as I said, of captivity and torture, with the threat of the death penalty hanging over them. As someone stated before, a nightmare is also what the parents of the children of Benghazi, the 426 children that have been infected with HIV, are going through, and I welcome the EU’s concern about this too.

I want not only to express our horror at how things stand at the moment, and our hope of a favourable outcome for the six innocent prisoners in the near future, but also to turn to what it means to our relations with Libya, because it is not the case, of course, that everything will be hunky-dory again once this episode finds a favourable outcome. Libya, where irrefutable proof of innocence is simply being ignored by the courts of justice, is clearly not a constitutional state. Human rights are being trampled underfoot and torture is also being practised.

The Libyan Government is sacrificing innocent people for failings of the country’s own health care system, and playing a game with the international community by involving Lockerbie as compensation of some kind for the compensation that Gaddafi paid. Only a sick mind could dream this up.

Where do we go from here? The European Council is seeking closer cooperation with Libya in the area of illegal immigration. The EU wants joint patrols on the Mediterranean and to strike a deal with Libya about the return of immigrants who use it as a route to the European Union. Let me make it quite clear that I am not in favour of isolation. It is one thing to back and promote the right sort of development in Libya, but it is quite another to take cooperation that far.

You will have to agree with me that it would be hypocritical to decide, on one day, that certain immigrants in Libya – five Bulgarians and one Palestinian – are being treated unjustly and inhumanely, only for the next day to see the reaching of an agreement with that country about handing more immigrants to the Libyan authorities. This is the sort of cooperation that would lead to human rights violations, and this is why it is important, as the resolution says, to ponder the question how we should proceed from now on.

  Simon Busuttil (PPE-DE). – (MT) Madam President, as correctly stated by Commissioner Barrot, this is a delicate and sensitive matter – and one that is highly emotive. It raises strong feelings on all sides, because, on the one hand, there are hundreds of children, who, having been infected, are now victims. A large number of these children who were infected with AIDS are now dead. On the other hand, there are other victims, because the Bulgarian nurses and the Palestinian doctor are victims too. They are victims because they have languished too long in prison in Libya, and they are victims because of the death penalty hanging over their heads. There can be no graver penalty than this. The judicial process took too long, and the conviction did not take into account clear evidence provided by renowned international experts showing their innocence. We can only oppose the death penalty; we can never accept it. What has been happening? It must be said that considerable efforts have been made, especially on the part of the European Commission, which has launched the Benghazi Action Plan. This plan seeks to help the children, to help their families, to help also the Libyan authorities and to improve the sanitary conditions in hospital, particularly in Benghazi. It should also be pointed out that the Benghazi International Fund was established in January of last year. These are all positive developments.

However, the reaffirmation of the death sentence a few days ago has exacerbated the situation. What can we do, therefore? A stronger sense of humanitarianism is required. We must show greater solidarity with the children, with the parents and with the Bulgarian and Palestinian victims of this situation. At this point, we must urge the Libyan authorities to reduce the existing tension by declaring immediately that they will not carry out the death penalty. This resolution is not confrontational, nor does it seek to threaten. It is balanced, yet clear, on these points.

  Кристиан Вигенин (PSE). – Уважаема г-жо председател, уважаеми колеги -членове на Европейския парламент, има нещо символично в това, че на първата сесия на Европейския парламент след приемането на България в Европейския съюз ние обсъждаме един въпрос, който поставя на изпитание готовността на европейските институции, на европейските правителства, на европейските народи изобщо, да се борят за ценностите, върху които е изграден нашият Съюз. Защото потвърдените смъртни присъди на пет българки и на един палестинец са предизвикателство към демократичния свят. Тези смъртни присъди са основани на измислени доказателства и на изтръгнати с нечовешки мъчения фалшиви самопризнания. Те са опит за бягство от политическа отговорност на либийските ръководители и лично на Кадафи, за тежкото състояние на либийското здравеопазване. Те са опит една смърт да бъде възмездена с друга смърт, невинни хора да платят с живота си за трагедията на други невинни хора.

Ние не можем да приемем това. Трябва да спрем произвола. Днес гласът на Европейския съюз трябва да бъде силен и ясен, за да бъде чут и в Триполи. Времето тече все по-бързо и става все по-важно недвусмислените декларации да бъдат последвани от недвусмислени действия. В последните години много политически лидери обещаваха подкрепа за медиците в Либия. Паралелно с това, Либия беше извадена от изолацията и една след друга европейски компании и правителства сключват милиардни сделки с нея. Има нещо лицемерно в това.

Аз моля днешната дискусия да не остане само упражнение, с което да успокоим съвестта си, че сме направили всичко, което е в правомощията ни. Аз моля да пренесете тази дискусия в националните парламенти и правителства, защото животът на шест невинни човека трябва да бъде незаобиколим фактор в отношенията с Либия. Не искам дори да си представя ужаса този парламент да започне своя сесия с минута мълчание. Благодаря Ви.

  Sarah Ludford (ALDE). – Madam President, I too wish to congratulate you on your election.

Commissioner Barrot called for discretion, and none of us want to do or say anything to prejudice the prospects of a just solution to this terrible situation affecting our fellow EU citizens and the Palestinian doctor.

However, the Commissioner rightly also called for firmness. The search for a solution must not be affected by the development of wider interests between Libya and the EU, such as the close cooperation that has grown, in particular between Italy and Libya, regarding the return of illegal immigrants, of whom Libya is now hosting over one million.

The European Parliament has expressed great concern about the lack of access of many of these people, whether in the EU or Libya, to a refugee determination process. Whatever our interests in managing or preventing that flow – and, unfortunately, the lack of a truly comprehensive EU migration policy hinders proper management – we must not let those interests prevail over the demands of justice and human rights. Plans for an EU-Libya action plan on migration are quite rightly, if unhelpfully, frozen because of the Benghazi case, and they must not be unfrozen until there is a proper solution.

(Applause)

  Hanna Foltyn-Kubicka (UEN). – (PL) Madam President, what we are confronted with is quite simply a case of blackmail aimed at achieving certain political and economic benefits. The European Union cannot give in to blackmail and must take decisive action on this issue.

Economic interests can never take precedence over respect for human rights. Such is the essence of the European spirit and our historical legacy. Libya is one of the main suppliers of oil and natural gas, but this must not be allowed to have any bearing whatsoever on the fact that the lives of innocent people are hanging in the balance. The Union must express its solidarity with Bulgaria and stand shoulder to shoulder with it in the fight to overturn the unfair and politically motivated judgment handed down by the Libyan court. We must make use of all the measures still available to us, sanctions included. It is imperative to send a clear message to the people of Bulgaria, strengthening them in their conviction that accession to the Union was worthwhile, and that the Union will stand by each and every one of its Member States when they are in difficulty. After all, that is the true meaning of the common Europe to which we all belong.

  Luisa Fernanda Rudi Ubeda (PPE-DE). – (ES) Madam President, I would like to begin by congratulating you on your election as Vice-President and on having obtained the highest number of votes in yesterday's election.

We in this Parliament are once again discussing the case of the Bulgarian nurses and the Palestinian doctor sentenced to death in Libya. I would like firstly to express the solidarity of the whole of Parliament with the child patients – some of whom have now died – and with their families.

At the same time, however, I would also like to make a strong statement in defence of our principles and against the death penalty. In the countries of Europe – thanks be to God – we reached the conclusion many years ago that no human being has the authority to take away the life of another nor to justify the possibility of that happening.

In April 2005, the Members of the Delegation for Relations with the Maghreb Countries and the Arab Maghreb Union had the opportunity to go to Libya and talk about this case with the authorities. At that time there appeared to be a glimmer of hope because the plan – which was subsequently approved – for European Union cooperation with the children and the Bengazi hospital was in operation.

Nevertheless, in view of the review of the trial and the new sentence, we have seen that the technical reports that have cleared the Bulgarian nurses of blame — some of them signed by the very person who discovered the AIDS virus and by Oxford scientists — have demonstrated, by means of a philogenetic analysis of the children's virus, that this virus had arrived in Libya many years before the Bulgarian nurses arrived on Libyan soil.

In spite of that, we have seen that those reports have not been admitted in the court, and the nurses and the doctor have not therefore been given adequate judicial guarantees.

I shall draw to a close, Madam President. Commissioner Barot asked us for discretion and prudence in relation to this issue. In fact, I believe that we have been acting in that way for eight long years now, and we can see how much we have achieved so far. Perhaps the European Union, as well as applying the principles of discretion and prudence, should now place the accent on firmness.

  Elena Valenciano Martínez-Orozco (PSE). – (ES) Madam President, I would like to congratulate you on being seated at that table.

The Socialist Group in the European Parliament considers the sentence confirming the death sentence for the Bulgarian nurses and the Palestinian doctor, unfairly accused of infecting hundreds of children with the AIDS virus, to be extremely serious. Through this sentence, which is entirely unacceptable to all European democrats, the intention in Libya is to condemn not just the accused, but also humanitarian aid and medicine.

We therefore entirely reject the death penalty under any circumstances and we reiterate the European Union's commitment to fighting for its abolition and a global moratorium on its application.

The death penalty is particularly unjust in this case. Firstly, because the trial did not conform to the rules on the independence and impartiality of the court, a widespread problem in the case of Libya, and, secondly, because the sentence contradicts the tangible evidence presented by neutral experts, which proves that the accused are innocent.

Furthermore, as I have said, public health and medicine are being punished, because the real reasons for the children catching the AIDS virus are being kept hidden. We would stress the drama being suffered by these condemned people, after eight years in Libyan prisons, in sub-human conditions and complaining of ill treatment; and we would also point to the drama being suffered by the ill children and the families of the children who have died, with whom my group expresses it full solidarity, and we also support the European Commission’s programmes in Libya to fight AIDS.

We call for the immediate release of the nurses and the doctor, who are innocent, and we demand that the Libyan authorities focus on the infected children.

Let us all therefore promote a human rights policy that is properly coherent, credible and firm.

  Marian Harkin (ALDE). – A Uachtaráin agus ba mhaith comhghairdeas a dhéanamh leat as a bheith tofa. Is ábhar áthais dom, ar an ócáid seo, mo chéad chomhrá i 2007 a thabhairt daoibh i mo theanga dhúchasach, an Ghaeilge. Tá áthas orm chomh maith gurb é aidhm an chéad chomhrá sin ná comhpháirtíocht a thairiscint do cheann de na Ballstáit nua, an Bhulgáir. Níl a lán ama agam, mar sin déanfaidh mé dhá phointe ghearra.

Tá nath cainte againne in Éirinn, 'ní neart go cur le chéile', agus sin atá i gceist againne inniu. Táimid ag tabhairt tacaíochta don Bhulgáir ina h-iarrachtaí ar shaoirse a bhaint amach do sheisear daoine neamhchiontacha: cúigear banaltraí agus dochtúir as an Phalaistín agus iad faoi bhagairt píonós an bháis sa Libia.

Ar an dara dul síos, áfach, tá nios mó ná tacaíocht na Parlaiminte ón Bhulgáir. Tá ról lárnach ag an nGearmáin ina hUachtaránacht, agus ag an gComhairle chomh maith, chun dul i ngleic leis an gceist phráinneach seo. Caithfidh siad úsáid a bhaint as a gcuid tionchair ar an leibhéal idirnáisiúinta chomh maith.

  Simon Coveney (PPE-DE). – A Uachtaráin, nuair a bhí an Pharlaimint ar athló i rith na Nollag agus na hAthbhliana, fuair cúig bhanaltraí ón mBulgáir cathróireacht ón Aontas Eorpach. Ag an am céanna, áfach, dúirt Cúirt sa Libia go raibh siad daortha chun báis. Tá siad cúisithe toisc go raibh baint acu le galrú 426 paistí le HIV in ionad Benghazi sa Libia.

Is é seo an dara triail sa chás seo, tar éis rialú ón gCúirt Uachtarach, ach tá a lán imní ann ó thaobh cóir agus neamhchaontacht na trialach.

It is now being reported that Mr Gaddafi intends to use this case as a political bargaining chip. He intends, it seems, to begin talks on revising the death sentence for the Bulgarian nurses on the condition that a Libyan convicted for the Lockerbie bombing in 1988 is released. This is nothing more than using people’s lives as political capital. The nurses have already been incarcerated for eight years and the sole purpose of this resolution must be to repeat calls for their unconditional release.

The defendants now have the right to appeal against their sentences. At this final stage of trial, the scientific evidence concerning the origin and timing of the Benghazi infection must be considered again without the presence of a biased or politically motivated Libyan expert panel to refute claims. I strongly support the idea of nominating an EU special rapporteur to this case to monitor and scrutinise the defendants’ appeal.

The reported use of torture to extract confessions from the defendants while in custody and the shameful delays during this trial process continue to be of serious concern to the EU. As Libya claims to intend to develop a positive relationship and engagement with the EU, we must make it clear that we in this Parliament attach significant importance to the treatment of our citizens in Libya and attach the highest priority to calls for their unconditional release.

  Ana Maria Gomes (PSE). – Madam President, it is good to see you in the Chair.

We are opposed to the death penalty anywhere. Therefore, we are appalled by the decision of 19 December 2006 on the five Bulgarian nurses and the Palestinian doctor; even more so because they could not be given a fair trial in a country where torture is common and where the people still suffer a mad and terrorist dictator after many years of also suffering UN sanctions because of his terrorist adventures.

But even more appalling is the fact that EU governments and the Commission seem too easily to have forgotten Lockerbie and the UTA mass murders ordered by the Gaddafi regime, and they now enjoy cosying up to that killer dictator, as EU ministers did recently in Tripoli. Is it because of the oil and the deals that many of them seem to care more about than the human rights of European and Palestinian citizens? Is it because, in fact, several EU government members are held to ransom by the Gaddafi regime for fear that he will expose them for having been involved with his regime in the outsourcing of torture by the Bush Administration within the framework of the extraordinary renditions programme? Why do governments, such as the British Government, or my own, the Portuguese Government, not disclose the purpose and the contents of the frequent flights to and from Libya since June 2003, which we have identified in the European Parliament’s Temporary Committee on the alleged use of European countries by the CIA for the transport and illegal detention of prisoners? Why do EU governments and the Commission not act finally, decisively and audibly to get these five Bulgarian nurses and the Palestinian doctor released?

  Bogusław Sonik (PPE-DE). – (PL) Madam President, I too would like to congratulate you on the splendid result you achieved yesterday.

Under international pressure, Libya withdrew its official support for international terrorism a few years ago. It also admitted its involvement in the Lockerbie disaster. Nonetheless, Libya is still failing to respect human rights and civic freedoms. I have watched with interest as the country has become involved in international cooperation in many areas, such as the oil trade and dealing with illegal immigrants attempting to cross into Europe through Libya.

Libya is a beautiful country, and it boasts significant but little-known monuments dating back to the times of the Roman Empire. It needs support to develop its tourist infrastructure. In other words, Libya needs Europe and Europe needs Libya. A relationship of mutual cooperation should be developed. We cannot, however, agree to cooperation at any price, such as the lives of the Bulgarian nurses and Palestinian doctor. Experience tells us that Colonel Gaddafi and his country will only give in when confronted with strong, determined and consistent international pressure.

That is the approach urgently required now. The European Union must stand firm and demonstrate solidarity as it fights for the release of those unfairly imprisoned. Commissioner, the time for backstage negotiations in the hope of reaching an amicable settlement of the case concerning the Bulgarian nurses is past. We must come to terms with the fact that those efforts have been unsuccessful. The European Council and the European Commission must adopt a much more determined tone. They must resort to all possible means of hindering Libya’s efforts to develop contacts with Europe, ostracising it from the international community and turning it into a pariah once again. As a result of Libya’s actions, all forms of contact with that country must cease.

  Pierre Schapira (PSE). – (FR) Madam President, the situation is shocking, scandalous and unacceptable. This is a second death sentence for the Bulgarian nurses and the Palestinian doctor. The Libyan justice system has once again shown that it is iniquitous and that its judiciary exploits politics for its own ends. The AIDS affair is nothing but a poor excuse.

Faced with the seriousness of the fundamental rights violations committed by the Libyan authorities and with the failure of all the steps taken, we must react firmly. I should like the EU Member States to join forces against Gaddafi’s regime, to speak with one voice and not to give in to any of the regime’s blackmail.

In this way, the Member States could seize the opportunity of the European tour planned by Colonel Gaddafi to agree to refuse him the right to enter EU territory until the medical personnel have been released. We must make it clear to the Libyan regime that the EU Member States will all support Bulgaria and will all act with the same determination that they would demonstrate if this matter directly affected their own nationals.

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

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE-DE). – (SK) As an MEP and a physician, I do not believe that a Palestinian doctor and five Bulgarian nurses, whose sacrosanct duty it is to help and cure the sick, would consciously and deliberately have infected children with HIV while doing their work in Libya.

I am rather inclined to ask myself whether it is possible to believe Libya and its discredited leader, Colonel Gaddafi. This is a country that is still led by a person who intentionally and deliberately ordered the annihilation of innocent victims by terrorists who blew up a passenger plane over the town of Lockerbie. Apart from its admission of responsibility for this ghastly crime, the only ‘positive’ thing about Libya is its vast deposits of oil and natural gas.

The capital punishment meted out to the health professionals is a hideous and cynical act on the part of Gaddafi and his regime, not an expression of the rule of law and justice. I also wonder whether this might be part of a dirty game played by Libya, an attempt to grab huge sums of money in the form of compensation for the children’s lives, or whether perhaps Libya is blackmailing the West and the European Union now that Bulgaria is a member, in an effort to orchestrate the release of the Libyan terrorists who have been justly sentenced and imprisoned for their deeds.

I therefore call upon the European Commission, and Germany as the presiding country of the European Council, to make use of all available means to exert political and economic pressure on Libya in order to save the lives of the Bulgarian nurses and Palestinian physician. Political concessions to Gaddafi and his authoritarian policies would be a serious and fatal mistake. Accepting politicians with a terrorist past, or still more so, collaborating with them, is immoral and can undermine the principles on which Europe is built – truth, the rule of law, human rights and respect for human dignity.

  Günter Gloser, President-in-Office of the Council. (DE) Mr President, honourable Members, I thank you for your contribution and also for your commitment to the welfare of the five Bulgarian nurses and the Palestinian doctor.

As in the past, it must be made clear that the European Union will be unstinting in the solidarity it demonstrates with Bulgaria, with the nurses and with the Palestinian doctor and in its efforts on their behalf.

I can assure you that the Presidency – on the basis, of course, of this debate, but also of earlier decisions – will, in its dialogue with the Libyan authorities, consistently spell things out in plain language.

Neither the proceedings nor the verdict can be seen as satisfactory; as others have said, the European Union rejects the death penalty not only for itself but also elsewhere. It is indeed the case that, as a number of speakers have said, Libya has drawn closer to Europe, and, while this reversal of the position Libya took up to a few years ago was right and necessary, the practical expression of this rapprochement requires that it be made abundantly clear that we cannot accept what has happened in Libya in this case to date.

It is for that reason that the German Presidency of the Council will join with the Commission in endeavouring to step up pressure on Libya, so that the people who have a death sentence hanging over them should no longer have to live with uncertainty in the way they have had to for many years now. On the other hand, though, we have also made it clear and will continue to do so in the future that we are, of course also aware of the other side to this tragedy and will continue to support the infected people, not least the children, wherever our help is required, but, since that must not be misused for other purposes, it is important that the Presidency should also receive Parliament's backing.

  Jacques Barrot, Vice-President of the Commission. (FR) Mr President, whom I congratulate on his re-election, I can tell you that my colleague, Mrs Kuneva, and I have listened most carefully to this entire debate, which reflects the very profound concern of the whole of the European Parliament faced with the unacceptable situation of these persons imprisoned since 1999, a date that ought not to escape you. On behalf of the Commission, we are convinced that the European institutions have an absolute duty to show solidarity in this matter and that we should be resolute in our support.

I therefore confirm, as the Presidency has just done, that all of the European institutions will show solidarity faced with this tragedy. I should also like to inform you of our colleague’s, Mrs Ferrero-Waldner’s, strong determination to find a solution by means of negotiation. Mrs Ferrero-Waldner is fully involved in a dialogue that is certainly difficult but that absolutely must be carried through to a successful conclusion. Finally, while I referred just now to what are perhaps impromptu and untimely initiatives, which would be liable to disrupt this necessary negotiation and this crucial dialogue, it does not mean that the Libyan authorities should forget that the future of Libyan-EU relations will depend on the solution found to this problem.

Mrs Ferrero-Waldner will keep Parliament informed of any developments in this issue, Mr President, especially after the ‘General Affairs’ Council has been held.

I should like to thank Parliament for having used language to speak about this matter that is entirely worthy of, and in keeping with, its seriousness.

  President. Thank you very much, Commissioner.

To conclude the debate, I have received six motions for resolutions⁽¹⁾ pursuant to Rule 103(2)/Rule 108(5) of the Rules of Procedure.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow at 12.00 noon.

(1) See Minutes.

8. Seventh and eighth annual reports on arms exports (debate)

  President. The next item is the report by Mr Romeva i Rueda, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, on the Council’s Seventh and Eighth Annual Reports according to Operative Provision 8 of the European Union Code of Conduct on Arms Exports.

(2006/2068(INI)) (A6-0439/2006).

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), rapporteur. – (ES) Mr President, this is now the third time that it has been my honour to address the Commission and the Council to present them with the European Parliament’s annual assessment of the implementation of the Code of Conduct on Arms Exports.

I am delighted to be doing so at a time when, at the request of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, the process has formally begun to adopt an international treaty on the transfer of arms, which furthermore is something that broad sectors of civil society throughout the world have always demanded.

You will have noticed that this time we have analysed two consecutive years, 2004 and 2005, in order to put an end to the time lag that has happened with previous reports between the presentation of the annual report by the Council and the European Parliament's assessment. Nevertheless, in spite of the fact that the Council has considerably speeded up the presentation of its annual report, it is still arriving too late – the 2005 report arrived in the autumn – and we are therefore once again insisting that it would be desirable for the Council to continue with its recent efforts to ensure transparency and punctuality and for the annual report to be available at least during the first quarter of the following year. The European Parliament must of course also do its bit and must respond punctually to the presentation of the Council's annual report.

With regard to the specific content of the report that we are dealing with today, relating, as has been said, to the Council's seventh and eighth reports, I would like to stress certain significant data and facts.

Firstly, the data. According to the statistics provided, the trend with regard to the weight of European arms exports compared to those from the rest of the world is being maintained, since around a third of all arms exports originate from the European Union. In 2004, European arms exports were worth almost EUR 10 billion and in 2005 that figure was EUR 9 billion. Nevertheless, what interests us here also is the total value of the licences issued, because that is what demonstrates whether the Code of Conduct is really being applied properly. From that point of view, the figures rise to EUR 25 billion for 2004 and EUR 26 billion for 2005.

Furthermore, another significant and worrying fact is that the countries buying European arms include China, Colombia, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Indonesia, Israel and Nepal, names which are regularly raised in debates on urgent matters on Thursday afternoons in this Parliament, which on the face of it would appear to be a flagrant violation of the very content of the Code of Conduct.

Secondly, and this is surely the most important aspect that we point out in our report, we must express our great disappointment at the fact that, despite the fact that Coreper decided back in June 2005 to turn the current Code of Conduct into a common position, thereby giving it a legal status at European level that it does not yet have, and despite the fact that the technical work for this change was done months ago by COAR exports, the Council has yet to bring it into effect. The most significant factor is that, in the absence of an explicit reason for that delay, the implicit underlying reason is that certain governments would be making that transformation, and hence the strengthening of the Code of Conduct, conditional upon the simultaneous lifting of the arms embargo on China.

Please allow me to make something very clear. We in this House have always believed the two issues to be independent of each other. With regard to the arms embargo on China, the Council and the Commission know what our position has been and that is that its lifting must be conditional upon clear and effective progress in terms of respect for human rights in China, particularly in relation to the events in Tiananmen Square in 1989.

It is clearly an important issue, and we are going to debate it, but what concerns us today is the European Union’s Code of Conduct on Arms Exports, which relates to arms exports to the whole world, not just to China. In that regard, and in other words, and excuse my frankness, we do not understand and we do not accept that delay, and nor do the huge number of organisations in civil society who for years have been working in favour of a bigger and better mechanism for controlling arms exports, both at European and at world levels, with a view to reducing the damaging impact that this kind of trade often has.

For all of these reasons, I hope that the report that this House will approve tomorrow, given its content and its political timeliness, will help in some way to improve the control of arms exports, both at European and global levels, within the framework of a future international treaty on the transfer of arms, which we hope is not too far away.

  Günter Gloser, President-in-Office of the Council. (DE) Mr President, honourable Members, I am grateful to your House for presenting this report, and in particular to your rapporteur Mr Romeva i Rueda, who has been, as rapporteur, responsible for this annual report on the EU’s code of conduct for four years now, and of whose work the Council and the Member States are appreciative.

I also want to stress that the Council welcomes many of the suggestions in the report and will endeavour to implement them. Among the many I could mention are the further development of best practice in the application of the code’s criteria; improvement of the reports produced by the nation states and those consolidated at EU level; the complete implementation of the Common Position on the control of arms brokering; the ongoing invitation of Members of the European Parliament to certain seminars and workshops; the continuation of the EU Presidency’s practice of presenting papers from the Council working party on arms exports to the security and defence sub-committee and the invitation extended to the rapporteur to attend meetings with the working party.

The European Union and the Member States will also give their full support to negotiations towards an international treaty on the arms trade, as was stated by the Council in its conclusions of 11 December 2006, in which it also stated, inter alia, that it welcomed the formal commencement of the process of drafting a legally binding international treaty on the arms trade as accomplished by the adoption, by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 6 December 2006, of the resolution on an international treaty on the arms trade, for the purpose of laying down common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional weapons.

The Council was particularly pleased to note that, in the operative sections of the resolution, the Secretary-General was requested to seek the member states’ views as to the feasibility, potential scope of, and provisional criteria for, such a comprehensive and binding legal instrument. It expressed the same sentiment concerning the appointment of a group of government experts who would begin examining these issues in 2008.

The Council therefore, in its conclusions, re-emphasised the fact that the European Union and its individual Member States would be playing an active part in this process. The European Union and all other member states of the United Nations are called on to actively support the process of drafting a treaty on the arms trade, to communicate their views to the Secretary-General and to participate in the work of the group of government experts.

  Jacques Barrot, Vice-President of the Commission. (FR) Mr President, Mr Romeva i Rueda, honourable Members, the responsibility for controlling and monitoring the sale of arms obviously lies primarily with the Member States. The Commission is involved in this matter, however, through its role in the Common Foreign and Security Policy.

Your rapporteur, Mr Romeva i Rueda, has once again drafted an excellent report, which calls on the Member States to do more and better in terms of applying a rigorous, harmonised and transparent approach to controlling and monitoring the EU’s arms exports. The improvements made to the European controls can and must encourage other regions of the world to start by adopting, as a minimum, good practices, and to apply them. We must make sure that perfectly legitimate exports do not end up in the wrong hands, as they would help to provoke armed conflicts or human rights violations.

While having been drafted primarily for the Member States, your report, Mr Romeva i Rueda, includes some elements that the Commission supports. On behalf of Mrs Ferrero-Waldner, I am therefore going to inform you of the comments and our remarks on these elements.

Firstly, the Commission welcomes the new focus given by your report to the issue of private security companies, and it is in favour of the development of a mechanism for regulating their activities. This issue is in some ways linked to that of the reform of the security sector, within which private companies, just like State institutions, must work in accordance with the principles of democratic control, of responsibility, of respect for human rights and of respect for the rule of law. The European Community actively supports all activities aimed at reforming the security sector in many regions of the world. Effective controls in the field of arms exports are part of this effort.

Furthermore, the Commission is playing an active role in the fight against the illicit distribution of small arms and light weapons. We share the view that improved control and monitoring of arms exports and its associated activities, such as brokering, can help reduce the illicit trafficking in small arms and light weapons, as their distribution contributes to armed violence and human insecurity and sustains regional and internal conflicts.

As part of the Common Foreign and Security Policy, we are also working with the Member States with the aim of implementing the EU strategy to combat illicit accumulation and trafficking of small arms and light weapons, which was adopted by the Council in December 2005. For some time now, the Commission has been working with international and regional organisations, research centres, NGOs and civil society to prevent the consequences of the inappropriate or illicit sale of arms. We need to be aware of these challenges and to be able to respond to them. In a number of regions of the world, this trafficking may be linked to the trafficking in drugs or in raw materials such as tropical wood, minerals or diamonds.

In 2007, the Commission will take advantage of its chairmanship of the Kimberley Process to help improve the implementation of the controls. We must prevent diamonds from being trafficked for the purposes of allowing rebel groups to buy weapons. We must also closely monitor the illicit trafficking in arms by air. I am aware that this mode of transport is used for many trafficking operations – particularly in the case of aircraft bound for the African continent – and we must make use of all the customs authorities in order to prevent this.

It is true that the international framework is not in favour of negotiation and of the adoption of legally binding multilateral disarmament instruments, but that must not stop us from strengthening the controls on arms exports. We support the Member States’ efforts to establish a treaty on the arms trade, even though it will take time to negotiate it. In the meantime, it is crucial for the European Union to work at national and regional level to improve and strengthen the existing measures.

Finally, the Commission is active in helping to implement international instruments and to enforce them in the various countries. The implementation of the United Nations action programme to combat the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons and the Ottawa Treaty prohibiting anti-personnel mines are actively helping to safeguard human lives.

I shall sum up, Mr President, by saying that this report really must be taken seriously by all those European officials with responsibility for monitoring arms exports. We must work together to improve our performance in this area. A consistent approach requires the use of a broad range of tools, from international diplomacy and political influence to the control of exports and development aid. For the sake of effectiveness, these tools must be used in a complementary fashion. The overriding issue that your report highlights very well, Mr Romeva i Rueda, is that there can be no real human or socio-economic development without this vital security, and your report highlights – if there were any need to highlight it – our responsibility regarding worldwide arms exports.

  Karl von Wogau, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by extending my own, very heartfelt, congratulations to Mr Romeva i Rueda for the very valuable and dedicated work he has done as our rapporteur on this subject over recent years, and which he is continuing to do today. I would also like to thank you, Commissioner, for what you have had to say about the Commission’s activities in combating arms smuggling and about the fact – well-known to all of us – that the first precondition for any economic development in developing countries is the establishment of security, without which no economic development is going to happen.

Mr Romeva’s report has to do with common rules applicable to arms exports, and the problem with these is that, while we do have common rules in the shape of the Code of Conduct, this code is not itself binding. How, then, can it be made binding in law? Firstly, this can be done by individual Member States declaring it to be so or stipulating it by law, which is what Germany, among others, has done. It can also be accomplished by means of a single European regulation, a Common Position, towards which we are now making progress, and in the direction of which we must continue.

The real problem, however, is that, although we have, in principle, common rules, these are implemented by 27 different offices in 27 Member States, and, moreover in highly divergent ways. Although the Member States keep each other informed about these matters, they do not reach decisions jointly; for example, a weapons embargo has been imposed on China, but the definition of what is a weapon under the terms of this embargo is subject to rules that are interpreted differently in the 27 Member States and in a different way again in the USA. Things cannot go on like this; we need more common ground here.

We are heading towards a common defence policy, of which the development of joint armed forces forms part. There are many who seem not to be aware of the fact that – in Bosnia-Herzegovina, for example – troops are already under European command and that they are bringing peace and security to those places. There is also a need for a single defence market, something towards which we have taken great strides over recent years, but, if both these things come to pass, there will also be a need for more joint action in the field of the monitoring of arms exports. That is one of the important tasks that we will have to deal with over the coming years, and it is one for the German Presidency of the Council too.

  Ana Maria Gomes, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (PT) Mr President, may I offer my congratulations on your re-election. I commend Mr Romeva i Rueda on the outstanding work he has done, once again, which explains the almost unanimous vote in committee.

There are a number of reasons for this consensus in Parliament on the future Code of Conduct, but the main one is as follows: bucking the trend in some Member States, where there continues to be a lack of transparency and where arms exports policy is driven by short-term considerations, we in Parliament believe that the EU needs to have a common, effective and credible arms exports policy that respects fundamental values, especially human rights, and is linked to the Union’s external and development policies, thus contributing to, and strengthening, their coherence.

Parliament’s capacity to influence the Council and public opinion on this debate is based on the fact that our positions are coherent and principled, and free of national self-interest and of the detrimental effects of a short-term approach. Parliament has been the voice of Europe on this issue. Parliament’s message on this latest report is as clear as it has always been. Firstly, we want to elevate this Code of Conduct to common position status. This is a necessary measure, proof of which lies in the fact that the European Council’s working group has had a text ready to be approved since June 2005 but is dragging its feet as regards approving it. The resolution also reiterates the importance of this measure not being contingent on the fate of the China arms embargo, which remains justified. It is also important to strengthen existing mechanisms. National reports on the implementation of the Code of Conduct, for example, must accordingly be harmonised so that we can use them to assess the extent to which the Member States are complying with it. Mr Barrot spoke of arms trafficking by air, mainly to Africa.

The general laxness in European airports, as revealed by our investigation into the CIA flights, suggests that the worst, the unthinkable, might actually be happening on this issue. Furthermore, after two years of paralysis, the time has come to put in place a system of exceptional measures for countries that have recently had embargoes lifted, Libya, a country we have just been talking about, being a case in point. The immoral race to sell arms to Libya since 2004 clearly demonstrates the importance of establishing transitional rules when there are regimes that violate human rights.

Lastly, this resolution is not solely about the Code of Conduct. In the resolution, Parliament calls on the Member States to take the lead in creating more advanced international legal instruments that will regulate and, where possible, scale back the international arms trade. Just as Europe played a key role in the Ottawa Convention on Antipersonnel Mines, the EU must remain at the forefront of the process of drawing up a UN arms trade treaty.

The external action of the EU and its Member States should be underpinned by human rights, sustainable development, and lasting peace and security. Without a coherent and effective policy on controlling arms exports, the Union will not be able to meet its core objectives or to help improve the world.

  Annemie Neyts-Uyttebroeck, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair again. My congratulations to you.

(NL) First of all and most of all, I should like to congratulate Mr Romeva i Rueda on his very well laid-out report which enjoys my group’s unanimous approval and which we intend to approve here in tomorrow’s plenary. The report lists all the progress that has been made recently thanks to the unstinting efforts on the part of this House. For example, the three most recent presidencies have submitted their activities in connection with the code of conduct to our security and defence subcommittee and have also discussed these with them, and I would invite the German Presidency to do the same.

We have also, for instance, noticed the fine-tuning and clarifications of the criteria in connection with the human rights situation in the country of destination and in connection with the risks involved in preventing arms exports or reexporting exported weapons. My group, among others, takes the view that further refinement is needed in connection with the country of destination’s internal situation in connection with the repercussions on the regional situation, and in connection with the compatibility of arms exports with the country of destination’s technical and economic capacity.

Our biggest disappointment in this connection is the failure of the Member States to translate the code of conduct into a common position of the Council, a common position which would make this code far more forceful than it currently is. This would also be far better proof of the Member States being serious about contributing to worldwide arms control and disarmament. I took great interest in the Commission statements in this respect and was also delighted to hear that the Commission will be presiding over the Kimberley process. I take particular pleasure in this, Commissioner, as this was something I used to help do in a previous life.

Finally, I should like to make it absolutely clear that my group is opposed to lifting the arms embargo against China and that we urge the Member States to put much more effort into establishing an international treaty on arms trade under the aegis of the United Nations. The international context may not be very conducive to multilateral agreements, as the Commissioner was very right to point out, but that is no reason for the Member States and the EU Member States to slacken their efforts in this area.

  Liam Aylward, thar ceann an Ghrúpa UEN. – A Uachtaráin, is mór an onóir dom labhairt i mo theanga dhúchais anseo tráthnóna inniu. An fiú tada an Cód Iompair um Easpórtáil Armlóin, a chairde? Sin í an cheist is tábhachtaí atá le freagairt againn.

Faraoir, is iad na tíortha is saibhre a cheannaíonn an t-armlón is cumhachtaí. Sin é an fáth go bhfuil an oiread sin armlóin sa Mheán Oirthear, armlón atá faighte acu ó Bhallstáit an Aontais Eorpaigh agus ó Rialtas Mheiriceá.

Ní féidir an fhírinne a sheachaint. Tá cogaí san Iaráic, san Iaráin, agus sa Chuáit ó na h-ochtóidí. Deineadh ionsaí ar an Araib Shádach i rith Cogadh na Murascáile.

Tá baint mhíleata ag an tSiria le hachrann na Liobáine.

Bíodh sé ceart nó mícheart, tá blianta caite ag an Iosrael i mbun troda i gcoinne fórsaí na Liobáine, na Siria agus na Palaistíne.

Ach tharla sé seo ar fad toisc go raibh na tíortha seo ábalta teacht ar armlón lena

n-aidhmeanna míleata and polaitiúla a bhaint amach.

Ba chóir d’iarthar an domhain a bheith ag iarraidh easportáil armlóin a laghdú seachas a bheith á méadú. Sin é an fáth go gcaithfear An Cód Iompair um Easpórtáil Armlóin a chur i bhfeidhm níos déine.

Is in olcas seachas chun maitheasa atá an teannas sa Mheán Oirthear ag dul, de réir mar a dhíoltar breis armlóin leo.

  Carl Schlyter, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (SV) Mr President, I want to thank the rapporteur for a very constructive and comprehensive report. I particularly liked the mention you made of security companies and the growing industry involving pretend soldiers. If those of you in the public gallery were to read the EU’s regulations governing arms exports, you would see how fanciful they are. According to these regulations, human rights and international agreements are to be respected. Arms must not be exported to countries in which social development is threatened, but only to stable countries. What, however, is the reality? The annual report on arms exports is pure cant. Fourteen EU countries export arms to Israel, and 12 to Indonesia. Are Israel and Indonesia examples of countries in which peace, stability and security prevail? Five countries export arms to Saudi Arabia. Is that a country that guarantees human rights? No, it is one in which women do not have the slightest opportunity for exercising political influence. According to criterion 8 of the Code of Conduct on Arms Exports, such exports must not interfere with social and economic development in the recipient country. However, half of Africa is on the list of countries to which we export arms. It is time that we began to apply this Code of Conduct on Arms Exports. I support Amendments 3 and 4. Lisbon and development cannot mean more arms manufacturing. Emphatically, there must be no arms exports agency if this is the outcome.

  Tobias Pflüger, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (DE) Mr President, the general purpose of this speech is to express my group’s endorsement of the report by Mr Romeva i Rueda, for we are working very closely together with him on this.

The EU’s Member States are now the world’s number one arms exporters – ahead of either the USA or Russia. Among them, the leaders are France, Germany and the United Kingdom, but the Netherlands, Sweden and Italy are also playing major roles. Weapons kill whether they are exported from the EU or from somewhere else. That amounts to a gross violation of human rights, and a stop must be put to it.

In answering the question as to what part is played by the Code of Conduct, I would like to quote from a document produced by Germany’s Joint Conference on Church and Society, which has this to say: ‘The Code of Conduct has not, however, had the effect of curbing European weapons exports. According to surveys by SIPRI, the EU states, in 2005, overtook the traditional weapons exporters Russia and the USA.’ That the EU’s code is still merely a voluntary undertaking by the Member States is a scandal. What is needed is a Common Position by the Council, which would be binding in law on everyone.

The European Union has now set up an armaments agency, the function of which is to promote the arms industry within the European Union. The report I quoted earlier has this to say: ‘Moreover, the creation of the European Defence Agency provides the means whereby European cooperation in armaments may be promoted, which is not counterbalanced by any efforts to monitor rearmament’. That is precisely the problem, and it is for that reason that we have tabled an amendment to the effect that there should be, instead of an armaments agency, an agency for disarmament, for what is needed, rather than an agency to promote arms exports, is for a stop to be put to them.

Let me give you a few concrete examples of the countries to which they are being exported. Arms are being exported from Germany to Iraq, a trade earning EUR 28.9 million in 2004, and EUR 25 million in 2005. The report refers to the export of weaponry to the following countries: Afghanistan, Algeria, Bangladesh, Columbia, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, the Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Thailand, Tunisia and the United Arab Emirates – in other words, very definitely too many of them. It is for that reason that we say that there must be a stop put to the export of weapons; armaments kill, and that must stop.

What I expect of the European Union and of the German Presidency of the Council is that steps be taken to this end and that there should be no more funding of the armaments agency, for there has now come to be a sort of correlation between the European Union’s military adventures on the one hand and its exports of weaponry on the other, so its arms exports must be brought to an end.

  Georgios Karatzaferis, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – (EL) Mr President, there are three rules concerning arms. The first rule is that arms are manufactured in order to kill people; they are not manufactured in order to kill chickens.

The second rule is that anyone who has money will buy some sort of arms.

The third rule is that there are no rules in the arms trade.

Let us be frank: who sold arms to Israel so that it could invade Lebanon in the summer? Who sold arms to Turkey so that it could invade and occupy Cyprus for the last 40 years? These are the facts of the matter. Who armed Saddam Hussein? The Americans armed him as their instrument against Iran. Who armed Bin Laden, the biggest terrorist currently waging war against the whole of humanity? The Americans armed and funded him when they were playing games with Afghanistan and Russia. So there are no rules. There is no point in trying to adopt rules which will not be applied.

On Friday, a missile exploded at the US embassy in Athens. This missile was never bought by the Greek army and yet it did us a great deal of damage and we do not know where it came from. Did it come from Albania, did it come from Lebanon, because it was the same missile as that used by the Albanian army and by Hezbollah. In all events, come it did. To the country in which there are 150 000 Kalashnikovs. We have never bought a single one of these weapons and yet in they come. Do you know what the problem with the Schengen agreement is? The problem is that arms are transported from one side of Europe to the other and not one customs officer checks them.

I would remind you, Commissioner, that seven years ago the biggest canon ever made was moved right across Europe. A 50-metre canon for Saddam Hussein, which was found by a customs officer in Patras. Consequently, we are labouring in vain. Let us stop manufacturing, let us start disarming if we really want to save human lives. With what we are doing, we simply look like traffic cops trying to guess who will be killed and where.

  Günter Gloser, President-in-Office of the Council. – (DE) Mr President, honourable Members, I really am most grateful to you for understanding that I shortly have to leave your sitting in order to keep another appointment in Stuttgart; I should like to express my appreciation to you all, having already said thank-you to the rapporteur, but I would also like to thank you, Members of the European Parliament, for your dedication and your ongoing interest, believing as I do that this topic continues to need careful treatment. I can assure you that the Presidency will, of course, continue to seek dialogue with the Members of your House.

Various speakers have, of course, made reference to the common position, and you will also be aware that this needs to be adopted unanimously by the Member States. Although this has not actually happened, we may perhaps succeed in producing a new impulse. In any case, the presidency will try to establish whether there has been any change in certain positions. I cannot, of course, tell you today what will emerge from that, but we are trying to do something about this. I thank you again for your interest and your understanding that I must now take my leave of this sitting.

  Geoffrey Van Orden (PPE-DE). – Mr President, most of the content of the report by Mr Romeva i Rueda, perhaps surprisingly, is uncontroversial. It is clear, however, that Western democracies are very good at self-flagellation. We have heard much of this in some of the speeches this afternoon and in some of the rather selective examples given. So often we erect legal and other structures to extend the regulatory powers of the EU and to constrain ourselves, when if we look at terrorist and insurgent movements around the world, at the people who are really causing misery and suffering, we find that their arms and equipment do not come from the democracies but from other countries. It is those countries that should be the centre of our attentions. We therefore need international action and a treaty applicable to the real culprits. Otherwise we are in danger of sending the wrong message both to our own people and to those who supply the arms that fuel conflicts.

Faced with these circumstances, our efforts should be concentrated on a well-targeted United Nations international arms trade treaty. Indeed, substantial work at the UN has already begun. On 6 December 2006, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution charging the Secretary-General to take this initiative forward. Ban Ki-moon will canvass the views of member states in 2007 and a group of governmental experts will meet in 2008, after which the Secretary-General will present a report to the 63rd session of the UN.

The European Union should focus on promoting this course of action within the United Nations. Little good will come of an EU arms export regime that constrains European nations while leaving countries such as China free to sell weapons to whomever they deem fit. China is the most profligate supplier of weapons to odious regimes and other groups throughout Asia and Africa, including Sudan, Burma, Zimbabwe and other countries, and would certainly welcome tougher restrictions on arms exports that affect only EU Member States.

While a code of conduct is valuable, let us not misunderstand or diminish the importance of defence industries for national security and our economies, particularly in countries such as the UK, France, Germany, Sweden and some others. The UK’s defence industries play a vital economic and strategic role and should not be subject to inappropriate legal restrictions that will not apply in many other countries. The problem is not with our defence industries but with less scrupulous foreign governments and companies. The UK, with one of the world’s largest defence industries, has a duty to support the UN in this endeavour and has met this obligation. The British Defence Manufacturers’ Association has stated that it welcomes the principle behind the International Arms Trade Treaty. The UK was one of the co-authors of the UN General Assembly resolution of 6 December 2006.

If we are to achieve an international treaty that genuinely addresses the grave problems presented by certain arms exporters, then a UN treaty, encompassing China amongst others, is indispensable.

  Panagiotis Beglitis (PSE). – (EL) Mr President, firstly I should like to say that the report by Mr Raül Romeva i Rueda really does formulate the problem; he has produced a very important piece of work and we in the Socialist Group in the European Parliament shall support it as we did in the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Unfortunately, the President-in-Office of the Council of Ministers, Mr Gloser, has left the Chamber; I say unfortunately, because we needed today to debate the basic political problem before us: why the Council of Ministers continues to refuse to convert the code of conduct into a legally binding instrument for everyone, into an effective common position. This is the important issue for everyone and this is where we shall be judged, this is where our political responsibility will be judged.

European citizens want to know what the national, economic or strategic interests are of those governments and Member States that are still obstructing our wish to convert the code of conduct into a much more binding instrument and political position. This is not an issue of secondary importance. It is bound up with the very credibility of the European Union. It is bound up with the principles and values on which we want to build a common vision for a European Union of peace, security, stability and development for the developing nations of the developing world.

We, as the European Parliament and the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, have supported the imposition of an arms trade embargo on China on the grounds of its continuing infringements of human rights and we need to remain firm here. However, we must at some point honestly say that the embargo and the sanctions against China have done absolutely nothing to improve the human rights situation in China and it is this that we need to reflect on.

The responsibility of the Member States which export arms, especially to unstable areas of the world and to third countries that infringe the fundamental principles of the UN by keeping occupying forces in Member States of the European Union, as in the case of Turkey in Cyprus, is huge. Today, a decision by the Council to convert the code into a legally binding instrument would represent not just a symbolic but also a substantive contribution by the European Union to the consolidation of global stability.

  Marios Matsakis (ALDE). – Mr President, I congratulate the rapporteur on his excellent report. I must register my fear that our efforts towards an EU code of conduct on arms exports will, to a large extent, be made in vain.

We should have no illusions. The giant arms producers and dealers of our world, niched mainly in the USA, Russia and China, are not just outside our jurisdiction but are a law unto themselves anyway. Paranoid national security phobias, widespread corruption and utter madness are fully exploited and manipulated by those whose business is selling the methodology of causing death and destruction. Exporting means of killing is, for them, a global business worth more than USD 1 trillion per annum, and they are not going to be curtailed by the dreamland romanticism of EU parliamentarians.

So let us stop wasting our time in dealing with non-effective legislative utopias, and let us start thinking about how best to tackle the problem effectively at its root cause, which is the uncontrollable research, production and trade of weapons by the continuously expanding evil arms industry of death.

  Bart Staes (Verts/ALE). – (NL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, a sound debate is not held in a vacuum, and following on from the examples which Mr Schlyter and Mr Pflüger quoted to us, I should like to single out three points that will help us face reality. First of all, every year, more than 500 000 people are killed by conventional weapons. This translates into one human being per minute, or 90 people during this debate. Secondly, one in three countries spend more on defence than on health care. Thirdly, countries in Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Latin America spend an average of USD 22 billion on weapons. This money could be used to accomplish the Millennium Objectives, such as basic education for all children and stamping out child mortality.

Mr Romeva i Rueda has made valid points in his report, and is right to say that the EU code of conduct must be made legally binding and must be enshrined in a common position. It is, as I see it, immoral to link this ambition to lifting the arms embargo against China.

Finally, the report is also right in stating the need for achieving an international arms embargo treaty within the UN. I hope that my country, now that it is a member of the Security Council, will turn its attention to this particular area.

  Jaromír Kohlíček (GUE/NGL). – (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, I believe that the Commission was very careful in its choice of Commissioner to bring us the introduction to this report, aware as it is that in the EU, the most frequently used weapon is the car. That is why the opening remarks were addressed to us by the Commissioner for Transport.

On a more serious note, the European Union Code of Conduct on Arms Exports offers very little new on the subject. I believe that this report expresses this point very well and I should like to congratulate the rapporteur.

The title of this report, ‘European Union Code of Conduct on Arms Exports’, sounds so good. Yet, what lies behind the title? The large EU countries are among the big arms exporters, so, following enlargement of the Community, the competition should be quietly disposed of. And that now includes internal competitors as well. The report unfortunately does not say much about the fact that the United States, one of the biggest arms exporters in the world, has not signed up to arms control, or the fact that the large countries of the EU still circumvent all export reductions.

Last year at least four countries carried out nuclear weapons tests, but according to the rapporteur it is only North Korea and Iran that are dangerous, while the others are let off the hook. The arms embargo on China is still in place under the pretext that it has not led to a clear and lasting improvement in human rights and political freedom. Pardon me for being so bold, but on this basis we could ban the export of arms to most countries in the world, starting with the large EU Member States and the United States. The list would also include Somalia and Saudi Arabia, and if I am mistaken, then please correct me.

I should like to make one final remark. Only Belgium and Finland, of the old Member States, and the Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary, Slovakia and Estonia, of the new Member States, have applied for arms export licences. The biggest arms exporters are missing from that list. This is the biggest problem of the existing agreements. The rational control of arms exports is firmly supported by the Confederal Group of the European United Left/Nordic Green Left, along with a number of other MEPs. What is at stake, however, is the actual package of measures put forward in the proposal. The results thus far have been woeful.

  Gerard Batten (IND/DEM). – Mr President, the Committee on Foreign Affairs states that it ‘finds it unacceptable that no steps have been taken to adopt the Code as a common position’. A common position would not be binding as such, but would define the general guidelines that Member States must conform to. The rapporteur describes the common position as ‘legally more binding on EU Member States than a code of conduct’.

The report calls on the Presidency and Member State governments to explain why the Code has not been adopted as a common position. Regret is expressed at the absence of a common position, with the justification that this has weakened both the further development of EU export controls and prevented moves towards further general harmonisation of EU export controls.

The report states that it is ‘convinced that the development and implementation of a harmonised European arms export control policy would contribute decisively to a deepening of the Union’s Common Foreign and Security Policy’. There we have it put plainly enough. The arguments contained in the report are devices to further the Common Foreign and Security Policy and the ubiquitous and relentless need for all things to be harmonised.

The United Kingdom has a different story and background to the other countries of Europe. We have long and historic ties with our allies in the Commonwealth and throughout the world. Britain has a so far unbroken record, and a far more successful record, of defending her vital national interests than any other country represented here. Therefore, the UK Independence Party rejects this report because it must be up to Britain to decide its own arms export policy in the light of her own national and international and foreign policy and defence interests and in accordance with any legitimate international agreements she has entered into.

  Luis Yañez-Barnuevo García (PSE). – (ES) Mr President, my speech will entirely contradict what the last speaker said, and I shall begin by saying that neither the United Kingdom nor any other isolated country, however large or powerful it may be, is capable of tackling any of the global problems of today's world alone – and this is one of them – however much the honourable Member may believe that the United Kingdom can look after itself.

Not even the European Union can look after itself, but there are things we can do, and in his report, Mr Romeva makes many proposals, as he has done on the two previous occasions – this is the third. This time he is rapporteur on the Council’s Seventh and Eighth Reports on the control of arms exports.

I would like to make another comment on something that I have heard in several speeches: it is not the intention of this report, nor of the rapporteur, nor of those of us who voted for it in the Committee on Foreign Affairs, to attack the arms industry per se or the export of arms, but to attack the improper use – the abuse – of the export of arms, and therefore to promote the control that is currently laid down in the non-binding Code of Conduct, and he therefore supports – as many others will do tomorrow as well, I am sure – a Union Common Position on arms control.

This is something absolutely essential, which will help to enhance the common foreign and security policy, and which will improve the reporting, the control and our capacity to put a stop to abuses, excesses and non-compliance with the rules on the export of arms to countries, not just that are in conflict, but also failed States, or countries whose relations with the world are poor.

I have run out of time. I simply wish to congratulate Mr Romeva on his report.

IN THE CHAIR: MR McMILLAN-SCOTT
Vice-President

  Sarah Ludford (ALDE). – Mr President, I wish to support the warning in this report that irresponsible arms sales can lead to corruption. According to the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention, to which the UK is a party, inquiries into suspicions should not be influenced by considerations of national economic interest, the potential effect upon relations with another state or the identity of the persons involved. Criterion 1 of the EU Arms Code obliges Member States to respect their international obligations and criterion 2 to respect human rights.

I would therefore love to have been a fly on the wall when British officials yesterday attempted to explain to the OECD’s Working Party on Bribery why the Government instructed the dropping of an investigation by our Serious Fraud Office into alleged corrupt payments to secure arms sales by British Aerospace to Saudi Arabia. Were they able to dispel the widespread assumption that this was because the Saudis threatened to cancel the contract and give future contracts to France, in other words, to protect jobs? The Government’s line was that it was necessary in the interests of national security, for fear that Saudi Arabia would break intelligence links. Unfortunately for the Government’s alibi, the head of MI6 has refused to sign up to that thesis.

The Blair Government promised to be whiter than white. Instead it has set a shameful example for new and aspiring Member States on how corruption and arms sales are inseparable twins. The sooner the UK switches some of its manufacturing capacity out of arms, the better.

  Richard Howitt (PSE). – Mr President, I would like to begin by welcoming the fact that work has started this year on the International Arms Trade Treaty, with the approval by 153 Member States of the United Nations. I would like to acknowledge the leading work undertaken by the British Labour Government in getting that agreed within the United Nations and, indeed, today’s late conversion by the British Conservative spokesperson in favour.

The European Union and the Member States need to maintain a strong and proactive approach in our support for the proposed Treaty, particularly during the upcoming bilateral consultations with the new UN Secretary-General, and we need to maintain pressure on the United States Government to review its obligations to the Treaty. We need a strong, effective and legally binding Treaty covering the trade in all conventional arms and setting clear standards for when an arms transfer should not take place, including respect for human rights, and we should have an effective monitoring and enforcement mechanism.

On other matters in this report, once again I want to pay tribute to my good friend and colleague, Mr Romeva i Rueda, for his excellent work, which has my strong support. Since we had this annual debate last year, 45 million more people in our world have been affected by the devastating consequences of war and, as we are only too well aware, it is not just a matter of the horrific death toll. According to the UN Food and Agricultural Organisation, violent conflict is the single greatest cause of hunger in the world today.

This year, Mr President, you and I have been in the Democratic Republic of the Congo on behalf of this Parliament, where research this year has shown, despite the UN arms embargo, ammunition and weapons in rebel hands in eastern DRC from Greece, a Member State of the European Union, and from Serbia, a state with which we are negotiating an association agreement. I say to the British Conservative spokesperson who has said in this debate that this is self-flagellation against European nations, that, when someone is killed by an illegally exported arm, quite simply I call it murder. There is no excusing them saying that because China does it too, that is acceptable. Europe has a duty to take a moral lead. We should get this common position agreed and, by next year, name and shame those states that have refused to agree to it in the Council. I thank the Germans for what they have said.

  Marianne Mikko (PSE). – (ET) Ladies and gentlemen, the arms industry is one of the most advanced sectors of the economy. Companies in the western countries today rule the global arms market due to their technological advantage. Thus we have a great responsibility, one with which we clearly cannot cope. Armed conflicts have not decreased, but have just become more expensive.

The amount of money spent on arms makes investment in education and health impossible. This vicious circle fuels conflict zones for decades. The money spent on death could have been used to educate and feed those killed until the end of their natural lives.

Arms that have already been produced eventually reach their logical target – conflict zones – even when they have meanwhile been gathered up by an ESDP mission, as happened in Bosnia. Along the way, the arms generate profits for criminals and illegal regimes.

As the head of the Moldova delegation, I know that the Trans-Dnistrian separatists obtain their financing from illegal arms deals. Territory in Cobasna controlled by the ex-KGB elite contains the largest ammunition stockpiles in Europe.

In terms of the number of victims, small arms today are true weapons of mass destruction. The Kalashnikov machine gun, for instance, has achieved an iconic status among extremists. Yet extremists have also already repeatedly succeeded in acquiring more developed weapons systems. Sooner or later our irresponsibility will turn against us.

Thus I support the transformation of the European Union arms export procedural guidelines into a legally binding document. I know that the Council is able to make the guidelines into a common position. I regret that Mr Gloser will not hear these words.

I also hope that the United Kingdom and France will put an end to the use of export credits to support arms exports, and that the bribery that accompanies this business will be punished, and not only on paper.

The world needs an international arms trade agreement, and Europe needs greater transparency in arms trading, as mentioned by the rapporteur, whom I both congratulate and thank for his work.

  Józef Pinior (PSE). – (PL) Mr President, one of the key issues etched on our collective European memory is the unscrupulous involvement of the defence industries in triggering the world wars of the 20th century. I have in mind the shameful votes taken in various European parliaments to grant loans for armaments in the run up to World War I.

In view of the current world situation, it is incumbent upon the European Union to devise a harmonised European policy on arms exports as a matter of urgency. Such a policy will strengthen and deepen the European Union’s common foreign and security policy. The Union cannot condone a situation whereby in certain parts of the world, the export of weapons produced in Europe can contribute to the violation of human rights, to fuelling conflicts, and to the misuse of funds intended to promote sustainable development.

I should also like to emphasise the need to broaden the scope of European Union legislation on the control of arms exports so that it covers private security companies. Legislation of this nature has already been introduced in the United States.

  Joel Hasse Ferreira (PSE). – (PT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the arms exports carried out by the EU Member States must not run counter to the fight for human rights or give succour to dictatorships or bellicose regimes. On the issues of security in Europe and around the world and the prevention of terrorism, enormous efforts are required if we are to guarantee control of European exports of conventional arms and of goods, equipment and technology that have a clearly military application.

I must stress the importance of paying careful attention to the activities and the background of countries and governments buying weapons and military equipment. The inevitable consequences of export credit mechanisms must also be removed. What we need is a clear, effective and harmonised European policy on this matter; it is vital to help strengthen the international rules on the supply of arms. I should like to end with a sentence I said in this Chamber on 16 November 2006: ‘No one will understand that the defence industries of the EU Member States at some point effectively support the waging of illegitimate wars and the propping up of dictatorial regimes’. This is not what Europe is called to do, and nor should it be what the European Union goes in for.

  Proinsias De Rossa (PSE). – A Uachtaráin, ar an gcéad dul síos ba mhaith liom an tuairisc seo a thréaslú leis an tuairisceoir. Níl aon dabht ná go bhfuil dul chun cinn maith déanta leis an gcód saorálach faoi easpórtáil arm. Is í an fhadhb mhór a bhaineann leis, áfach, ná go bhfuil sé saorálach agus nach bhfuil dualgas dleathach ar na Ballstáit cloí leis na hoibleagáidí atá ann. Tá sé in am dúinn an cód seo a aistriú ina chomhbheartas Eorpach. In Éirinn, is oth liom a rá, níor chuir an rialtas i gcrích fós na gealltaí chun reachtaíocht 1983 faoi easpórtálaithe arm a thabhairt suas chun dáta. Dá bhrí sin, tá dreasacht ag déileálaithe arm an Stát a úsáid chun srianta níos láidre i dtíortha eile a sheachaint. Go ginearálta, ní aontaím le Coimeádaigh na Breataine ach caithfidh mé a rá go n-aontaím leis an tUasal Van Orden nuair a deireann sé go mba chóir go mbeadh an tAontas chun tosaigh ins na Náisiúin Aontaithe chun conradh nua faoi thrádáil arm idirnáisiúnta a bhaint amach. Chun críochnú, tugaim lántacaíocht do mhír 28 faoi lánchosc arm ar an tSín. Ar a laghad, ba chóir go gcoimeádfar an lánchosc sin go dtí go mbeidh dul chun cinn sásúil déanta le cearta daonna agus polaitiúla.

  President. I should like to thank the interpreters and congratulate Mr De Rossa on his wonderful Irish accent.

  Jacques Barrot, Vice-President of the Commission. (FR) Mr President, during this debate, Parliament has once again demonstrated its considerable expertise when it comes to managing the trade in arms. I should like once again to thank Mr Romeva i Rueda, who has personally acquired a very sound knowledge of this undoubtedly difficult, but very important, matter. We can see, in fact, how the worldwide distribution of arms is fuelling all manner of violence here and there.

I have also taken careful note of the concern expressed by a number of you to see the European Union play a pivotal role within the United Nations with the aim of securing international legislation on the trade in arms.

I believe that Parliament is contributing in this way to the process of strengthening the European controls on this trade, which has so very many implications: there is an absolutely crucial ethical dimension to all of this.

I should therefore like to thank all those MEPs who took the floor in this excellent debate.

  President. The debate is closed.

The vote will be tomorrow.

9. Development of the Community’s railways – Certification of train drivers operating locomotives and trains on the railway system in the Community – International rail passengers’ rights and obligations (debate)

  President. The next item is the joint debate on:

– the recommendation for second reading from the Committee on Transport and Tourism on the Council common position with a view to the adoption of a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directive 91/440/EEC on the development of the Community's railways and Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure (05895/2/2006 C6-0309/2006 2004/0047(COD)) (A6-0475/2006) (Rapporteur: Georg Jarzembowski);

– the recommendation for second reading from the Committee on Transport and Tourism on the Council common position with a view to the adoption of a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the certification of train drivers operating locomotives and trains on the railway system in the Community (05893/5/2006 C6-0310/2006 2004/0048(COD)) (A6-0480/2006) (Rapporteur: Gilles Savary);

– the recommendation for second reading from the Committee on Transport and Tourism on the Council common position with a view to the adoption of a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on international rail passengers' rights and obligations (05892/1/2006 C6-0311/2006 2004/0049(COD)) (A6-0479/2006) (Rapporteur: Dirk Sterckx).

  Georg Jarzembowski (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, Mr Vice-President of the Commission, Madam Secretary of State, speaking as rapporteur for this House, I recommend to it that, tomorrow, the national railway networks should be not only opened up to cross-border passenger trains run by all railway companies, irrespective of their country of origin or of whether they are state-owned or private – which is what the Council envisages – but also that they should be opened up for the purposes of passenger traffic within the country at a later date.

This is the line that this House has been taking ever since 2003. We have always taken the view that the European internal market must be made, once and for all, in the railway sector as well, thus making possible, by way of fair competition among railway companies, more and better-value service for railway travellers.

By way of a concession, Madam Secretary of State, to the Council – which still has its own misgivings about opening up the networks to private passenger traffic at too early a juncture – the committee is now proposing 2017 as the date for networks to be opened up to domestic traffic. It is also the intention that those states that acceded as recently as 1 May 2004 or later should be able to extend this deadline by another five years in order to give their railway companies more time to prepare themselves for the internal market and for the competition that it brings.

We ought really to agree that, for the Member States, ten or fifteen years really ought to be enough to reorganise their railway companies in such a way as to meet demand and the needs of their customers, for the public are entitled to efficient and good-value passenger transport within their own countries as much as anywhere else; after all, without that, the railway sector will be unable to compete against cars and aircraft and thereby have a future.

Apart from a few minor amendments, the Committee on Transport and Tourism agrees with the Council and the Commission that the Member States must be allowed not to open up – or to open up only partially – their networks if their being opened up would endanger regional and local passenger traffic; that is where we agree, for regional and local transport are of vital importance to the public, not least for environmental reasons.

We do not agree, however, Madam President-in-Office, when it comes to the great big package that the Council has come up with in order to further limit the opening up of networks. The committee proposes that the introduction of the ‘principal purpose’ criterion and the giving of pre-eminence to long-term concessions be rejected. I am very pleased to note from Annex II to the Common Position, that the Portuguese presidency took exactly the same view as Parliament on this, for, if one weighs up the demands of the internal market – which should have become a reality a long time ago – against the special interests of public passenger and regional transport, it becomes apparent that the special rules imposed to secure the latter’s position already do enough to restrict the opening up of networks.

The committee did not do as I recommended and do away outright with the mandatory levy on all types of passenger transport to the benefit of public local service providers – which the Council surprised us by inserting – and instead recommended amendments to it.

In the conciliation procedure, Parliament and the Council need, together, to consider to what extent such a mandatory levy is actually justified by the facts of the situation and the system’s requirements, or whether, on the other hand, it risks being no more than a pretext for deliberate restrictions on the deregulation of the networks.

The committee also recommends the incorporation of the new rules on transit, the acceptance of the derogations for Malta and Cyprus, and the amended wordings for amending Directive 2001/14/EC in the interests of the more effective planning of high-speed routes.

Through you, Commissioner and Vice-President Barrot, I appeal to the Commission to endorse the substance of this House’s proposals, since I see the statements made to the committee by your staff, to the effect that they could see no reason for the networks to be opened up to domestic traffic as well, as going against convictions that the Commission has held for many years.

I would remind you of the celebrated White Paper on the European single market that the Commission published in 1985. It will be evident to anyone who remembers what is in it that the principle has applied ever since that it is not the completion of the internal market, but resistance to it, that needs to be justified, and no such justification has been forthcoming from you.

Finally, let me say that I do not believe that the Presidency of the Council will accept Parliament’s proposals in toto, and so I appeal to it to set the conciliation procedure in motion without delay, if at all possible, as soon as February, so that we can get this wrapped up before the German presidency ends in the summer. I believe that this third railway package is what the public and European businesses need, let us work together to get it adopted by the summer.

  Gilles Savary (PSE), rapporteur. – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is an honour for me to present to you my report on the certification of train drivers operating locomotives and trains on the railway system in the Community.

I would like firstly to say that this is an exemplary issue, an extremely unusual one, because we are talking about the transposition into Community law of a sectoral social agreement, in this case a prior agreement between the European rail companies and rail employees. All of this is laid down in the texts but, generally speaking, in our certainty, we quite often avoid this agreement between the railwaymen and the bosses of the rail companies, or more generally between the employees and the management, when really we should stop avoiding it when everybody feels affected by a European project and a directive. I am one of those who believe that, in order to create the Europe of the railways that is so essential, the railway workers need to be in favour of that Europe and to have the conviction that, far from starting a kind of economic civil war amongst rail companies, its purpose is to develop the railways.

The text presented is entirely exemplary. I would also say to Mr Jarzembowski, because we have always disagreed on this subject, that simply laying down dates for liberalisation is not sufficient to create a European internal market. This battle of dates is terribly restrictive. In order to create the internal market, we must first ensure that trains are interoperable, which requires considerable funding before anything else. In this regard, it seems to me that the liberalisation train is travelling much faster than the budget train or the interoperability train.

Returning to the directive, it will have little impact on Great Britain because there is only one tunnel entering its territory and it has little in the way of land borders. It will not affect Spain very much because it has a different gauge of rails. It will not affect certain other countries that do not necessarily have direct rail borders with the Union: I am thinking of Finland and Greece. Liberalisation is therefore basically about interoperability, and my report relates to human interoperability, that is to say, the recognition of a train driver’s licence throughout the Union’s territory.

I would like to thank the Members for doing such remarkable work. I would like to make the following comments with regard to the directive. First of all, we are talking about a licence for the whole of the network and not simply for the international network, since we believe that all train drivers should be able to aspire to move on to international level and that there is little difference between driving a TGV, a high-speed train, within one of the Member States and driving one that crosses the border. I believe that that is absolutely essential.

Next, Parliament’s great contribution – which also led to a disagreement with the Council – is that we believe that crew members who carry out safety duties must be taken into account in a subsequent text, and we propose a road map. Lives are regularly saved by crew members who have learnt a number of tasks: the evacuation of trains, the protection of passengers, signalling, the activation of certain alarm circuits. It is entirely legitimate for these qualified people to be recognised and, above all, for us to attempt to harmonise their qualifications in all European countries in order to prevent any of them from being under-qualified. This is a safety issue and not just a social issue.

Parliament has made a proposal on this subject, and we believe that it is very important to do so now: we are dealing with a world in which there is more than one rail company, and, since we are creating a Europe of railways, it is entirely legitimate to lay down rules on compensation that are applicable between rail companies when they exchange staff who they have trained. In other words, when a company spends a lot on training a driver and that driver leaves the company for another company within two years, we need minimum rules to oblige the company taking on that driver to partly repay the company that trained him. Since there is no railways university, training is currently provided by certain companies, principally the historic companies, and companies who are joining the market should not be able to benefit by becoming more competitive at less cost.

Commissioner, I believe that the European Parliament's proposals are right. I am entirely aware of the disagreements that remain with the Council, in particular the ones I have just mentioned regarding the scope. Nevertheless, I believe that Parliament’s position is the right one. I would remind you that our fellow Members, from all political groups, voted unanimously in the Committee on Transport and Tourism. We therefore have a strong position, which we will uphold in conciliation, just as we will in relation to the other dossiers, such as that of Mr Jarzembowski. I understand that he is in favour of liberalisation, though I do not understand ...

(The President asked the speaker to conclude)

I simply wished to say ‘yes’ to liberalisation, provided that it is regulated and that public services are preserved.

  Dirk Sterckx (ALDE), rapporteur. – (NL) Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, the purport of the reports that are here before us is to make European rail more attractive to its users. One of the things that have for years provided the European Union with an enormous boost in this respect is the opening up of the market, which brings more investments to the railways and improves the quality of the services on offer, and it is to this, in fact, that the work related to the resolution on passenger rights relates.

Since the Commission’s proposal, much has been done at first reading and also with the Council’s common position and the vote in our Committee on Transport and Tourism. I would like to extend warm thanks to the fellow Members who have taken part, more particularly the shadow rapporteurs, for the contribution they have made to this report.

As I see it, we are now drafting a comprehensive and viable set of rights, which provide for liability on the part of railway companies in the case of accidents – I hope that we will never witness one, but if we do, then this should be taken care of in the same way across Europe. These rights also provide for areas including the reception of passengers and compensation in the event of delays or cancellations of train connections; accessibility of trains and stations to people with disabilities; rights and regulations with regard to luggage or larger items such as bicycles or buggies; ticket accessibility, in which connection I should like to urge my fellow MEPs not to get carried away and not to compel railway companies to imperil their viability by adopting heavy and prohibitively expensive ticketing systems that are used by very few people. We should, instead, ensure that tickets are widely accessible and available to people who choose to travel by train. At the same time, information to passengers should be clear and accessible, and a complaints procedure should be in place which everyone is familiar with and which is easily accessible to everyone.

I should like to ask the President of the Council to talk her colleagues into adding one point, namely that the whole system of rights be made very clear to the citizens and train travellers at the stations and on the trains.

I think we have managed to compile a very balanced set of rights. Where we still have differences of opinion with the Council, I hope that we can reach a compromise in conciliation based on sound dialogue.

There is, however, one important difference of opinion between the Council and Parliament: we cannot understand why all these rights will not apply to all railway passengers. If somebody has an accident and sustains an injury, does it matter whether they are on a train that is crossing a national border or not?

Liability must be provided for in a clear and understandable manner to all train passengers within the European Union. Trains or stations should be accessible, whether I wanted to board the train in a wheelchair or whether this train travelled from Hanover to Amsterdam or from Hanover to Berlin.

I should therefore like to ask the Council to abandon its position in this respect and to ensure that all railway passengers have the rights they deserve. After all, every European citizen would then know, wherever they board a train in the European Union, that they would be entitled to a set of basic rights. They would know that, when they board a train, they would be able to enjoy the EU’s diversity with peace of mind.

Since it is this diversity of the European Union, as Mrs Merkel stated this morning, that constitutes the soul of Europe, we would like to encourage everyone to get acquainted with this soul of Europe by train, if possible.

  Karin Roth, President-in-Office of the Council. (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of the Federal Minister, Mr Tiefensee, who is unfortunately unable to be with us due to an important appointment, I would like to express my gratitude for this opportunity to address you all today.

The German Presidency of the Council is just getting under way and already, with the upcoming vote on the proposals for the Third Railway Package, we have before us on the agenda one of the most important dossiers of this six months’ Presidency in the field of transport. These three measures will bring us a significant step closer to the complete opening up of the market and thus to the completion of the European railway area, continuing what we began together with the first programmes of measures.

Through the First Railway Package, adopted in 2001, we made it possible for individual rail freight companies to make practical, independent use of neighbouring railway networks in cross-border traffic.

Adopting the Second Railway Package brought us to a further milestone on our journey towards the realisation of a single market in railways in Europe, something which is urgently needed. Thus, on 1 January 2007, the opening up of markets for freight traffic became a reality. This step represents great progress in which the Council and Parliament can take pride in equal measure.

This opening up of markets is made urgently necessary by the tremendous rate at which freight traffic is increasing, but that will hardly be news to you. According to the Commission’s estimates, there will be a 45% increase in road freight traffic by 2020, which would mean an extra 1.5 million lorries on the roads. The railways, by contrast, still have great potential available for us to exploit. We therefore urgently need, above all, to get more freight transported by rail.

If the opening up of the markets is to be more than just a date, we need to invigorate the process and put all our energies into ensuring that those obstacles still in place are quickly removed. One part of this is also to ensure that it is also possible, in reality, to employ the staff carrying out freight transport operations – in particular the train drivers – on a cross-border basis without obstacles. Regulations of this nature have been laid down in what is termed the directive on the certification of train drivers, on which a decision is now due.

I see no major differences between the positions of the Council and Parliament in respect of this piece of legislation, although there are a couple of points I would like to make. Firstly, the committee now seeks to ensure – by means of amending Article 1 of the directive – that staff not working as train drivers but performing safety-related tasks are also required to undergo certification. In principle, this approach is correct. The question, however, is to whom it is to apply. The phrase ‘other crew members performing safety-related tasks’ is so vague that we are at a complete loss to say who exactly it would cover.

In my opinion, it is worth clearing this up before doing anything else. Only then can we decide under what conditions and on what terms a certificate is necessary. The Council's Common Position did take account of this issue. The Common Position stipulates that the European Railway Agency (ERA) should examine whether additional staff should be certified. The ERA can thus help us to work out under what conditions it makes sense to certify staff other than train drivers. We should await the results of the ERA’s investigation before we rush to include this item in the directive prematurely.

Secondly, it is proposed in Amendment 23 that, if a train driver moves to a different undertaking, there should be statutory compensation for training costs. There is a consensus between the Council and Parliament on this matter as far as content in concerned. Yet why should we regulate this matter through legislation, when contractual solutions could be much more effective? It is envisaged in the Council’s Common Position that management and labour should regulate the transfer of training costs contractually. To that extent there are, in fact, no differences.

I would now like to move on to the second piece of legislation in the Third Railway Package, namely the proposal relating to the rights and obligations of passengers, which aims not only to improve the rights of consumers but also to promote the long-term attractiveness of railway use within the Community. The significance of this proposed regulation for those with mobility disabilities should also be pointed out, as the regulation would make rail travel considerably easier for them.

The Council's Common Position overlaps, in many respects, with what your House is calling for, in, for example, taking up the COTIF/CIV provisions on the liability of railway undertakings for personal injury or damage to baggage and the conclusion of transport contracts.

There are, however, differences, in particular when it comes to the scope of the regulation. By way of deviation from the Common Position, the European Parliament’s Committee on Transport and Tourism is calling for the regulation to apply, in principle, to domestic rail traffic. It was, however, particularly difficult to reach agreement on this point in the Council. It is the Presidency’s view that the compromise embodied by the Common Position ought therefore not to be jeopardised.

The same applies to the third and final legislative strand of the Third Railway Package, the directive on liberalisation. The Common Position, which we have reached with all the Member States through considerable effort, provides for the opening up of international markets for passenger transport, including cabotage in connection with international journeys, as of 2010, but initially without opening up the national networks. It is very much to be welcomed that your House’s Committee on Transport and Tourism agrees with the date of 2010.

On the very difficult topic of opening up the national networks, your House has proposed a new compromise. Although I very much commend such a move, we do have serious doubts about the possibility of reaching agreement on the basis of this compromise proposal. In this regard, the compromise proposal also represents a move away from the step-by-step approach that has characterised the liberalisation so far, and so it is to be feared that many Member States will fail to see the new compromise as a compromise at all.

In the case of the opening up of national rail networks, the question must be asked as to whether we are not asking too much of many of the Member States. In the light of the desired joint approval of all three legislative proposals, we must allow ourselves to ask whether, by pushing for the highest requirements in relation to passenger transport, we are not ruining the much more urgently required solutions for freight transport.

I am aware that it will not be easy to reach agreement on this issue. Europe’s passenger rail services must be attractive and reliable. Parliament and the Council therefore need to recognise their joint responsibility and live up to it.

I think I can say that the Third Railway Package is so important to all of us that all of us must surely have an interest in coming to an agreement. The German Presidency of the Council will be pulling out all the stops to make it a success and to realise the integrated rail area that we desperately need. To do so does require bold changes, but it also calls for a sense of proportion and a little patience from time to time. The Council and Parliament have, in the past, often proven their good faith and achieved mutually acceptable compromises from mutually opposing positions.

We are not afraid of searching out a durable compromise through a sensible conciliation process. However, I call on Parliament not to introduce a large number of material amendments and thereby make reaching a consensus an almost impossible task before we begin. I think I have got the message through.

(Applause)

  Jacques Barrot, Vice-President of the Commission. (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am delighted with the progress made on this third railways package since March 2004. We are talking about a raft of legislative proposals that are technically and legally rather complex. I would also like specifically to thank Mr Jarzembowski, Mr Savary and Mr Stercx, all three of whom have done wonderful work.

Almost three years after the adoption of the initial proposals by the Commission, Parliament and the Council must reach a compromise on all of the texts, as Mrs Roth has just explained very well.

First of all, I would like to stress that, with one exception, the whole legislative package as proposed by the Commission has been maintained by Parliament and the Council. There is a general philosophy underpinning these proposals that will make it possible to Europeanise the railways. I would add that the new proposal on public service obligations has also made good progress, even though it is not on today’s agenda, and I believe that a reading of the third railways package in parallel with this proposal will make it possible to reach an overall compromise at the end of the legislative procedure. Everybody will have to work hard, of course, as you have said, Minister. The Commission is prepared to do so, and your Commissioner will endeavour to play a mediating role.

I would now like to make a few comments on the three reports. I would like firstly to thank Mr Jarzembowski. The Commission is pleased that the Council and Parliament have reached a consensus on the opening up of the market in international services with cabotage, which will take place in 2010, as the Commission proposed.

On the other hand, the opening up of the market in domestic services raises certain problems. In 2004, the Commission was pleased to propose the opening up of the market in international services. On the basis of its analysis, it concluded that the financial and legislative conditions were not in place to justify a broader opening up.

It should be pointed out that the operation of domestic lines, and particularly regional lines in certain European Union countries, is especially problematic and is not yet profitable. It is true, Mr Jarzembowski, that the introduction of more competition in this market is beneficial in terms of increasing the efficiency of operation, but we are forced to achieve it by means of harmonised regulation of public service obligations.

We are not, therefore, in any way opposed to the principle of opening up the market in domestic services, but we believe that, within the framework of this third rail package, there is the risk that a decision would be premature. We would like to assess this issue in the light of a more detailed analysis and we would like to take account of other elements contained in the proposal on public service obligations for which Mr Meijer is rapporteur. That is why we have reservations about the opening up of domestic traffic, Mr Jarzembowski.

On the other hand, I can support a number of Parliament’s amendments to other articles of the text, such as the extension to fifteen years of the period in force of framework agreements for the awarding of services in the case of specialised infrastructures. Furthermore, we are in favour of changing the wording of the article on framework agreements, the clarification of the scope of the levy to be paid for the funding of public services as well as the methods laid down for that purpose, and also the replacement of the concept of economic balance with that of profitability for the analysis of the possible impact of cabotage on an existing public service within the framework of an international service. That is what I wished to say about this first proposal on which Mr Jarzembowski has worked so hard.

The second proposal is that of Mr Savary, which I know has been unanimously supported by the committee. As Mr Savary quite rightly pointed out, this proposal makes it possible to implement human interoperability, which is just as important as the interoperability of equipment. You have restored the scope proposed by the Commission at the outset. In an increasingly open rail network, we feel that it is important to ensure that crew members – who, as you have pointed out, are qualified personnel, responsible for the safety of trains, and not only drivers – are properly trained and in an adequate state of health. I have also taken note of Mrs Roth's comments, but I believe that there is a possibility of reaching an agreement.

I would like, Mr Savary, to express a few reservations with regard to certain amendments relating to the funding of training. You have proposed that a rail company employing a train driver whose training has been totally or partially funded by another rail company, which that driver has left voluntarily after less than five years’ activity, should repay part of the cost of the training to the company that has provided it. We agree in principle, but it is true that the amendment raises problems, legal problems in particular – is that not the case with a more contractual approach? The Commission is wary about involving itself in an area for which we do not really have any factual data; we are not fully aware of the scale of the problem or the possible options for resolving it. Having expressed that reservation, Mr Savary, we agree with this proposal, which has been backed unanimously within the committee.

I shall now turn to the report by Mr Sterckx on international rail passengers’ rights and obligations. The first problem relates to the scope and its extension to domestic services. Mrs Roth has just explained to us that that scope posed certain problems within the Council. I would like to say, however, Mr Sterckx, that I believe that we must accept that it is impossible to distinguish the sections from the different slots, because otherwise users will never know what their rights are, as you have quite rightly pointed out. The Commission will therefore support your amendments and will assist in reaching a compromise with the Council on this point. Furthermore, an approach that leaves more freedom for the Member States for all rail services subject to public service contracts seems logical and should facilitate that compromise.

The other issue is civil liability in the event of accidents. Your desire to establish strict liability for rail companies would bring their liability into line with that of air companies. In that regard, it clearly reflects the Commission's approach, and I can therefore support this ambitious proposal, even though it goes further than the COTIF/CIM regime.

Mr President, Minister, ladies and gentlemen, our services will forward you the Commission’s detailed position on each amendment. The Commission will naturally listen carefully to your debate and be at your disposal with regard to any issues that may be raised.

I shall conclude by reiterating what you have said, Minister. I believe that we must all get to work on concluding this third rail package. It would be a real shame to miss this opportunity to re-evaluate Europe's railways. We need the railways so that we can transfer some of the freight to them from the roads. It is essential that this third rail package is not derailed and that it arrives at its destination. I would like to thank you all for the excellent work you have done so far and I promise that I will do everything I can to lead it to a successful conclusion.

  Elisabeth Jeggle, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to extend a warm welcome to Mrs Roth as President-in-Office of the Council. As the rapporteur and also the Commissioner have already explained, the European licence for train drivers on which we are to vote tomorrow represents an important step towards the opening-up of rail transport throughout Europe. The licence for train drivers forms part of the third railway package, which also includes two other legislative procedures we consider important, namely the one on passenger compensation and the one on the opening-up of cross-border passenger transport from 2010. These three legislative procedures create the essential preconditions for successfully implementing the full liberalisation of rail transport in the EU.

The European licence for train drivers takes on particular importance in the light of the EU-wide opening of freight-transport markets that entered into force at the start of this year. It will save time and money. At present, each of the 27 Member States of the EU has different requirements for which members of train crew require certification and for the means of certification. Up to now, the recognition of the various licences for train drivers has involved a great deal of bureaucracy, but it is to be hoped that the EU-wide standardisation in question will eliminate these problems.

A further advantage of this European licence for train drivers is that it will significantly improve the free movement of railway workers and also improve railway safety.

However, this licence will only be a real success if, in the final reckoning, it also reduces bureaucracy – and we have set the course for this as well. For example, we have been able to avoid bringing in certification for the whole crew, as some had wanted. We shall now have certification of train drivers as a first step, and of crew members performing safety-related tasks as a second – which the Commissioner had not considered a good solution. The European Railway Agency is to decide what form this second step should take on the basis of the experience acquired up to that date. This is our position.

We have also managed to move the date of introduction forward to the end of this year, as prompt introduction will save railway undertakings money. We have had to accept a compromise on the Annexes dealing with the technical aspects – but it is one that makes perfect sense, and so it has our support. I find this very satisfactory.

I should like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Savary, for his constructive cooperation. We shall be supporting this report tomorrow in plenary.

  Bogusław Liberadzki, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (PL) Mr President, I represent the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, and our approach to the problem is as follows. As regards Mr Jarzembowski’s report, we are very much concerned about railway regeneration and are committed to it. We understand regeneration as making better use of the railways’ potential and reaping the benefit of the positive contribution they could make to a European transport system.

We have passengers’ interests very much at heart, including the need to make railways accessible to all social groups from both the technical and the economic point of view. Finally, we believe it is very important for railways to be able to provide a wider range of attractive services on the market. One way of achieving this is to allow competition between railways on the international market.

We therefore perceive liberalisation as a means to an end, not as an end in itself. We are in favour of the liberalisation of international services in 2010, and would like to emphasise that international services are at issue, not simply cross-border ones. We can accept the Council’s position and its proposal concerning the role of national regulatory bodies and monitoring of the provision of public services. We can also accept all the provisions designed to ensure efficient operation of national passenger service systems.

We tabled an amendment concerning submission, in 2012, of a report assessing the effects of the 2010 liberalisation. Our ideas are in line with those Commissioner Barrot was kind enough to put forward. We expect a lot from that report.

The issue of the possible liberalisation of domestic services gave rise to much debate within the Committee on Transport and Tourism. As a major compromise, we suggest that the possibility of liberalisation in the years 2017-2022 be considered, for the Fifteen and the EU as a whole respectively. The group is divided on this issue. We do believe, however, that it is important to send out the message that Europe is interested in creating a European transport system. We were also delighted to hear from the Minister that the Council is ready to seek a compromise and a way of reaching agreement.

My group also warmly welcomed Commissioner Barrot’s stance and his statement that the Commission wishes to be actively involved. As I conclude, I should like to thank the rapporteurs for their efforts. Thank you all.

IN THE CHAIR: MR MAURO
Vice-President

  Josu Ortuondo Larrea, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (ES) Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, many years ago we agreed to create a common European area characterised by free movement within its borders of persons, goods, capital and services, and we have unquestionably made progress over the years since then, but we still have a lot to do in order to make what we proposed a reality.

One of the outstanding tasks is precisely the one we are discussing today: opening up passenger services by rail to the common European area. We are talking about a service that affects the citizens directly and we must therefore act prudently in order to prevent the achievement of our objective from creating so much harm that the expected benefits are no longer worthwhile. As in the case of other kinds of liberalisation, we must be careful and patient so that our decisions allow for a sufficient margin to adapt to the changes and do not have a negative effect on any basic public service.

The Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe is entirely in favour of opening up international services to the market, as the Commission proposed, as did the Council in its common position, but we also want other national services to be liberalised and for that to be included in this amendment of Directive 91/440/EEC that we are debating.

With regard to this last aspect, we know that many people, including our French colleagues and others, fear that free competition may have a negative impact on the provision of the less profitable internal rail services.

We share that concern and therefore, although we are going to vote in general for the Committee on Transport and Tourism’s amendments, we are going to vote in favour of Amendment 37 so that in 2012, on the basis of two years of experience in the liberalisation of international services, the Commission will present us with a report analysing, five years in advance, the state of preparation of the opening up of the market in passenger services within the States. We are also going to reject Amendment 18, because it seems to us to be reasonable to be able to limit for a maximum period of up to fifteen years the right of international services to cabotage when that means competing with another previous State concession awarded by means of a transparent and open public procedure.

We are going to argue that the introduction of new international services that represent competition should not affect the economic viability of the current regional and local rail services, and also that rules could be established to be met by both State and international services and which will be intended to compensate for public service obligations.

We also want to encourage private initiative to invest in the development of railways and, to that end, we propose that framework agreements on the award of rail services may last for fifteen years, and more in cases of large investments in specialised infrastructures that present an annual repayment plan that justify that exceptional duration.

I would like to end by thanking the rapporteurs, Mr Jarzembowski, Mr Sterckx and Mr Savary, for the work they have done.

  Roberts Zīle, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (LV) Mr President, Mrs Merkel and Mr Barrot, I am extremely pleased that three of my colleagues, with whom I initially had the honour of participating in drafting the third rail package, have very successfully prepared the second reading. I say ‘successfully’ because, firstly, the package has been preserved and, secondly, because the European Parliament is rigorously keeping to the line that in the future Europe we cannot apply differing standards as between so-called international transport and domestic transport. Passengers in Europe should have the same protection whether they are crossing a state border or not. Thinking about liberalisation in the passenger transport market, we need to be principled. If the European Union internal market exists, then it exists also in internal transport. It cannot be that in the services or goods market sector we say that there is a single internal European Union market, but that here the market is confined within Member States’ borders. If I look with the eyes of a citizen of the Baltic States at this third rail package and ask what will change for me as a customer, then the Council’s common position would give me the reply that nothing will change. For just as the Baltic is disconnected from the European Union’s electricity network, so is it also disconnected from the European Union’s international rail transport system. Parliament must therefore be ready to go to the conciliation procedure, thinking of those with special needs, as well as of passengers in western and central Europe, and those in the eastern periphery. In my view, we also need to find some new solution regarding the quality of rail freight transport, but this is a matter for the future. Thank you.

  Michael Cramer, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Mr Vice-President of the Commission, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, until now, unrestricted travel through Europe, from Lisbon to Tallinn, from London to Athens, from Paris to Warsaw, has been possible only by road or air. The rail network, on the other hand, resembles a patchwork quilt with 27 patches, and so the railways are being left behind.

The national networks should be opened up. At the same time, the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance wants to be sure that social and environmental interests are also safeguarded. In addition, we must learn from the mistakes made in the United Kingdom and Estonia, for example, where it was not only the networks that were opened up: the infrastructure was privatised, too. That was a disaster. For this reason, and also based on our experience of the monopoly structures of European electricity companies, we say that an essential requirement should be that the infrastructure remain in the public sector.

Europe cannot be content with the present situation on the railways – and customers certainly cannot. An international European licence for train drivers is nothing short of exotic. Nor is it acceptable that I am promoting the use of French trains on the German network whilst France is closing its network to other providers. Thanks to the European licence for train drivers, it will no longer be necessary to change drivers at the border between Member States.

Passengers’ rights should be strengthened in the passenger rail services of all EU Member States, with the possibility of legally enforceable claims for compensation in the event of delays. All trains – including high-speed trains such as the French TGV and the German ICE – should have a multi-purpose compartment to enable the carriage of sports equipment and bicycles on board. Comprehensive information on European rail services and the option of buying tickets to anywhere in Europe should be the rule rather than the exception. Access is to be guaranteed for people with reduced mobility. National railway networks should be opened up for long-distance passenger transport, too, by 2017 at the latest – or 2022 in the case of the new Member States. We shall be making our consent to this conditional upon the following, however: there must be no social dumping or destructive competition.

We know that the opening-up of the networks has meant a substantial increase in rail freight transport, but we also know that those Member States which have shut themselves off have recorded a decrease. There are only five approved railway undertakings in France, and the tonne-kilometres transported in that country fell by 28% between 1999 and 2005. There are more than 700 approved railway undertakings in Germany, and freight transport there increased by 25% in the same period, whilst the figure for the Netherlands was even upwards of 40%. These are real success stories. We want to replicate these positive results in passenger transport, and that is why we want to see networks opened up for European passenger transport, too.

I should like to thank the rapporteurs and my colleagues for their cooperation.

  Erik Meijer, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (NL) Mr President, long before the European Union entered into existence, we enjoyed good cooperation on the railways, with cross-border, long-distance train services, with people being able to buy direct tickets to far-flung destinations in their own countries and an international time table being available in every country. This good state of affairs is now under threat.

The European rail network is in a state of constant disintegration of a kind currently seen in the USA. Soon, we will be left with only metropolitan district networks and high-speed links between the major cities. On 27 and 28 September 2005, at first reading, this Parliament missed an historic opportunity to retain and strengthen sound European coordination and high-standard services by going too far in its voting and by not going as far as the Commission suggested in the area of protecting passenger rights.

In Amendment 37 on passenger rights, the right for train travellers to be able to purchase integrated railway passes for the entire railway network of the European Union was replaced by a call for voluntary cooperation. This is how railway companies are given the freedom to curtail the sale of tickets for, and information relating to, far-away destinations, and, to an increasing degree, to restrict passenger-friendly offers for travelling abroad.

Last year, three major Member States abolished their Euro Domino Cards that afforded residents of other states better access to their railway networks. InterRail passes for travelling around the whole of Europe, which were mainly popular among young people for getting to know other countries of Europe, are granting less and less access to fast, long-distance trains. The public no longer have any concept of the overall shape of European railways. Since state monopolies have fallen by the wayside, the European railway business is being split up into a number of companies that are competing with each other on the same territory. As a result, years of cooperation have turned this territory into a battleground and cross-border links are being thinned out or discontinued altogether.

The European Union is sitting on the fence as long as it continues to assume that, on the basis of Article 5 of Directive 91/4401, railway companies must be run as trading companies and must, on this basis, seek to reduce costs as their main priority. This is how we drive train travellers away to air travel for medium-long distances.

The more public transport relies on the market, the smaller its chance of survival becomes. Not only the advent of cars and a widely available motorway network, but also tax exemption for aircraft fuel and the advent of price-cutting airlines has meant that rail transport is considered expensive in relative terms.

In order to survive, rail must be made appealing to younger generations. If that generation starts to experience the car and aviation as normal and considers the train as an inaccessible museum piece, railway will only become more loss-making and will need to reduce their costs even more. Those who expect that the position of railway is reinforced by inflicting the same mechanisms of competition on it as on air and road travel will end up catching a cold. This development is as detrimental to passengers and railway staff as it is to the protection of our environment.

I am aware that for many years, Mr Jarzembowski has been fighting for more market and for more competitive companies being admitted more quickly to the rail network, not only in cross-border freight transport, but also in domestic passenger transport. He claimed that, if his wishes were not met in the first railway package in 2001, he would continue to fight in order to get what he wants eventually in the third package. My group has never supported him in this.

In Amendment 35, my group has suggested not to go along with Mr Jarzembowski’s liberalisation report and, in the event of it being adopted, to at least enable the Member States to restrict competition. This can be done by adopting Amendments 33, 34 and 36, which have been drafted with that in mind. With regard to the Sterckx report, we support the wishes of the European consumer organisation in our Amendments 70 to 73.

Finally, only the Savary report, which makes it possible for train drivers to cross borders more easily and work under technically different circumstances, is a valuable contribution to the integration of European rail.

  Michael Henry Nattrass, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – Mr President, all this week we have been told that this is a bright new dawn, with Parliament having a new President and Members. However, as this report demonstrates, we still have ‘leaves on the line’.

At the first reading in 2005, Mr Sterckx said that we must not tinker with international agreements that are already satisfactory. I would therefore remind him that the COTIF Convention is a practical agreement between 42 individual nations, including many non-EU nations, to facilitate railway travel between them, yet today Mr Sterckx wants this agreement to be derailed. He is lingering under the impression that neither Member States nor domestic rail companies are capable of establishing codes of passenger rights on their own. That is certainly not true in the UK.

Mr Sterckx says this is really about consumer rights, yet it is conceded that more regulation means higher fares. Why do my countrymen need EU regulations when they get higher fares? But Mr Sterckx has not drawn up a report about consumer rights. It is about EU control. The rapporteur says there is no point in drawing up regulations which only apply to the 5% of rail passengers who use international services, so why are we doing this? There is a lot of EU regulation which will not affect the vast majority of people with no cross-border interests, but which at the same time damages the ability to provide domestic services. In the EU, Mr Sterckx, the cross-border distinction is irrelevant, and until the EU gravy train finally hits the buffers, it is all unstoppable. Behind all this week’s self-congratulation, that remains the real truth.

  Luca Romagnoli, on behalf of the ITS Group. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this speech celebrates the end of the well-known discrimination against those who used to be Non-attached Members. It is also the first speech on behalf of the new Identity, Tradition and Sovereignty Group regarding a tabled report. I shall therefore take this opportunity to point out that several million European citizens are at last no longer just half-represented, and that should be a source of satisfaction to those who claim to be fully democratic and who perhaps, in many EU countries, at least until the fall of the Berlin Wall, were and perhaps still are proud to share their responsibilities, ideals and so on with the Communist International.

Anyway, to return to the subject of our debate on the development of the Community’s railways, we are against liberalisation, not least in view of all the dreadful experiences that have resulted from liberalisation in a number of countries. We cannot therefore support the proposals of the rapporteur, Mr Jarzembowski, on those aspects.

We consider the reciprocity clause to be essential; otherwise liberalisation will not correspond at all to the kind of free competition that ought to favour the consumer. On the subject of passengers’ rights and obligations, our ideas substantially coincide with those of Mr Sterckx: we agree with extending the scope of the regulation on passenger rights to include domestic transport. I am thinking, for example, of how much we need it in my own country, not least because we believe that passengers should not be placed in different categories just because of the rail company they use. Passengers’ dignity and rights should be guaranteed by all services, public or private, that operate within Union territory, and we therefore consider the temporary exemptions provided for in Amendment 22 to be more than sufficient in that respect.

Although the definition of a person with reduced mobility is as broad as it is vague, so much so that it will include several million passengers per day, we agree entirely that rolling stock and stations need to be adapted. Assistance on board trains is also necessary, perhaps by allowing an accompanying person to travel free of charge, and we are therefore in favour of Amendments 47 and 66.

On the other hand, we are against a number of amendments. In particular, we do not think it should be made compulsory to have a special compartment for transporting bicycles and sports equipment on every train, especially without any further specification. We therefore cannot support Amendments 26, 58, 59 or 69.

Lastly, on the subject of licences for rail crews, our group agrees with the approach favouring certification for train drivers, but we are somewhat sceptical about whether it is appropriate to license other crew members as well, as happens in the case of other forms of transport.

  Jim Allister (NI). – Mr President, opening up the rail market to competition is all well and good and, indeed, necessary. However, if you do not have a sufficient rail infrastructure, it is really a secondary consideration.

In my constituency of Northern Ireland, we benefited from essential improvements on the north-south rail connection from Larne through to the border with the Irish Republic and on to Dublin. That has been done as part of the trans-European network. However, the other key limb of our infrastructure is languishing in neglect and resulting decline, namely the link from Belfast to our second city, Londonderry. This is something which I discussed with the Commissioner when he visited Northern Ireland some time ago. This north-west route, particularly north of Ballymena, has had minimum investment, and mooted expenditure of GBP 10.5 million will not address the essential need for infrastructure improvements but merely arrest further deterioration, leaving us with a network incapable of carrying the necessary fast trains. What is urgently needed is the inclusion of this north-west line into the TENs programme, followed by the investment and upgrade which could result. It is for this that I appeal to the Commission.

A rail bridge across the River Foyle would open up the opportunity of a link into Donegal and thereby provide a truly transnational link. This north-west line must not only be saved but also radically improved and, through TENs, the EU can make a worthwhile contribution.

Finally, on the Savary report, I must say that it seeks to place far too much regulatory burden on the rail industry. It will provide a tier of EU regulation on top of already adequate national regulation, while providing no benefit, as I see it, to the rail sector or to its users.

  Reinhard Rack (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor and President of the Council, gave a brilliant speech in the House this morning. She showed us in simplified terms that the EU is not a straightforward issue, but it is one that is worth fighting for.

We can confirm both of these aspects specifically in the context of this afternoon’s topic. Raising awareness of our work among the people at home is no simple matter. They often feel it does not affect them. Europe is so far away, they say, and this prejudice grows when politicians here join in.

It is a prejudice, however, and therefore incorrect. In recent days and weeks, large numbers of interested parties and lobbyists have been contacting me and many of my fellow Members repeatedly on this very subject – and are continuing to do so. The railways have spelt out to us what they want and need, and what they do not want and do not need. They have shown that Europe does affect them. Large numbers of consumer representatives have approached us and said what, in their eyes, the public expects and needs. They, too, feel that Europe affects them. In addition, very large numbers of workers’ and employers’ organisations have approached us repeatedly in recent weeks and months; showing that Europe affects their clientele.

Admittedly, all these solicitations have involved widely differing concerns, and this leads to another fundamental problem for our European community. Trying to reduce everything to a common denominator will complicate things greatly and dilute the matter, and the result will be neither fish nor fowl.

Besides – and this concerns a third element of European legislation – our processes take a very long time. We know that our railway package, too, will have to go to conciliation. It will be no easy task to reach agreement there with the Council, and long transitional periods in a number of cases will ultimately mean that it takes even longer.

We should not be discouraged by this, however. The Sterckx report on passengers’ rights is worth fighting for. We mean to, and shall, succeed in laying down a single legislative text for all passenger services in the EU. We want financial compensation rather than just fine words. We also want rights for passengers with disabilities and passengers with reduced mobility. In this connection, it is important to me that we also see the case of mothers or fathers travelling alone with several young children as a problematic area and offer them help. It is important to us all, however, that we ultimately achieve a good result, and that European citizens then see that Europe does affect them, and that it is something worth fighting for.

  Saïd El Khadraoui (PSE). – (NL) Mr President, I should like to start by thanking the Members of this House who have contributed from afar or from close by to the result we are discussing today. As you know, we will take this matter further, and will probably set the conciliation procedure in motion, which will involve quite a bit of work.

Turning to the Sterckx report, I should like to repeat what I said at first reading, namely that we managed to reach a consensus across the party-political divides about the key issues concerning passenger rights. It may be possible to bridge the chasm that separates us from the Council, which wishes to restrict these rights to international passenger travel by putting in place transitional measures for situations where public service contracts already provide for these passenger rights.

At the same time, we must make sure that these exceptions are very clearly defined and thus prevent this regulation from becoming an empty shell.

Opinions are clearly divided over the Jarzembowski report, not only between the groups, but also within them, since the situation within the railway market and the potential implications of liberalising the national railway market make for very different opinions from one country to the next. I deeply regret – and this is my personal view – the fact that most of my fellow Members, not least in the Committee on Transport and Tourism, have voted in favour of liberalising national passenger transport. This is something that has not actually been requested by the sector, something the implications of which have not been properly looked into and something that the Commission, the Council, the trade unions, the consumer organisations, and the Association of European railway companies do not want to see approved today.

I have to tell Mr Sterckx that this is especially the case because we have failed to dispel, in a legally reliable manner, the fear that liberalisation will eat away at the public services in our Member States or render them unaffordable, for the simple reason that new competitors will obviously only be interested in the few profitable lines within the railway market, which will result in a considerable economic loss for the public service provider who will need to attract new sources of income in order to maintain the minor non-profitable lines, or else will be forced to cut these down.

It would have been preferable, as the Commissioner already said, to look at the issue of liberalisation in combination with the Meijer report, so that clear and uniform procedures could be put in place which would allow Member States or regions to offer sections of the network to one particular company in the framework of public service provision contracts.

To vote on liberalisation at this stage, without putting arrangements in place in this area first, is to put the cart before the horse, and this will not work. Moreover, as I have already said several times, I do not think that the liberalisation of the market is in itself a panacea to get more people to use rail. In Belgium, for example, the number of train travellers has rocketed in recent years – last year by 6.6% – not because of liberalisation, but as a result of investment in new and comfortable rolling stock and of the adoption of an attractive pricing policy.

  Anne E. Jensen (ALDE). – (DA) Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, as my group’s rapporteur for the directive on the certification of train drivers, I wish sincerely to support the approach set out by Mr Savary. For much of the way, the Council has, of course, agreed with Parliament’s approach from first reading, so there remain only a few outstanding points on which we can disagree. The fact is that a common framework for the training of drivers is a logical consequence of the forms of liberalisation already adopted. The big debate has been about who is to be covered by the Directive on the certification of train drivers. Is it to be exclusively train drivers, or other staff too? My group is satisfied with the outcome now before us. A proper balance has been found whereby train drivers and other staff with a direct involvement in safety are covered. We also think it important for train drivers to be able to have access to data on themselves. It is a simple issue of legal certainty, and we attach importance to the proposal that training costs should be refunded if the driver changes jobs shortly after being trained. The fact is that the training is expensive, and we must not create a system in which a number of train companies can freewheel and systematically avoid paying training costs by recruiting newly trained staff from other companies. I very much hope that, tomorrow, there will be a large enough majority here in Parliament in favour of the Jarzembowski report’s proposal on the liberalisation of passenger transport.

Liberalisation is necessary, and not just of the 5% of passenger transport that crosses borders but also of national passenger transport. It is necessary if trains in the EU are to be able to deliver a sufficiently competitive alternative to other forms of transport and, in so doing, provide more environmentally friendly and energy-saving transport. What happens when liberalisation takes place and free competition is brought about? The passenger is put first, of course. Punctual trains and good comfortable transport become main objectives and, instead of just being the stuff of slogans and advertisements, become integral to the self-image of the entire train company, which recognises that without customers there is no business. Passenger rights must apply not only to cross-border, but also to national, transport. Mr Sterckx has clearly shown that there is no sense in distinguishing between passenger rights in relation to, respectively, national and international transport. In Denmark, train companies have taken the lead and have already adopted the proposals on passenger rights in the event of delays that we in Parliament have put forward – something, then, that obviously can be done.

  Leopold Józef Rutowicz (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, in view of the time available I shall only refer to one issue. The development of Community railways and decisions on railway infrastructure capacity and levies must be governed by the definition of the function of and the demand for the services concerned. All of this is determined by the economy and the passengers. Development of the railways should also involve cooperation with other forms of transport. Such an approach could set the scene for private capital investment and for the European and national subsidies required for long-term investment guaranteeing the development of the railways.

It is appropriate to give priority to subsidising investment in high-speed passenger trains, but the development of freight transport is equally important. Investment is needed to improve border junctions as part of the effort to create a common market and develop trade beyond our Eastern borders.

Countries like Poland have unused broad gauge track. Dry container ports could be created at the end of these lines. This would relieve the pressure on the inadequate road network and be beneficial to the environment. I believe that the ideas contained in Mr Jarzembowski’s report will contribute to the process of liberalisation of rail transport and further development in Europe.

  Hélène Flautre (Verts/ALE). – (FR) Mr President, as you know, for we Greens it is essential that we implement a genuine European transport policy leading to a modal transfer from the roads to rail. Road traffic creates 25% of greenhouse gas emissions, and this is therefore a significant challenge.

We should be asking ourselves the following question: is opening up to competition, specifically in passenger transport by rail, going to respond to that challenge? On the contrary, I believe that the proposals contained in the Jarzembowski report are in danger of leading to a deterioration of the service for users. Fares, ticketing, information on timetables, management of connections: how are users going to know how to make the most of the different services offered by the rail companies? We can expect the less profitable lines, which play a fundamental role in terms of social and territorial cohesion, to be abandoned. We can also expect increased pressure on the working conditions of railway personnel, as is happening in the case of low-cost airlines in the aviation sector, and fierce competition for the most profitable slots, without this having any effect on the final number of passengers transported.

In order to strengthen the railways, we need a genuine European commitment to funding the modernisation of infrastructures, the obsolete nature of which is a major obstacle to their development. We also need to overcome the obstacles to interoperability and to adopt – and this is crucial – a tax system which genuinely penalises the most polluting forms of transport, such as a tax on kerosene or the internalisation of environmental costs for road transport.

Liberalisation is by no means the only way to Europeanise transport policies.

  Jaromír Kohlíček (GUE/NGL). – (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, we have now reached the debate on the second reading of the third package of measures dealing with the railways. The composition of the package has been controversial from the outset, a view shared by the social partners and not restricted just to MEPs from the Left.

We have clearly stated on several occasions that the failure to carry out an assessment of the second rail package is a breach of the conditions under which Parliament, jointly with the Commission, adopted it. Rational debate has been cast aside in this discussion. Without mentioning the state of the infrastructure and the rolling stock, or the implementation of measures under the Commissioner for Transport’s agreement with the Community of European Railways, we are discussing today the highly controversial report by Mr Jarzembowsky on opening up the market for rail transport.

Let me get straight to the point: the Commission and the Council are trying to extend the deadlines in this report or to make them flexible. In view of this fundamental discrepancy, the members of the Confederal Group of the European United Left/Nordic Green Left will once again vote against the report. Above all, there are some dangerous amendments that serve to exacerbate the situation. On the other hand, we endorse the outstanding reports by Mr Savary and Mr Sterkcx, whom I wish to congratulate, as they take account of the practical situation, along with the demands of the unions and of the pragmatic senior executives.

I wish to reiterate the point that some amendments may make the situation considerably worse. I believe that the outcome of the vote on this package will reflect similar concerns on the part of the new Member States. This, among other things, is about making use of transitional periods, and about specifying the conditions of passenger transport services.

I hope that we can soon clarify the problems of the rail freight annex to the Convention Concerning International Carriage by Rail (COTIF), and that we achieve this mainly on the basis of an agreement between the Member States that have ratified it. The current state of affairs is unsatisfactory.

Perhaps just one further remark; the wording adopted in the Stercx report comes across as an attempt to impose penalties in the event of trains being delayed. Personally, rather than penalties, I would like to see attempts to comply with a contract of carriage along the lines of the Swiss model, the basis of which is transporting goods and passengers to their destination. Along with a number of other Members, I shall vote on the amendments with this objective in mind. Whatever the outcome, I believe that we will be returning again to this issue in the future.

  Johannes Blokland (IND/DEM). – (NL) Mr President, in recent months, opinion on the subject of the third railway package has turned out to be anything but unanimous – in the Council and this House at any rate. I can understand the Council’s cautious attitude, given the differences among Member States and the division of powers within Europe, and can, to a large extent, identify with it. This does not, though, alter the fact that the Council has not opted for the best solution all round with the future in mind.

The Sterckx and Savary reports definitely have a hand in this, which cannot be said for the Jarzembowski report, in which, as I see it, the balance which the Council had struck between the future market opening and the existing situation, has been broken.

As a result of the amendments in this report, a situation has been created in which for all passenger transport, even though it is phased in time, services can be offered in different ways at the same time. This can result in profitable lines being cherry-picked at the expense of less profitable ones, a lower quality of service provision and possible safety risks. By giving Member States the choice between different competition models, the said drawbacks can be avoided. On behalf of my group, I have tabled two amendments to that effect.

Since, moreover, it is important for existing agreements on time-limited rail services to be respected, Amendment 18 is, in my view, uncalled for.

I hope, although I have my doubts about the likelihood of it, that we will reach the right decision tomorrow.

  Mathieu Grosch (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, the railway package is an interesting trilogy, and all trilogies contain an element of drama. Anyone who knows Mr Jarzembowski will know that he always likes to make sure his proposals are not boring.

The first two proposals attracted a very broad consensus in this House. I consider it a very good thing that we are talking about the liberalisation of the railways and are discussing the accompanying measures early on. It would be a shame to make the same mistake as we did with road transport, for example – namely liberalising first and only then looking at where further regulation may be needed.

This also applies to the European licence for train drivers, in my opinion. It goes without saying that there should be equivalence of training throughout Europe, including for the staff directly entrusted with safety-related tasks. We can hardly develop a European railway network when requirements for train drivers and criteria differ from country to country. Mr Savary has largely reflected Parliament’s opinion on this, and I should like to thank him for his report.

The same goes for passengers’ rights. Simply put, it would even be sufficient to say that rail transport should be punctual and of high quality. In many countries, people would be pleased just to see these two requirements met. Yet we have gone even further. My concern is that we are perhaps setting the bar a little too high. Whilst service quality and passenger rights should of course be respected, we should not set our sights too high, when we already know the kind of difficulties the fulfilment of all these requirements entails in international transport, in particular. In international transport, too, the same rules should apply. As the Commissioner has already said, it is unacceptable that passengers’ rights suddenly change when they cross the border from one country to another. The proposals regarding people with reduced mobility are particularly good.

I should like to remind the House, however, that the package originally contained a fourth proposal, which has been lost along the way. We must not forget that a certain level of quality is to be ensured for freight transport, too. The fact that we have introduced sanctions for this kind of transport must not result in its being neglected across the board for fear of sanctions being introduced in other fields, too.

On the subject of the liberalisation of the market, it goes without saying that international transport, too, must be liberalised. The same criteria must apply in Paris, Brussels and Cologne. The issue of domestic operation now arises. I hail from a small country, Belgium, where we have missed the boat on this to a certain extent, as the major lines are cross-border, for example the Aachen–Brussels line and the line running from Brussels to Antwerp and continuing on to the Netherlands. One question remains with regard to the small countries, however – as Mr Jarzembowski, too, knows – and that is who is willing and able to pay for these services and how can they be organised? This question must be dealt with alongside the present package. This can be done within the framework of the Meijer report, before we express our opinion on this subject in general. In addition, I support the Commissioner’s suggestion that we include the Meijer report in the overall package with this proposal by Mr Jarzembowski.

  Willi Piecyk (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, it is hard to imagine a mode of transport that is in such urgent need of political support as the railways. The third railway package brings us a little further forward. There is nothing controversial about the Savary and Sterckx reports, and I should like to thank the rapporteurs.

Not only train drivers, but other staff, too, must be covered. We should not concern ourselves exclusively with passengers on cross-border services, but with passengers in general. The controversial issue is – as it always has been – how to deal with market opening. Both we and the Council have traditionally made heavy weather of this issue. This has a good deal to do with national safeguard mechanisms, but it also has to do with fears. These positions must of course be respected, but they do not help us achieve a result.

We could of course disregard the liberalisation of rail transport if it were not for the fact that – as has been pointed out several times – other transport sectors have been liberalised without regard for the social or environmental costs in recent years, with disastrous consequences. Tremendous growth in road and air traffic has been recorded for the 1995–2004 period, whilst the railways have been lagging behind and stagnating.

The future looks even more bleak. By 2020, the volume of freight transport will have increased by 50%, and that of passenger transport by 35%, yet the various modes of transport will not benefit equally from the expected 35% increase in passenger transport. The increase will be 108% for the aeroplane, 36% for the car, and just 19% for the railways. These are the Commission’s projections. No one can seriously be happy about these figures.

It may well be that increases in passenger numbers are already being seen at national level; but we have to look at the overall picture. The realisation that it takes one person a 17 000 km rail journey to release a tonne of CO2 pollution into the atmosphere, but a journey of just 3 000 km by air, does lead one to reconsider one’s position on the opening of rail markets.

What we are discussing today is not the Meijer report, as that will have its turn soon, nor the ports package, but instead – for reasons of energy and environmental policy – we are discussing market opening. I would say to Mrs Roth, on the subject of exacting requirements, that 2017/2022 is hardly a sledgehammer approach, but a very gentle one, one that also takes the smaller Member States into consideration. Both the Council and Parliament have incorporated safeguard mechanisms for the smaller Member States. These countries obviously need special protection and consideration.

I shall repeat that, if the railways are to have a real chance, we must permit a measure of market opening in this field. I look forward to the conciliation procedure and hope that the Council Presidency will be very active and willing to compromise, and will bring the matter to a successful conclusion.

  Paolo Costa (ALDE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the distinction between international transport, and transport between Member States and national transport dates back to 1956, specifically to Article 70 of the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community, in other words the first piece of European transport legislation.

It seems quite obvious to me that cross-border transport should have been prudently entrusted to the European institution when the internal market in transport began to be created, but it is just as obvious that the false distinction between international and domestic transport should subsequently have been abandoned for road, sea and air transport, for cabotage, and finally, on 1 January this year, for rail freight transport.

Why then, Mrs Roth, should this distinction persist just for this last enclave of premodernity: rail passenger traffic? Why, Mr Barrot, make so much effort to liberalise 5% of the rail passenger market within three years, by 2010? Why prevent the beneficial effects of competition from helping the remaining 95% of the rail market to regain its competitiveness compared with road and air, without which we will not find a solution to any of the problems facing us? Why enable only 5% of passengers to enjoy at last the obvious protection that all consumers deserve, particularly those with disabilities, when we have already extended it to all air passengers?

Do you not think that a ten-year transition period for everyone, or even 15 for the new Member States, is enough to allow even the shakiest of national monopolies – which are today defending their exclusive internal markets – to get ready to face up to competition? After all, competition cannot be destructive, because the market is already declining and only competition can help to expand the market for everyone.

In short, ladies and gentlemen, are we really incapable of giving up an attitude that was effective 50 years ago but today, frankly, is endangering our whole strategy?

  Karin Roth, President-in-Office of the Council. (DE) Mr President, honourable Members, I would like to thank you for your very open and interesting comments on the railway package. They show how important the railways are in transport, and how they must become still more important. Parliament is very united in this, and that strengthens the Commission, the Council and us all.

I firmly believe that the differences between the 27 countries must be taken into consideration, including when it comes to their enthusiasm for opening up access to the market. If we show sound judgment and enthusiasm in accepting the requirements of the individual countries while at the same time providing options for regulation and deregulation, then we will achieve greater acceptance. In many Member States, there is a legitimate fear that the opening up of the market in national passenger transport will result in certain companies simply taking over the market. That is one of the viewpoints that result in the topic of market opening not being approached very energetically, as you made clear in your report, Mr Jarzembowski.

I would like to thank the rapporteurs and those who took part in the discussions for their commitment to transport policy, and in particular to the railways. I am sure we will meet again at the next opportunity, in order to search out compromises.

  President. The debate is suspended. It will resume at 9 p.m.

10. Membership of committees (deadline for tabling amendments): see Minutes

(The sitting was suspended at 7 p.m. and resumed at 9 p.m.)

IN THE CHAIR: MR MARTÍNEZ MARTÍNEZ
Vice-President.

11. Development of the Community's railways Certification of train drivers operating locomotives and trains on the railway system in the Community International rail passengers' rights and obligations (continuation of debate)

  President. The next item is the continuation of the joint debate on European railways.

At this moment when for the first time I am exercising my duty to preside over the European Parliament, I would like to acknowledge all of those people who have accompanied me until this point in my life and career, my party colleagues and the citizens of my province, Ciudad Real, in Spain, who kept me in my country’s Parliament for twenty-two years. In particular, it is a happy historical coincidence that we should be talking about railways when I come from a town called Alcázar de San Juan, which was a central point in the history of the railways and in the history of the workers’ movement in my country.

  Sepp Kusstatscher (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am essentially in favour of the third railway package. Originally, I took the view that the State should never hand over operation of the railways to private companies, but, provided the infrastructure remains under State ownership, and local, regional and cross-border transport services are transferred to private companies only under very clear conditions, in a socially and environmentally responsible way, I now think that we must accept fair competition. If, however, a State monopoly were simply to be replaced by a number of private monopolies, as has sometimes been the case with the energy companies, then liberalisation would certainly get us nowhere.

My experience as a frequent rail traveller has shown me that the quality of railway provision depends not on the level of privatisation, but rather on a clear political will to give rail preference over road. What counts in this respect are the true costs and the attractiveness of the railways in general, including, for example, appealing stations, well-planned timetables, a reliable service, comfortable trains, and so on.

We have a good example in the middle of Europe: Switzerland. The Swiss Government has not abdicated its responsibilities, even though 45% of the railways are not owned by Swiss Federal Railways. There are clear requirements, and there is a political will on the part of those responsible. The railways work, and can compete with the road network. A bad example is Italy, where the focus has to date been on grand projects and the existing rail network has been seriously neglected for decades. Perhaps this European initiative will gradually make Italy, too, change its approach.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Once again, the majority in Parliament is trying to speed up the liberalisation and privatisation of rail passenger transport by seeking to broaden the scope of the proposed directive not only to international passenger transport, and by as early as 2010, but also to national passenger transport by 2017. Its aim is to deliver the most profitable lines into the hands of the large private economic operators by privatising services, specifically by means of public-private partnerships, thereby fostering, as has happened in other sectors, the formation of monopolies whose aim is profit. These monopolies often receive outlandish amounts of public funding, regardless of the interests and needs of each country and its people.

In Portugal, experience has shown that, following the implementation of such a policy, public rail transport services have deteriorated, thereby hampering people’s mobility. The policy has led to higher ticket prices, to the removal of hundreds of kilometres of the rail network, to the closure of stations and to a reduction in passenger numbers and in service quality. Furthermore, fewer people are working in the rail sector, and there has been an onslaught on salaries and workers’ rights. This is a policy to which the workers and the general public alike are opposed. We have therefore tabled a proposal to reject this directive, explained in general terms in the minority opinion in this report.

  Gabriele Albertini (PPE-DE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the third rail package is a major step towards the goal of a liberalised market and a common policy to protect passengers’ rights and obligations at a European level.

The Jarzembowski report certainly makes up the core of the third package, and I fully endorse the rapporteur’s position. It opens up to competition not only international but also national rail transport, makes the principle of reciprocity compulsory, and thus avoids giving undeserved advantages to companies in countries closed to competition.

The Sterckx report concerns passengers’ rights and obligations. Again, I agree with the rapporteur’s position, in that he rightly proposes extending the scope of the regulation to include all rail passengers, both national and international. International passenger traffic in fact represents only 5% of rail traffic, so what would be the point in approving a regulation that applies to such a small percentage of consumers?

Another argument in favour of extending the scope is suggested by the legislation in force in the air transport sector, where no distinction is made between international and national traffic as regards passengers’ rights and obligations.

Many Member States will find it difficult to reconcile their current situation with the provisions proposed in this regulation, and we therefore think it appropriate that the proposed measures should be phased in gradually. Above all, they should comply with the feasibility criterion: for example, passengers with reduced mobility will see the gradual removal of physical obstacles and barriers as major restructuring work is carried out, new stations are built and new trains and carriages are purchased. Companies will be liable for passengers and their baggage, and in the event of delays there will be minimum compensation rights throughout the European Union.

  Gary Titley (PSE). – Mr President, may I begin by congratulating you on your elevation. I hope you will enjoy your two and a half years in the Chair and, of course, give me plenty of speaking time!

This debate is a bit like the political equivalent of Nero fiddling while Rome burns. We talk a lot about encouraging a switch of people and goods from road to rail, and yet leave in place huge obstacles to operation of the railways. No wonder passenger numbers and goods figures are falling.

We must have a European single market in railways, rather than a series of totally incompatible national markets. Without it, the railways are at a handicap, particularly in relation to air travel. I can get a plane ticket from Manchester to Prague on my computer at the click of a button, but just try getting a train ticket from Manchester to Prague. It is impossible.

We must have liberalisation of the railways now. We must open up the market now. Of course we have to have safeguards. I would not recommend anybody to follow the experience of the United Kingdom. The privatisation – as opposed to liberalisation – there was a complete disaster. However, under the current government, the UK has put things right and now has the highest investment in railways anywhere, the largest increase in passenger numbers and also has actually seen more kilometres of railway line being built.

Nobody needs this investment more than the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. Why are we delaying when they are desperate for investment? We need that investment in order to put a proper European railway market into operation. We also need to ensure that passengers are properly treated. I receive many complaints from people with reduced mobility who find it very difficult to travel by rail across Europe. We need standards on this, and we need proper ticketing so that you can press a button in Manchester and get a ticket to wherever you want to go. What is more, we need to move faster than is being proposed by the European Commission and the Council.

  Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert (ALDE). – (NL) So far, a broad majority in this House appears to be holding firm to liberalising a railway network for both cross-border and domestic transport, which does not come as a total surprise, as indeed, more extensive market forces in public transport have demonstrated to us that this produces 25% more public transport for the same level of outlay.

I do consider Amendment 37 at any rate to be of key importance in this framework. We should not only consider competition in the rail network, but also, and especially, around it, or the so-called concession model, an important form of market forces, whereby safety, efficiency, a logical timetable and healthy financial management can all be given equal weighting. Following in the footsteps of the shadow rapporteur, Mr Ortuondo Larrea, I should like to ask the rapporteur to give full support to Amendment 37.

I should like to finish off by saying a few words about Amendment 18. Unlike the rapporteur, I take the view that contracts for international passenger services that have already been put out to tender in accordance with an open commercial and fair procedure, and only those, should be respected. To be honest, this simply strikes me as a matter of good governance. If existing contracts with private parties must be broken, Member States could be faced with insurance claims running into hundreds of millions of euros, which is, in all honesty, not exactly the message that I, as a Member of Parliament, want to see going out to the European public.

The Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe will therefore be rejecting Amendment 18, and I should like to ask the rapporteur to do likewise.

  Marie Anne Isler Béguin (Verts/ALE). – (FR) I too would like to congratulate our new President of the sitting: welcome, Mr President!

Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the fight against climate change requires a considerable commitment on the part of the Union in favour of public transport, and of the railways in particular. In my region, Lorraine, a recent tragic cross-border accident, resulting from a signalling error, dramatically illustrated the urgent need to harmonise the rail network, which is no small challenge. Because it involves the concepts of access to a public service and of land management, achieving uniformity requires the greatest possible prudence, as the Minster acknowledged just now.

I do not therefore believe that the liberalisation proposed in Mr Jarzembowski’s report is the right approach. Apart from the fact that opening up to competition will jeopardise the Member States’ public service duties, it will not ultimately lead to fare reductions for our users. Citizens travelling to work on a daily basis will not see any improvements to their travelling conditions either. Quite the contrary! Opening up to competition will lead to a deterioration of secondary lines, which are so important to local development.

And what about the impact of liberalisation on rail safety, Commissioner? The transfer from the roads to rail is essential, and it is essential that Europe implements that. I shall end with a nod to the Minister, who is not present: I would like to say that yesterday’s utopias are today’s realities.

  Etelka Barsi-Pataky (PPE-DE). – (HU) The liberalisation of rail travel in the internal market will be fully implemented with the third railway package. It is certainly true that Europe needs a sustainable, efficient rail service. The third railway package, however, will be successful only if economically healthy and logistically prepared modern railway companies provide the service.

This is not the case today. Railway companies in the new, and in some cases in old Member States, are struggling with an accumulated deficit, and Member States are faced with the problem of consolidation. All this appears to be a domestic matter, but in terms of its dimensions and significance it is a European-wide problem and puts at risk the implementation of all three of the railway laws being discussed today, especially if we set the bar high.

The railway package contains a proposal that extends the preparation time for liberalising domestic passenger transport. In my opinion, this extended preparation time is not sufficient. I suggest to the European Council that it put on the agenda of its work programme the true situation in the expanded European Union, and to address the problem. Furthermore, it is essential to examine what is to be done and what can be done in order to solve the existing railway problem in a significant part of Europe. Thus, it is not a question here of drawing a line between the old and new Member States. On the contrary, let us look for a way to create a well functioning, liberalised rail service throughout Europe that is competitive or complementary to the other transport branches.

The goal, therefore, is that existing values in the new Member States – in this case rail service – should not fall victim to the opening up of the internal market, but should instead become a valuable part of it. Unfortunately, previously this did not succeed in the case of certain services.

With regard to the liberalisation of domestic passenger transport, I consider the proposed amendment which I submitted to be better than the compromise proposal. The difference between the two is that my proposal would grant every Member State that is not able to prepare itself in time, or that runs into other obstacles, the possibility of a derogation. The compromise proposal would make this possible only for the new Member States.

In my opinion, the impact assessment prior to the regulation should in each case extend to the specificities of the new Member States, but the regulation must be unified. In any case, I welcome the fact that the rapporteur and the Committee on Transport and Tourism have striven – as was, in fact, the case the first time – to pay attention in drafting the law to the special problems affecting the new Member States.

  Inés Ayala Sender (PSE). – (ES) Mr President, I would like firstly to congratulate you most warmly. Miguel Ángel, who would have guessed, when, under the isolation of the Franco dictatorship, you left from Alcázar de San Juan, which was Spain’s symbolic rail and trade union hub, that European railways would take you once again tonight to Alcázar de San Juan, but this time as Vice-President of the European Parliament?

You look very handsome, and, furthermore, somebody must have put some flowers in republican colours just there to your left.

Well, I would like to thank the rapporteurs and the shadow rapporteurs, particularly Mr Jarzembowski, because he is the rapporteur who, as always, has been patient enough to stay here to listen to everybody, including those of us who disagree with him, but who, when it comes down to it, love him and respect him. I would like to thank all of you for your intensive and meticulous work, and for your patience in dealing with our reservations and doubts.

I am pleased that the European Parliament has managed to persuade the Council and the Commission to take account of the majority of its proposals, aimed at the complex task of harmonising and modernising the twenty seven different current rail systems with a view to creating a European railways area that ensures that our railways are sustainable, attractive and safe and that they have a future.

I believe that the European Parliament should once again advocate a gradual and controlled opening-up, of which this third legislative package represents one more step. However, we are not so naive or cynical as to deceive the European citizens by claiming that, by setting a specific date ― which, furthermore, many believe to be premature ― the current rail problems are going to disappear. Do you imagine that the budgetary shortages suffered by the trans-European networks, which prevent us from eliminating the real cross-border obstacles in mountainous regions, such as the Alps or the Pyrenees, not to mention the RTMS, will disappear in 2017? Do you imagine that, by setting this magic date, the congestion of infrastructures for goods transport by rail or the problems with the interoperability of systems ― not to mention other problems which fortunately the Commission is currently dealing with, such as the certification of locomotives and rolling stock – will disappear?

On the other hand, apart from the ceaseless liberalisation, there are also railway success stories that demonstrate that that is not the only sine qua non condition. One example is the success of high-speed trains for passengers in Spain.

Admittedly we have not had the same success with goods, but I believe that Germany is the leader in this sector, and has been since before liberalisation. Perhaps we should therefore learn from all of these experiences. That is why we are advocating the method of gradual opening-up, which will enable us to focus on the criteria and conditions, paying particular attention to the viability of public services and the diversity of existing concession formulae. Hence our vote in favour of Amendment 33.

We therefore support the idea that, two years after opening up international passenger transport, the Commission should draw up an assessment of the progress made and of any problems and, where necessary, propose new measures to accompany the subsequent opening-up process, as proposed in the texts that the three institutions agree on, because on the study, at least, we are all in agreement.

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to say that, in general terms, I am satisfied with the progress achieved thanks to the long and exacting work of the European Parliament and, more specifically, of the three rapporteurs.

This reform of passenger transport by rail is absolutely essential if we are to create a genuine internal market, which will promote the mobility of all Europeans under optimal safety and accessibility conditions and which will very quickly, I hope, help to reduce the often exorbitant fares, without leading to the disappearance of services.

Nevertheless, with regard to access to the market, I would like to express my concern this evening about the temptation to set a date at this point for the opening up of the national passenger market. I personally am not in favour of altering the Council’s position on this point, since a hurried, and perhaps ill-prepared, opening up of national passenger transport could have serious consequences for the service. I would like to see prior impact studies, particularly on the effects of opening up to international competition, on the cabotage system, which must be provided with a strict framework, and on the effects of the system of standardisation of tariffs. Why not schedule a fourth rail package, which could look in detail at funding mechanisms, and particularly coordination with public service obligations, as well as the funding of loss-making lines?

With regard to the directive on international rail passengers’ rights and obligations, I am delighted with the work that is going to give far greater responsibilities to rail operators and, at the end of the day, and very quickly I hope, give more rights to passengers, particularly those with reduced mobility. I would also like to thank Mr Sterckx for supporting our group's amendment, which is intended to take account of the specific situation of suburban transport, which is particularly relevant in terms of public service obligations.

  Jörg Leichtfried (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate you! Mr Jarzembowski, I would also like to take the opportunity to express my respect – even though we have different opinions on a certain specific area of your report – for the resolve, tenacity and vigour with which you have pursued this report, as long as I have been in this House, and for the relative success you have achieved.

On the surface, we all want the same thing for the European railways: high quality, high safety standards and good working conditions. It has always been said that we have differing visions of that and differing ideas of how to get there, but I am not so sure that that is really true.

I wonder why it is mainly those Members who did not really strengthen the railways in the matter of the Infrastructure Costs Directive, by rather overemphasising certain things, that are now on the pro-liberalisation side. Why, for example, did the former Austrian transport minister push so hard for liberalisation, while at the same time running the Austrian railways almost into the ground with his domestic railway policy?

Why have we not all gone down the perhaps more sensible route of saying that we will first of all examine liberalisation in the international arena, and wait until we can see where this path takes us before we decide whether we want to continue down it? If we had done that, I would have been able to say with certainty that everybody here is in favour of progress on Europe's railways.

I do not think that some kind of neoliberal anti-railway campaign is underway here. I really do not think that, even though the rapporteur has shifted somewhat to the right in time to present the report to plenary. I have shifted to the right with him, so that says nothing.

I do think, though, that there are many different reasons for following this path to liberalisation that I cannot fully share. I therefore do not want to jump on this bandwagon just yet. Perhaps I will be convinced in time, but at the moment, when it comes to national liberalisation, I do not want to be a part of it.

  Stanisław Jałowiecki (PPE-DE). – (PL) Mr President, I am delighted with the results obtained in the course of negotiations led by the rapporteurs for this third railway package. The package really has been improved as a result of these negotiations. It has not just been repackaged more attractively, it simply is a better package. One issue remains outstanding, however. Perhaps I shall begin with a few words to put it into context.

In my region of south-west Poland, an increase in rail passenger services was recorded last year. It was not a large increase, but it was actually the first increase for many years. Up until then, nothing but a continuous fall in services was being recorded, not just in my region but across the whole of Poland. Perhaps last year’s slight increase is an indication that railways are gradually beginning to compete with road transport, which is what we all very much want and a key principle of European transport policy.

I mention all this, because great care must be taken not to alter this trend when introducing new regulations concerning rail passengers’ rights. Railways must be competitive, and must therefore be cheap or even very cheap. They must also be well managed, and offer their passengers a high standard of travel. The difficulty is that if these two objectives are taken literally, a degree of contradiction arises. A service cannot be cheap and luxurious at the same time. That is why an effort to devise a suitable compromise in this regard is needed.

The railways are very gradually emerging from a long period of decline. They need us to help them in their endeavours. We must not impose additional burdens on railways if we want to prevent them going back into decline.

  Justas Vincas Paleckis (PSE). – (LT) I would support the liberalisation of rail transport services if the social effect of opening up rail networks and its effects on the environment were to be analysed in depth. On the other hand, opening of the EU countries’ railway lines going into third countries gives the green light to unfair competition. The right to use these lines will be acquired by third-country companies with branches in EU countries, whose main interest is to carry passengers into their own countries. Some EU countries run the risk of losing the right to carry passengers into neighbouring third countries, because the latter are not obliged to adhere to EU directives and to open up their passenger transport market. Railway enterprises in EU countries with an external border would find themselves in a more difficult situation compared to other EU countries. I would invite you to vote against the fifteenth amendment. I would urge you not to support my colleague Mr Sterckx’s report on the twenty-first amendment, which, in my opinion, weakens the Council’s motion.

  Zsolt László Becsey (PPE-DE). – (HU) I wish to draw attention to a few questions, the first of which is generally economic in nature. When talking about liberalisation and the liberalisation of services, we always say the same thing. It should not be the case that there is no deadline in the services directive, or that in some places we wish to liberalise only partially, because let us say as a German I am sensitive to this matter, whereas in other respects we need to open up services completely, for instance in financial or rail services. I say this not in order to harm rail service. Yes, some day this too will have to be completely liberalised, but to do so, we need to catch up in other areas as well.

The second question, concretely, is something I already mentioned at first reading. The new Member States are struggling with a great many problems of domestic government administration. I therefore say once again that only five years after the introduction of the euro can we truly accept full liberalisation, since before that time we are unable to capitalise our companies – in which there is enormous investment that must not be frittered away – in such a way that they are able to withstand competition. The year 2022 in the current proposal is already quite friendly in this regard.

We must be very careful – especially in the new Member States – to maintain that we fulfil the obligation to provide public transport solely by means of buses. That is, after one accident in which someone is hit, the State simply withdraws from the railways in its obligation to provide public transport. The Savary proposal, in my opinion, goes in the right direction from this point of view, that is, truly towards the deepening of the internal market.

In connection with the Sterckx report – although of course everything it contains is very attractive – I must say, as a representative of a new Member State, that this will cost us a great deal, especially if we have to do this in the first ten years before the introduction of free movement of persons and the introduction of the euro. This is very, very difficult. I do not wish to oppose what is written in this report: as a goal it is very good, but in terms of timing, things do not fit together completely, and I would like it very much if such a degree of obligation were brought in only after the introduction of the euro and of the free movement of persons. Actually, with liberalisation, quality will also improve, so that there will probably not be such serious problems in the future, but once again I repeat: we need to synchronise.

  Vladimír Maňka (PSE). – (SK) Mr President, I congratulate you on your new role.

In order to improve the competitiveness of railways vis-à-vis road transport and to place railways on an equal footing in terms of competing for business, it is necessary to complete the harmonisation of the conditions governing railway and road transport operations. In the energy sector we are unbundling transmission systems from energy suppliers; in the railway transport sector as well, it is necessary to complete the reform of those state-owned railway companies that still have carriers and infrastructure operators in one and the same organisation.

The fact that road transport is flourishing, even in those countries where rail transport would be more appropriate from an environmental standpoint, is due to inadequate harmonisation, external factors, faulty interoperability and flawed transformation, as well as the poor quality of rail transport.

The second key factor is market liberalisation. When opening up rail networks for passenger transport, however, it will be necessary to give the economies of the new Member States enough time to prepare themselves for this step.

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE). – (PT) Thank you very much, Mr President, I also wish to congratulate you on your election and wish you all the best in your new post.

The liberalisation of rail transport is something that needs to be brought about, but progress has been painstaking. We must therefore keep up the effort to move ever closer to a European rail services market, which will help us implement the important objectives of the common transport policy.

In this regard, I should like to congratulate our rapporteurs on their outstanding work. Although, for many, trains still have an image of romanticism and adventure derived partly from the famous Orient Express, the fact is that they are a safe, environmentally friendly means of transport that is adept at moving large quantities of goods quickly and at conveying large numbers of people comfortably and equally quickly. The dream of rail services from the Atlantic to the Baltic and Black Seas remains a distant one, as we continue to come up against major obstacles to effective freedom of movement in the rail sector.

The problem remains of discrepancies between, for example, gauges inside and outside the Iberian Peninsula, as do those of the management of internal and international traffic and of ticketing, which are not easy matters to resolve. We face enormous difficulties and, without the will of the Member States, we will not be able to overcome them. Congestion in Central Europe and the accessibility of Europe’s outlying regions are intimately linked.

If we want to see the economic growth of our countries, joint measures are required whereby development in one area ties in with progress in another. The funding approved for the Trans-European Networks does not fill us with overwhelming enthusiasm. We must therefore derive some satisfaction from the progress for which we shall hopefully vote tomorrow.

In its diversity, Parliament is doing its best, but the Council must respond positively to this impetus for progress and for the liberalisation of rail transport. How can this be achieved? It can be achieved by acknowledging that the deadlines for opening up the networks are reasonable and by not imposing unfair economic restrictions on this process; by accepting compromise solutions for existing concessions and for public service obligations; by agreeing to the rules on the certification of onboard staff in the interests of the security of people and property; and lastly by ensuring universal protection for the rights of all passengers. Along with quality of service, this is the best way of attracting people to this means of transport, thereby ensuring its development and continued employment for those working in the sector.

  Dieter-Lebrecht Koch (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, today we are discussing three essential steps that will help to breathe new life into Europe's railways and bring about a considerable improvement in passenger rights. I would like to focus on just one aspect of the overall package that fits in perfectly with the start of the European Year of Equal Opportunities.

It is good that, in the regulation on rail passengers' rights and obligations, we are sending a signal and thus making our contribution to equal opportunities. It obviously makes no sense to enact a regulation that is only relevant to international passengers. In my view, all passengers should have equal rights.

At the forefront is the right of all citizens to transport, but passengers can only assert their rights if they know what they are, which is why information is a necessity. I would call for all people with limited mobility, regardless of whether it is due to disability, age or another factor, to have equal opportunities to travel by rail. It is quite clear that we need to work continuously to improve barrier-free accessibility. It is also clear, though, that is not possible to adapt all vehicles and all buildings straight away to meet the needs of these people.

Once the regulation enters into force, station operators and railway companies will have to pay particular attention to ensuring that people with limited mobility can get information regarding the accessibility of railway services, the conditions for accessing trains and the facilities on the trains. To ensure that, in particular, passengers with sensory impairments are provided with information regarding delays as efficiently as possible, we would call for information announcements to be made using both acoustic and visual systems.

In future, people with restricted mobility will be able to buy tickets on the train without paying a supplement, and, if a person cannot access the services provided in the train due to their restricted mobility, they will be able to be accompanied by another person who will travel for free. A social Europe is on its way!

  Erna Hennicot-Schoepges (PPE-DE). – (FR) Mr President, I would like to congratulate you most warmly. You ran a very good race.

11 October 2006 was a very dark day for the French railways and for the Luxembourg railways. On a twin-track section of line, temporarily being used as a single track as a result of works, a collision between two trains killed six people and seriously wounded two. A passenger train from Luxembourg collided with a freight train in French territory. The accident, which, according to the enquiry, was due to a human signalling error on the Luxembourg side, was particularly tragic, since the signalman, having become aware of the error, triggered via the station to train radio an initial piercing alarm, which did not reach the driver of the passenger train. He then wanted to switch off the current on the line, but it was not possible due to the difference in power supply between the two countries. Furthermore, the Luxembourg train had already entered the French network and was therefore out of his reach.

Commissioner, this example illustrates the danger of a lack of coordination between rail networks, whether they be privatised or still under the public service system. The responsibility falls as much to the signalman as to the two companies and the authorities of the two Member States, and also to the lack of a sustained will to make rail networks interoperable. The citizens will not find it acceptable that, by crossing the border by train, they are risking their lives as a result of inadequate systems.

For Luxembourg, international traffic represents 70% of its turnover. Our situation is therefore a special one, and even more efforts are required in order to achieve interoperability of networks. This is a key priority. If our Parliament’s Committee on Transport's approach leads to investments in the railways, then that is the right path to take.

  Jacques Barrot, Vice-President of the Commission. (FR) Mr President, first of all, like all of the Members who have congratulated you warmly, I too would like to say what a pleasure it is to take part in this sitting over which you are presiding.

I would like to thank all of the Members. We have had more than forty speeches, and I have seen that there is great interest in the future of Europe's railways. I thank you, because the Commission and myself see this as an absolute priority.

I would like to make a few brief comments, Mr President. First of all, I would like to point out that the Commission is not opposed in principle to the opening up to competition of domestic services, but that it believes that a decision within the context of the third rail package would be premature. The Commission will continue to examine the issue and if it feels that the circumstances are right, it will be able to exercise its right of initiative in the field. I would add that we also have the possibility of introducing competition elements, particularly by means of the text on the regulation of public service obligations, which itself is based on contractualisation, transparency and a degree of opening up to competition, while respecting subsidiarity. I believe that the Commission’s position has been clearly expressed in what I have said.

On the second point, I note that there is unanimity on the certification of train drivers operating locomotives and trains, and what Mrs Hennicot-Schoepges has just said to us demonstrates the absolute need for technical interoperability, but also for human interoperability. Crew members responsible for rail safety, including drivers and all staff participating in the operation of the train, must receive training in accordance with their responsibilities. I entirely agree with Mr Savary on this point.

Finally, the third proposal, which appears in Mr Sterckx’s report, has the merit of covering domestic services, while providing for a system of temporary exemption. That seems to me to be a very good basis for future negotiations.

I would also like to take this opportunity to say, to Mr Grosch in particular, that we have not forgotten the fourth element of this rail package, which is the quality of freight. The Commission has not forgotten this issue, which is important in terms of revitalising rail freight in Europe. It has regular contacts with the associations representing freight customers, and I shall produce a report on the development of the quality of freight in Europe before the end of the year, as was indicated at first reading.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, those are the comments I wished to make at the end of this debate, a debate that has genuinely demonstrated Parliament’s interest in promoting the railways, both for passengers and for freight. I hope that everybody, in their soul and conscience, will vote in a way that will allow us to move forward. I would add that I am prepared to be fully involved in the delicate and difficult task of mediating between Parliament and the Council with a view to concluding this third rail package.

  President. The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Thursday at 12 noon.

Annex – Commission Position

Recommendation for second reading: Sterckx (A6-0479/2006)

The Commission can accept amendments 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29,30, 31, 32, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 45, 46, 50, 51, 54, 55, 56, 57, 62, 63, 64, 66, 68, 70 and 71.

The Commission can accept the following amendments with redrafting: 43, 47 and 49.

The Commission can accept the following amendments in principle: 7, 8, 14, 21, 33, 34, 52, 58 and 60.

The Commission can partially accept amendments 40, 67 and 73.

The Commission rejects amendments 12, 16, 35, 44, 48, 53, 59, 61, 65, 69 and 72.

⁂

Recommendation for second reading: Jarzembowski (A6-0475/2006)

The following 14 amendments are acceptable, if need be subject to redrafting: 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 29, 31, 32.

The following three amendments are acceptable in part: 5, 13, 17.

15 amendments should be rejected: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 25, 28, 30, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41.

⁂

Recommendation for second reading: Savary (A6-0480/2006)

The following 19 amendments are acceptable: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 18, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 36.

Amendments 17 and 19 are acceptable in principle.

The following seven amendments are acceptable in part: 1, 15, 16, 26, 27, 33, 35.

The Commission rejects the following eight amendments: 10, 11, 13, 14, 23, 31, 32, 34.

Written statements (Rule 142 of the Rules of Procedure

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE-DE). – (FR) I am delighted that rail passengers are finally going to have rights, particularly in relation to compensation, information and facilities for persons with reduced mobility.

With regard to Mr Jarzembowski’s report, while the liberalisation of international passenger transport is a good thing, which increases the efficiency of that mode of transport, I do not agree with the rapporteur’s views on the opening up to competition of national traffic.

If this Parliament votes for total liberalisation of rail traffic tomorrow, I would like to be certain that you have taken account of two fundamental points. First of all, the issue of standardisation. We adopted an amendment to that effect in committee. It should allow loss-making railway lines to continue to be funded if they meet public service objectives.

Secondly, if Parliament decides to open up national rail traffic to competition, I feel that it is important to ensure that, during the transitional period in which only international traffic is opened up, we prevent the veiled opening up of national passenger transport through the practice of cabotage.

The transitional period is necessary in order to allow rail companies to adapt.

  Georgios Toussas (GUE/NGL). – (EL) The 'third package of measures' on rail transport in the ΕU paves the way for full liberalisation, in other words for the railways to be handed over to the monopolies, in order to safeguard and increase the profits of euro-unifying capital. The EU measures to date in this sector also have sent ticket prices rocketing, resulted in thousands of redundancies, exacerbated the workers' slavery, struck at their wage and social rights and caused the number of accidents to spiral, despite the insulting government subsidies in the Member States.

The liberalisation of rail services also and the terms and conditions for certifying the qualifications of workers laid down by the ΕU signal the intensification of their exploitation, greater intensification of labour and more risks to passenger safety.

The hypocritical pronouncements about institutionalising passenger rights simply 'cloak' the painful consequences of liberalisation for railway workers and passengers. The basic conclusion is that, within this framework of the exploitative system which operates on the basis of profit for capital, this social requirement cannot be satisfied by the monopolies, which is why radical change is needed.

The Greek Communist Party voices its categorical opposition to the anti-grassroots policy of the ΕU and has voted against the third package of measures to liberalise rail transport.

12. European Road Safety Action Programme Mid-Term Review (debate)

  President. The next item is the report by Mrs Ewa Hedkvist Petersen, on behalf of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, on the European Road Safety Action Programme – Mid-Term Review.

(2006/2112(INI)) (A6-0449/2006).

  Ewa Hedkvist Petersen (PSE), rapporteur. – (SV) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, more and more people drive abroad within Europe. They include professional drivers, bus drivers, families on European tours and those who commute across borders. Why should these people tolerate poor road safety in any of the countries they drive in? Approximately 40 000 people die each year on European Union roads an ongoing tragedy affecting families. It is also a huge waste of resources. Just think how much we should gain in terms of health care if we were to halve the number of deaths on our roads.

The problem is that, in practice, European countries each place a different value on road safety and that the differences between those Member States with low standards of road safety and those with high standards continue to increase. I do not believe, however, that Europeans will accept this in the long term. We shall demand safe roads everywhere in Europe. We shall demand that the police stop drink-drivers, irrespective of their nationality. We shall demand speed limits throughout Europe and require cities to have public transport systems so that we can get about without cars. We shall demand to be able to get about safely by bicycle in urban areas. The European Parliament must respond to these demands on the part of our citizens and put pressure on the European Commission and the Member States. However, the Member States like, for the most part, to act on a national basis. Reference is made to the proximity principle. Unfortunately, this sometimes involves paralysis. Road safety must be regarded as a responsibility shared between the Member States and the EU. We now see a decline in the figures for fatalities on European roads, but the rate at which they are falling is unfortunately too slow. Measures must now be taken quickly if we are to achieve the objective of halving the number of deaths by 2010. The Member States must ensure that existing legislation is complied with and that penalties are meted out, even if the driver concerned is infringing the rules of an EU country other than his own. We are concerned primarily here with legislation on seat belts, with the observance of speed limits and with bans on the use of alcohol and drugs by drivers. This would lead directly to a dramatic reduction in the number of deaths on our roads.

It is important to involve the new Member States in road safety work. The Commission should act to bring about twinning projects, as they are called, between new and old Member States and ensure that the new Member States take part in the Commission’s expert groups. Exchanges of best practice are vitally important.

Mr President, Drink-driving is a problem in the EU that causes getting on for 10 000 deaths per year. The number of checks made on drink-driving varies from one Member State to another. We therefore need a common upper alcohol limit for the whole of the EU of 0.5 per mille, with the option of setting a lower limit. It is not, however, possible to have a 0.0 per mille limit, as decided on by the majority of the committee. Not being measurable, such a limit would be unsustainable. That point must therefore be removed from the report.

We must also improve driver instruction, and driving school instructors in the EU should therefore be certified. It is also important to make further progress on implementing the eCall system so that emergency services reach the scenes of accidents quickly. More countries must issue declarations of intent on that subject. The transport industry must also take action, and in this area the hire car companies have a major role to play because they purchase new cars every year. Were they to buy only safe cars, there would be a significant improvement to the EU’s vehicle fleet. It is the transport industry that is best placed to influence the design of vehicles. If they were to build safe vehicles and make safety equipment standard, that would be less expensive for consumers and it would save lives. An example of such equipment is alcohol locks, which prevent people who are drunk from driving. Such locks have fallen considerably in price since the market began to take off.

We should begin to regard vehicles as mobile places of work when employees use cars as part of their daily work, and health and safety legislation should therefore also apply to vehicles, thereby increasing road safety. We must, then, take a holistic view of road safety in Europe. It is a question of having safe vehicles and roads and so making life easier for road users, but also of training drivers. All the interested parties must assume their share of our common responsibility if we are to succeed in achieving our goals.

This is my last debate in the European Parliament. My term of office will come to an end on 1 February, and I wish to thank all my fellow Members for their splendid cooperation over the years, including on this report. I also wish to thank all the employees of the European Parliament, who have always facilitated our work. I would also thank everyone else – naming no names, so as not to forget anyone – with whom I have worked during my years in Parliament.

  President. We too, all of the Members, thank you, Ewa. We are going to miss you.

We wish you every possible success in your future activities.

  Jacques Barrot, Vice-President of the Commission. (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like firstly to address Mrs Hedkvist Petersen and to thank her warmly for this fight – and that is the right word – that she has led in favour of road safety. You have not just produced an excellent report, but you have also demonstrated the importance of road safety on many occasions in this Parliament. The motion for a resolution also shows that there is broad consensus amongst Parliament, the Council and the Commission on this priority and on the need for action at European level.

I would like to make a brief assessment of our fight for road safety. In terms of global results, we suffered 50 000 deaths on the roads in 2001 and our objective is not to exceed 25 000 by 2010. In 2005, in the Europe of twenty-five, a further 41 600 deaths were recorded. It is essential that we update our mid-term assessment with the first results for 2006. This year has been rather better than previous years. We have improved by 9% and certain countries that had remained stagnant have made significant progress. Overall, the States that joined in 2004 have made more progress than the Fifteen. The success has been fragile, but it deserves to be welcomed. There are disparities, however, between the best and the worst performing countries. There is a range of 1 to 3 deaths per million inhabitants, or 1 to 5 deaths per million private vehicles.

The Community’s initiatives since 2001 have been effective. Road safety has become a major political priority in most of the Member States. The majority have therefore drawn up national road safety plans. We have adopted legislation on driving times and rest times for professional drivers, adopted measures on vehicle safety and launched education and awareness campaigns. We have also adopted a third directive on driving licences, which will provide better protection, for motorcyclists in particular.

The assessment presented by the Commission in February 2006 was simply factual and we are preparing new initiatives. We must fill the gap in the current legislation relating to mirrors that eliminate the blind spot for existing heavy goods vehicles. We must speed up the installation of that mirror. We cannot wait for the complete renewal of the European lorry fleet, that is to say more than fifteen years, for this practical and inexpensive measure to become fully effective. I am very much counting on the European Parliament to support this speeding up of the implementation of the mirror eliminating the blind spot for existing heavy goods vehicles.

We have presented a proposal to the co-legislators on the management of the safety of Trans-European Network infrastructures. It consists of a range of tools to allow the Member States to better manage the safety of their network. Furthermore, we must ensure that nobody has impunity from traffic offences because they have been committed abroad. I will make a formal proposal this summer on the cross-border enforcement of the more significant traffic offences. We have also launched a consultation on the obligation for daytime running lights. No decision has yet been taken. We need to hear the opinion of the Member States and of users.

Having said that, what matters if we are to win the safety battle is that we stay in direct contact with the citizens. That is why we launched the European Road Safety Charter in April 2004. 650 road safety actors are signatories to that Charter: companies, automobile clubs, associations, schools, media organisations, local authorities, to name but a few. By signing the Charter, actors commit themselves to taking responsibility and taking concrete and measurable action within their area of competence.

Finally, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, a first European Road Safety Day will be held on 27 April 2007. This Day falls at the same time as the United Nations Global Road Safety Week, and I would urge Parliament and every Member of Parliament to take part in this event, which is very dear to us.

I shall end, Mr President, by once again highlighting the quality of the document prepared by Mrs Hedkvist Petersen. It offers a well-argued vision of the future. Not only does it emphasise the short-term priorities, but it also proposes promising medium-term solutions, on which the Commission’s services are also working. Ladies and gentlemen, I am delighted that our views coincide, but I would like to say that this record of more than 40 000 deaths on the roads means that we have a very great responsibility in the field of road safety. I am therefore grateful to Parliament, Mr President, for being involved in and totally committed to improving it.

  Dieter-Lebrecht Koch, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, I am very grateful to Mrs Hedkvist Petersen for her good cooperation and trust over many years. Thank you, Mrs Hedkvist Petersen, for your excellent report.

Reducing the number of deaths on Europe's roads to no more than 25 000 by 2010 is a very ambitious goal given the increase in road traffic. It is achievable though – if only we want it enough! The successes of recent years can be seen, even though many of our laws and measures, particularly from the last two and a half years, have not yet had any effect because they have not yet been transposed into national law. I need only remind you of the driving licences directive.

Despite the major successes, we will still not achieve the target if we do not act more ambitiously and more consistently, and implement both existing and new projects speedily. In order to do so, not only do we need European decision-making, but the Member States also have a considerable responsibility. The report provides clarity in this respect too.

I would like to mention six specific categories.

The first is that we will be going in the right direction if we can ensure that existing laws are obeyed more consistently. The main points are appropriate speed, not driving under the influence of alcohol, drugs or medicines, wearing seatbelts, and complying with the regulations for pedestrians and cyclists.

The second is that we need new European laws to be enacted, with regard, for example, to daytime running lights, the use of blind-spot mirrors and marking the edges of lorries.

Thirdly, we must take action to avoid congestion, for example by promoting new logistics systems solutions, by speeding up roadworks or by authorising gigaliners under certain conditions.

My fourth point is that we are responsible for ensuring that health and safety at work regulations are also implemented when the workplace is a vehicle, in other words a mobile workplace. This includes the provision of appropriate opportunities for medical care for professional drivers during their working week away from their company headquarters.

Fifthly, we must promote not only the use of up-to-date emissions technology, but also the introduction of active safety features, such as the electronic stability program (ESP), emergency braking or distance controls and driver assistance systems.

Sixthly, we hope that the automatic emergency call system eCall will be introduced as soon as possible, particularly in view of the fact that, firstly, tried and tested automatic accident detection systems are already in place and, secondly, a campaign is currently underway for some kind of emergency call system for pedestrians.

  Gary Titley, on behalf of the PSE Group. – Mr President, I congratulate Ewa Hedkvist Pedersen on this last report for the European Parliament. It is an excellent report, although it has been rather bombarded by some weird and wonderful amendments.

We do not need elaborate schemes. We simply need safer roads, safer drivers and safer vehicles and, most importantly, we need action and enforcement. When I was Parliament’s rapporteur on eCall, for example, the industry had made progress but the governments were not making progress. That is why I say we need action.

However, I have two reservations. Firstly, on the issue of daytime running lights, I do not believe that there will be any overall net gain in road safety because, as cars become visible, other users, particularly motorcyclists, become less visible. Daytime running lights will mean more fuel usage, and that is bad from a climate change point of view. It is a matter of subsidiarity. The situation in Spain during the day is not the same as the situation in Sweden. I think this should be left to Member States.

Secondly, I do not believe in harmonised blood alcohol limits, simply because you can have all the standards in the world, but they are no use unless you have enforcement. We in the UK have perhaps a more generous blood alcohol limit, but we have the lowest level of drink driving. Why? Because enforcement is rigid and the penalties are very severe. That is where we should be putting the emphasis.

  Arūnas Degutis, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (LT) Thank you, Mrs Petersen, for a comprehensive and above all very timely report about safety – or more precisely, danger – on our roads. The situation is indeed quite serious. As the European Union accepts new members, the problems increase. The gap widens between them and the older countries which are able to take advantage of more advanced infrastructure and technologies.

Since the major responsibility for improving safety measures on the roads is currently within the various countries’ jurisdiction, I fully support the rapporteurs’ urging to increase the Commission’s role in bringing uniformity to the standards applied by the various countries, and in introducing uniform legal norms and applying better European practice in these matters. This resolution is indeed a well prepared catalogue of diverse stratagems whose implementation would undoubtedly help us to avoid many of the tragic incidents on the roads. It is also an encouragement to intensively implement the latest safety technology into transport vehicles and on the roads; to unify the European countries’ transport safety and inspection standards, regulations for issuing driving licences and road traffic sign systems; to apply traffic fines in a unified and universal way; and to give the required attention to information and education. A big incentive in this field could be the Commission’s readiness to finance partnership projects being undertaken by new and old countries of the European Union. The practical implementation of new developments could be helped along by appropriate regulation of the activities of insurance companies. I would like to emphasise that member countries, especially those in which road death figures are among the highest, should set a blood alcohol limit of zero for individuals who have recently begun to drive and for professional commercial transport vehicle and bus drivers carrying passengers and, for example, dangerous goods. Likewise, member countries should make the penalties for those responsible for infractions more severe, especially those relating to drunk driving.

I myself am from a new Member State, in which the situation is possibly the worst in the EU. Therefore, this problem is particularly painful for me. The number of victims in Lithuania per one million inhabitants or per vehicle is three times higher than in any old European Union country. Carefully monitoring the statistics, I have observed a curious pattern: namely, European countries can be divided into three groups on the basis of numbers of people killed on the roads. These are: the old EU countries, the new EU countries – the former members of the Soviet bloc, and the new EU countries – the former member republics of the Soviet Union. It is interesting that the more a country has been affected by totalitarianism, the less the drivers feel respect for other road users, and the less they worry about their own and others’ health or even life. It appears as if they have been let off the leash. There is a war of sorts taking place on the roads. In Lithuania we even joke that soon we will have more people dying on the roads every year than there are Americans dying in the war in Iraq. It is a question of attitudes, related to values, respect and concern for the environment. Therefore, I think that attention should be given to education and culture, that is, the attitude-forming areas, starting with the youngest group of people in society.

  Seán Ó Neachtain, thar ceann an Ghrúpa UEN. – Maraítear os cionn 40,000 duine ar bhóithre na hEorpa chuile bhliain. 'Sí aidhm an Choimisiúin an staitistic seo a laghdú 50% faoin mbliain 2010.

Tá an chumhacht chéanna ó thaobh reachtaíochta dhe ar shábháilteacht bóthair ag Parlaimint na hEorpa agus atá ag rialtaisí na mBallstát fhéin. Ba chóir do Pharlaimint na hEorpa lántacaíocht a thabhairt d’aidhm an Choimisiúin, líon na marbh a laghdú ar na bóithre.

Timpistí bóthair an chúis is mó a mharaítear daoine óga idir chúig bhliana déag agus cheithre bhliana is fiche d’aois.

Caithfear anois comhordú a dhéanamh ag leibheál an Aontais Eorpaigh chun tabhairt faoi fhadhb na dtimpistí bóthair agus chun polasaí sábháilteachta bóthair a chur i bhfeidhm go dian.

I measc na bpoinntí sábháilteachta is tábhachtaí tá siad seo a leanas: pionós trasteorann a ghearradh orthu siúd a bhriseann rialacha an bhóthair ar fud na hEorpa; ní mór breathnú ar rialacha tráchta a bheadh ar aon fhocal i measc na mBallstát uile a chur i bhfeidhm; ba chóir do na Ballstáit uile an córas éigeandála E-Glaoch a bheith i chuile charr, chomh luath in Éirinn agus is féidir.

Ba chóir do chuile Bhallstát reachtaíocht sábháilteacht bóthair a chur i bhfeidhm go dian dúthrachtach.

Iarraim ar thiománaithe iad fhéin a iompar ar bhonn cúramach, freagrach agus iad ar an stiúir. Tá dualgas orainn uilig an bóthar a dhéanamh sábháilte dóibh siúd a bhaineann úsáid as.

  Margrete Auken, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DA) Mr President, congratulations on your election. We have a huge problem here in Europe, and I believe indeed, am convinced - that it is one we shall not manage to solve unless we become much more effective. I should like to thank Mrs Hedkvist Petersen. I believe that she and I are agreed that what is at present in place is not good enough if we are to make progress. Speed limits are not being properly addressed. Nor are drink-driving and the business of carrying out checks being tackled properly and sensibly. The situation needs, then, to improve so that we take these matters extremely seriously. Allow me also to refer to something I have found quite surprising. I have worked on road safety for 15 to 20 years, and one thing I have learned is that serious and constructive work on the subject depends on having good statistics. The statistics we have here in the EU are hopeless, yet when we in the committee proposed – and we still have amendments – that accident statistics should, of course, relate to the number of people –that is to say, inhabitants – involved, we were actually voted down. It is as if the more cars a country has, the safer it is, because the statistics at present relate to the number of cars. In that way, Cyprus becomes one of our safest countries because it has such an awfully large number of cars. By buying many more cars, we obtain a higher level of safety. If we do not put our statistics in order so that the number of accidents is measured in relation to people and inhabitants, we might as well forget all about doing any serious, unified work in the interests of road safety in Europe. The whole thing just becomes nonsensical.

Allow me, finally, also to thank Mrs Hedkvist Petersen for her constructive cooperation. I very much hope that, in the future too, you will have the opportunity to make use of your splendid abilities, including within the field of road safety.

  Erik Meijer, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (NL) Mr President, certain elements of traffic safety are better regulated on a small scale, and by that I mean not only speed ramps or keeping cars away from residential areas and support for public transport. The needs with regard to car use in densely-populated areas with many pedestrians and cyclists are different from those in sparsely populated areas with long quiet roads. Visibility of vehicles is different in areas where the position of the sun is lower than those where it is high. This leads, for example, to a possible requirement for cars to have their headlights switched on during the day being right in one area whereas it could be wrong in others.

In other areas, uniform ruling at European level is preferable, such as uniform traffic signs, mirrors for blind spots, crash barriers that do not present extra risks to motorcyclists or the protection of drivers against fatigue as a result of long consecutive driving times.

I regret that the proposals on the use of mobile phones behind the wheel, traffic safety training and the risk of snow on car roofs have been withdrawn by the rapporteur. For the rest, this is a sound and comprehensive report, and my group supports it.

  Kathy Sinnott, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – Mr President, I would say to the Commissioner that many of us have personal experience of tragedy on the roads. Road safety is a constant concern to all of us and to the people we represent.

I am sure we will vote for greater safety measures and that is a good thing. However, what worries me is that when our safety provisions become law, we will have a false sense of security that our roads are safer. That is not always the case. In the interests of safety, we have legislated that truck drivers must take short breaks every four hours and a long break every nine hours. However, in Ireland there are very few places for trucks to park so that their drivers can rest. Instead, drivers are forced to pull over on the hard shoulder, which is a very dangerous practice for the driver and for everyone using the road.

The problem is that in the cause of safety, we have placed an obligation on truck drivers which in Ireland they cannot comply with safely. This has happened because we did not place a corresponding obligation on governments to supply roadside rest areas, even on EU-funded roads. A new motorway that opened in my own constituency three months ago does not have a single rest area. Today we are considering provisions to make roundabouts, secondary roads, and roadwork zones safer. All this is a good thing, but let us learn from the experience of the Irish truck drivers and require the national governments to make the necessary adjustments to roads in order to implement these safety measures. Otherwise, despite all our efforts, we will continue to be plagued by carnage on our roads.

  Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (PPE-DE). – (EL) Thank you, Mr President-in-Office. I congratulate you on your appointment and look forward to our working together within the framework of the new Presidency. My congratulations also to our rapporteur, Mrs Petersen, on her work and my best wishes to her for the future now that she is leaving our Parliament.

Ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, the question of road safety which we are debating this evening is extremely important; first of all because it concerns the very lives of European citizens. However, it is also an excellent opportunity to demonstrate the efficacy which the European Union can have in citizens' daily lives and the added value which it can give to Member States' endeavours and policies.

The mid-term review of the action programme marks the progress made in combating accidents; however, we have every reason to point out that we need to do more and take quicker steps within the framework of a more general strategy. We must not forget that efforts to strengthen the single market, to strengthen our tourism, to strengthen the mobility of European citizens and to strengthen our competitiveness increase the number of road traffic accidents and increase the potential for accidents.

The first issue I wish to highlight this evening is that we need to coordinate the tools and facilities at our disposal by applying legislation on traffic signals, driving standards, road construction and maintenance standards, safety belts and so forth.

The second issue I wish to highlight is the need for uniform safety throughout the European Union. Apart from coordinating and exchanging best practices, we need to promote a standard driving licence and prevention and response systems such as eCall.

  Zita Gurmai (PSE). – (HU) Thank you very much, Mr President, and congratulations on your new post. Road safety is literally a matter of life and death, while at the same time a difficult and complex matter, since people – each of us – take great risks. In my country, more than half of one per cent of all citizens dies as a result of road accidents. To achieve the planned reduction in the number of road accidents by 2010, various well-thought-out measures are necessary. The report by my fellow Member Mrs Hedkvist Petersen reviews the steps to be taken, starting with enforcing existing regulations, through insisting on better driving techniques, for instance, to introducing technical innovations and improving the infrastructure. Better safeguards are needed for the most vulnerable users of public roads: pedestrians and cyclists. We should not forget people with disabilities, whose safety also calls for special solutions. This is all the timelier now, given that 2007 is the Year of Equal Opportunities for All.

The EU and its Member States bear joint responsibility for road safety. In order to strengthen the social background, we invite civic society organisations to demonstrate their commitment to improved traffic safety by signing the Road Safety Charter within the next three years.

The EU should play a coordinating role primarily in the campaigns, in launching research programmes and in sharing experiences. If we succeed in reaching our goals, we can, in a smaller country like Hungary with its ten million inhabitants, save 500 lives, about the number of seats in this hall.

Dear Ewa, we shall miss you. I trust that you will find what you are looking forward to. For our part, we will try to follow the lessons we have learned from you in this Parliament.

Let us try to travel in healthy, decent and good conditions!

  Hannu Takkula (ALDE). – (FI) Mr President, first I wish to thank the rapporteur Mrs Hedkvist Petersen for her excellent work. I have also got to know you a little in association with the work of the committee, and you have always been very diligent and committed to your work on the committee, and so these issues of road safety have been of particular concern to you. Thank you for mentioning them, for the report, and for the work that you have done.

It is true that we have a lot of laws in the European Union. What is crucial, though, is how they are complied with. The greatest threat to road safety is still to be found between the wheel and the seat. We need a more enlightened attitude to traffic and education in road safety, and I do think it will be a good thing if we can have harmonised criteria throughout Europe relating to road safety education and driving licences, as there is free mobility. Obviously there also needs to be investment in the condition of vehicles and roads, but education in road safety culture is the key to everything.

As for alcohol limits, I wish to say once again that there is only one option here: zero tolerance. Alcohol and driving always make an incompatible couple, and for that reason there should be zero tolerance to alcohol throughout Europe.

  Janusz Wojciechowski (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, the hazards of road traffic are the main danger to which the average citizen is exposed in the contemporary world, and that is why it is so important to discuss the matter today.

I would like to raise an issue that is not mentioned in the report. It involves an element of road transport that does not at first sight seem to have a direct bearing on its safety, but which features prominently in accident statistics. I have in mind roadside trees. In the old days, these trees served to protect horse-drawn carriages from the wind and snow. We are now in the era of fast cars, however, and the trees pose a lethal threat. Over one thousand people die each year in my country, Poland, as a result of driving into trees. Twice as many die as a result of head on collisions, when trees block potential escape routes from dangerous situations on the roads.

I am very environmentally minded and I love to see trees in parks, forests and many other places. I do believe, though, that roadside trees should be removed because they pose such a great danger. A provision of this nature should be included amongst the actions intended to improve road safety. Trees could be replaced with non-hazardous hedges. There are many places where such measures would help improve safety on the roads.

  Renate Sommer (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, going out on the roads is certainly not without its dangers – everyone knows that – but we obviously cannot avoid transporting people and goods by road. It is, after all, the most flexible form of transport, and we are dependent on a functional road system. Roads are the arteries of our economy.

The EU has set itself the goal of making road transport safer, and, indeed, it is quite unacceptable that so many thousands of people die on our roads and motorways every year. We are still, though, recording more than 40 000 deaths on the roads. So, what can we do about it?

One important and simple way of further reducing the number of accidents would be to introduce a complete ban on drinking and driving for young and new drivers, and for professional drivers in passenger transport and, for example, the carriage of dangerous goods. I would therefore call for a regulation moving towards zero blood alcohol content for these drivers, who present an increased risk. New drivers lack experience, and are therefore particularly prone to accidents if they drink alcohol. In the case of the transport of passengers or dangerous goods, drivers have a particularly high responsibility. It is therefore quite right that they should avoid alcohol completely when driving. There can be no tolerance here.

Another measure that could help bring about a significant and lasting reduction in the number of serious accidents is adequate traffic controls. It is up to the Member States to properly monitor compliance with existing laws, for example through driving licence, safety and alcohol checks, because not everything has to be regulated by new and additional European laws. This is also true, incidentally, of an EU-wide speed limit. I think that this is something for the Member States to decide individually, based on the quality of their roads and motorways. Fast driving – by which I do not mean reckless driving – does not, in itself, increase the risk of an accident. Tiredness is, perhaps, a much greater risk factor, but how can we monitor that, at any rate in individual car transport?

One thing we can control, though, is the use of mobile telephones while driving. Drivers are distracted by the telephone at their ear. A requirement to use hands-free kits for mobiles while driving would therefore make a major contribution to road safety. I do not understand those people here who want to prevent this: it was proven to be a problem a long time ago.

A general ban on overtaking for vehicles over 12 tonnes would certainly be desirable from my personal point of view as a car driver – and I do a lot of driving – but the question is whether it is realistic. Perhaps we should, instead, link it to a specific speed. I think it is absolutely vital to have regular technical safety inspections for all motor vehicles, standardised across Europe.

Finally, I would just like to make one more comment: incentives, usually tax incentives, for renewing the vehicle fleet would be an excellent instrument for solving the safety problem, and it is also important with regard to environmental protection. For example, the abolition of registration taxes in some Member States would make an important contribution to that. As we know, though, that is a whole other topic.

I am most grateful to the rapporteur for her excellent work and to you, ladies and gentlemen, for your attention at this late hour.

  Emanuel Jardim Fernandes (PSE). – (PT) Mr President, I should like to begin by congratulating you, and by expressing my satisfaction at seeing you in this post, given your record in political life. I should like to commend Mrs Petersen on the high quality of her report and for all that she has done in Parliament and in Europe for road safety.

I support this report and shall be voting in favour of it, because I feel that it is only through stringent measures taken by the Member States and by the EU that we will be able to tackle, in a coordinated fashion, the problem of our dangerous roads, which cause some 40 000 deaths per year and which directly cost the economy as much as 2% of GDP per year, as you pointed out.

Among other measures, I warmly welcome the proposals to enhance safety, for example by implementing European-level harmonised driving rules in the future, developing and strengthening infrastructure and the management thereof, enhancing vehicle safety, introducing the e-call automatic emergency system, introducing speed restriction systems and bringing in alcohol interlocks. I also believe it is unfeasible, not least from a scientific perspective, to bring in a zero alcohol limit.

I also lend my backing to the similarly important proposals aimed at developing legislation to make seatbelt use compulsory at all times and for practically all vehicle types. In any event, in these and other areas, the Commission has further responsibilities as the institution that initiates the legislative process - responsibilities that I hope, and am convinced, it will honour.

IN THE CHAIR: MRS ROTHE
Vice-President

  Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE). – (FR) Madam President, I would like to congratulate you on your election. I too would like to say a few words about this report on road transport. Road transport – and I very much regret this, like many other people here do – continues to grow, and this means that the Union must make road safety a political priority – a point on which we all agree.

This report points to the progress recorded and proposes new measures that supplement the provisions voted for very recently on the European driving licence and that are satisfactory as a whole. I shall not list them, but they represent much progress. I would simply like to return to the issue of daytime running lights, to which I am entirely opposed. In fact, no reliable study has shown that this measure would be effective. It is true that the number of deaths has dropped since this measure was introduced in my country, and that is a good thing, but if we look more closely, we see that the number of deaths by category of user classified as vulnerable has increased, according to the figures that I have found, by more than 8% for pedestrians, by more than 0.6% for cyclists and by more than 3.8% for motorcyclists, and hence particularly for the latter. Without wishing to insist any more, I would like to draw the honourable Members’ attention to this aspect and ask that we look further into it.

I too shall end by thanking the rapporteur and by wishing her the best of luck in her new life.

  Ryszard Czarnecki (UEN). – (PL) Madam President, forty thousand persons die on the roads each year. That is the scale of the problem. The direct and indirect costs of accidents total EUR 180 billion, which amounts to 2% of the European Union’s GDP. In view of this situation, it really is essential to take stronger action at Union level. Stiffer penalties must be imposed for typical traffic offences and crimes such as speeding and drink driving.

New situations also need to be dealt with, however. In many countries, including my own, an increasing number of drivers are taking the wheel under the influence of drugs. This is why the Druid project was set up. It aims to halve the number of fatal road accidents by 2010, which is an ambitious target. The latest two European Commission opinions on the directives on managing road infrastructure and safety will be a great help. They may reduce fatalities on the roads by as much as 16%. I support the introduction of the so-called zero blood alcohol level for new and professional drivers.

  Luis de Grandes Pascual (PPE-DE). – (ES) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner for Transport, I would like to congratulate the President on her election and wish her the best of luck in her new role.

Ladies and gentlemen, road safety is one of those issues that is always topical. At one time or another, all of the Member States have to deal with accidents and victims, and the conclusion is usually the same: all of us can always do more to reduce the number of victims.

I believe that there are three fundamental elements to improving road safety: improving the safety of infrastructures, the progressive harmonisation of standards and education for road-users. Improving the safety of the trans-European road network is fundamental. Unfortunately, however, once again, the Union’s new financial framework is not exactly hopeful and it does not contain sufficient resources to improve the quality of Community roads.

Furthermore, the European Commission has produced a proposal for a Directive to improve the safety of infrastructures. The Directive deals with one issue that I believe to be of particular interest, although it does not deal with it in a very extensive manner: the need for protection barriers on roads also to provide safety for motorcyclists. Many harmonisation measures will also have positive effects for road safety; examples include the establishment of minimum active and passive safety requirements for vehicles, obligatory reflective strips on lorries, uniform technical standards for road signs and the establishment of rest areas for drivers.

Furthermore, I believe that schools should provide a minimum level of road safety education for our young people, both as pedestrians and as potential drivers. Education and training are essential in order to achieve consistent results in the long term.

I therefore hope that plenary will reject the Socialist Group's last minute proposal to remove what the Commission on Transport approved in this regard. I was delighted to hear what the Liberal Group has said and I hope that the Commission will reject that proposal and approve these suggestions.

Thank you for your work, Mrs Hedkvist Petersen. Goodbye and the very best of luck.

  Inés Ayala Sender (PSE). – (ES) Madam President, I would like to offer you my particular congratulations. I am delighted to see you in this new post. I am sure you will do a wonderful job.

I would also like to thank our colleague Ewa for the huge efforts she has made over all these years to improve road safety in Europe. I saw her arrive from her region of Luleå and we have learnt the best things together, and I hope – I am convinced – that in her professional future she will be able to apply all of the tenacity and conviction that she has shown here in the European Parliament. I wish you all the best, Ewa.

The review that we have on the table today demonstrates that we will not achieve the objective of reducing by 50% the number of deaths by 2010, since that is only three years away and we are still moving rather slowly. The worst thing is that the greatest proportion of victims are children and young people, and pedestrians over 65 years old.

I must once again express my frustration at, as a result of legislation, not being able to achieve a broad majority on speed restriction despite the overwhelming evidence indicating that speed is the main cause of death, and that even the World Health Organisation has indicated that it should be our priority. My delegation will therefore vote in favour of Amendment 1 by the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance.

On the other hand, I am absolutely delighted that the rapporteur and my group are in favour of restricting the alcohol level to 0.5 mg in general and to 0.2 mg for young people and professional drivers.

Of the other devices and proposals ― of which there are a huge number, though the majority are unfortunately voluntary ― I would like to stress some which, though they may appear less important, are very effective. For example, increasing the use of seat belt reminders, not just for front seats but also for rear seats, and for all cars, both the higher and the lower ranges; also installing ergonomic crash barriers with a view to preventing the high death rates amongst motorcyclists and removing level crossings.

Finally, though this may not sound like a very significant issue, I would like the automobile sector to consider an inexpensive device — though a highly efficient one in terms of influencing the driver — which would involve indicating the speed limit – on which we would have to agree, 130, 140, the maximum – on the speedometer, in the same red colour that is currently used on the tachometer, which could act as a psychological warning, something that has shown itself to be highly efficient in other cases.

We shall of course continue to cooperate with the Commission with regard to the new proposals on infrastructures and the enforcement of offences.

  Leopold Józef Rutowicz (UEN). – (PL) Madam President, the European Road Safety Action Programme Mid-Term Review is a significant document. Every year, hundreds of thousands of people all over the world lose their lives as a result of road accidents. Better preventive measures must be devised to deal with this tragedy.

In my view, the following actions are very important: harmonising and implementing road traffic legislation across the European Union, increasing penalties for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs (the latter being a new phenomenon), developing good educational programmes for young people, and using all available means of improving safety. I have in mind improving the quality of roads and roadsurfaces and developing plans for upgrading roads and eliminating dangerous sections. I also think that stricter technical requirements for road building should be introduced. For example, all trans-European routes should have at least six lanes.

I would like to thank Mrs Petersen, the rapporteur, for an excellent report.

  Justas Vincas Paleckis (PSE). – (DE) Madam President, I would like, once again, to congratulate you most wholeheartedly!

(LT) The author of the report has given every EU citizen some important suggestions. Now is the time to be concerned, and yet to ensure, that by the year 2010 there is a 50% reduction in the visits of the spectre of death to our roads. When one looks at a statistical map of road deaths in European Union countries, the predominance of the colour of blood in the eastern half of the Union catches one’s eye. In almost all the new EU countries the situation is significantly worse than in the old countries, and on Lithuania’s roads there are proportionally up to five times as many people killed as in Holland. The EU has an obligation to share accumulated experience with new countries, to help eradicate the aggressive driving style, to inculcate on the roads the tolerance about which so much has been spoken in this Chamber today. It is important to improve road infrastructure and vehicle safety, and to make traffic requirements and fines more severe and more uniform. The drunk and irresponsible at the steering wheel must be equally restrained in all EU countries.

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE). – (PT) Mr President, may I also congratulate you on your election. What strikes me most when we debate the issue of road safety is the gulf between countries with low accident rates and few victims and those in which, despite significant improvements in recent years, the figures, tragically, remain poor.

I understand and share the position held by Mrs Petersen who, as well as having prepared an excellent report, has drawn up a most pertinent list of specific issues that must be taken into account including, the compulsory fitting of hands-free mobile telephone systems, the problem of road traffic signs, the need for cross-border cooperation in the effective implementation of penalties, the debate on the use of daytime running lights, the zero alcohol limit for young drivers, the need to be realistic when it comes to setting speed limits, the use of central reservations and the need to protect motorcyclists from deadly central barriers. I could go on, as the list is a long one.

That being said, I would emphasise that what strikes me most is the differences between countries and, over and above the rules applied, I feel that there are two key factors: on the one hand obviously the quality of vehicles and the state of road infrastructure and, on the other, drivers themselves. There are educational, and even cultural, dimensions reflected to a large extent in the figures that have come to light. I believe it is these aspects that we should mainly be looking at. Of course, what counts is not only the technology and the rules but also, and most importantly, the person driving and his or her attitude at the wheel. If a road is dangerous, a particularly careful driver can avoid an accident, whereas any form of dangerous driving could cause a tragedy regardless of how safe the road is. I am convinced that the authorities and the citizens of some countries have grasped this and that in other countries the message still has not got through at all, and must be reinforced.

Otherwise, what we have here is an important and highly relevant set of measures with which I am broadly in agreement. Perhaps it is not essential to impose the same rule on the right of way at roundabouts throughout the EU, given that there are some countries where people drive on the left; ice and snow on the roofs of vehicles is not a problem across all Member States (at least in mine it is not), but overall I recognise that most of the measures put forward are useful. I wish to finish by emphasising the point that drivers have it within their power successfully to improve road safety if they are educated and made aware of their responsibility; otherwise, they will go on causing accidents and producing victims.

  Proinsias De Rossa (PSE). – Thank you, Madam President, and congratulations on your election.

Police cooperation on cross-border enforcement of traffic offences, accounting for 25 % of cases in some Member States, either is not implemented properly or has to be carried out through complex bilateral agreements. In border areas in Ireland, for example, motorists who are caught speeding on one side of the border go unpunished if their vehicles are registered on the other side. Yet neither Ireland nor the UK applies the 1998 European Convention on driving disqualifications, despite being enacted in domestic legislation in both jurisdictions.

The Commission should, I believe, come forward urgently with proposals for a Europe-wide enforcement of road traffic penalties, mutual recognition of penalty points, driver disqualifications and training and rehabilitation. I would also like to see a common European blood alcohol limit. My own view is that it should be no more than 50 mg.

I want to refer in passing to a comment made by one of my colleagues here about trees. I would strongly oppose any proposal that trees should be cut down in order to facilitate speeding, drugged and careless drivers. I also support Mrs Sinnott in her view in relation to lay-bys for truck drivers, which should also be available for car drivers. I had the recent experience of a two-hour journey on the road from Wexford to Dublin in Ireland, a road recently upgraded using substantial amounts of EU funds, and there was not a single lay-by in that two-hour journey on either side of the road. I think that is quite appalling.

  Jim Higgins (PPE-DE). – A Uachtaráin, ar an gcéad dul síos fáiltím roimh an tuarascáil seo ón gCoiste um Iompar agus um Thurasóireacht agus fáiltím chomh maith na moltaí go dtí an Coimisiún. Labhrann na staitisticí ar a son féin. Maraítear 40 000 duine chuile bliain ar fud an Aontais Eorpaigh. Ó théarmaí airgeadais is ionann seo agus 2% de GDP nó EUR 180 000 billiún. Is iad timpistí bóthar an chúis is mó le bás pháistí agus le bás dhaoine óga. Más féidir le tíortha áirithe an caighdeán sábháilteachta bóthair a fheabhasú, caithfear tú fiafraí conas atá tíortha eile ag titim chun deiridh. Is cúis bhróin dom é nach bhfuil mo thír dhúchais, Éire, ag déanamh níos fearr ná mar atá sí i láthair na huaire. Tá an Chomhairle Eorpach um Shábháilteacht Iompair ag foilsiú tuarascáil chuile cheathrú agus is maith an rud é seo mar coinníonn sé an fhadhb faoi shúil ghéar. Aontaím leis na moltaí ón Rappórtéir agus is iontach an tuarascáil í agus mo chomhghairdeas léi agus an moladh go mór mhór go mbeidh saghas leathchúplaíocht idir na tíortha atá ag déanamh go maith agus iad siúd atá lag a eagrú leis an aidhm go spreagfaidh sé seo na tíortha laga níos mó a dhéanamh. Tá an tuarascáil an-cuimsitheach agus aontaím go hiomlán leis na moltaí atá inti. Is minic a fhaigheann daoine bás i bhfeihiclí ós rud é nach raibh aon tseirbhísí tarthála in ann a fháil amach cá raibh an timpiste. Creidim go mba cheart go mbeadh an córas E-Glaoch éigeantach i ngach feihicle nua. Ceapaim chomh maith go sábhálfaidh sé seo alán beathaí. I ndeireadh na dála is ag na rialtaisí na mBallstát éagsúla atá an dualgas sábháilteachta. Mar a deirtear sa tuarascáil, caithfear ceannaireacht pholaitiúil a bheith ann. Fáiltím go bhfuil Uachtaránacht na Gearmáine ag cur béime ar shábháilteacht bóthair ina clár don Uachtaránacht. Tárlaíonn timpistí bóthar ach i bhformhór na gcásanna, ní timpistí a bhíonn iontu ar chor ar bith. Tárlaíonn siad mar gheall ar dhrochthiomáint, ar luas agus ar alcól. An t-oideachas agus feidhmiú atá tábhachtach.

  Jacques Barrot, Vice-President of the Commission. (FR) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, this very rich debate deserves many replies. I shall try to stick to the fundamental points. I would like to thank Mrs Hedkvist Petersen once again. I would also remind her that exchanges of experiences will from now on be normal practice and that manufacturers have finally understood that safety could become a sales factor: I am talking about the Euro NCAP programme. The commitment of manufacturers in the European Road Safety Charter has specifically focused on seat belt reminders and electronic stability control for heavy goods vehicles.

I shall now reply briefly to the group speakers. Mr Koch and Mr Titley emphasised respect for rules, control and penalties. They are absolutely right: those are the key priorities. Mr Titley and a number of other Members mentioned daytime running lights. When we consulted the Member States, it was clear that no decision had been taken. It is true that daytime running lights are in force according to different procedures. Those who are making them obligatory appear to be relatively satisfied, but we have not taken any decision in that field. We will probably have to wait for dedicated daytime running lights.

Mr Degutis, several Member States that joined in 2004 are now making progress, and their efforts are bearing fruit, as you quite rightly pointed out. Mr Ó Neachtain, we are working on cross-border enforcement. I very much hope that, by the end of the year, we will have drawn up a system enabling us to crack down on offences committed in another Member State. Mr Meijer mentioned small-scale solutions. In fact, competence is shared between Europe, the States and the regions. Mrs Sinnott talked about the safety of infrastructures. That was the subject of the Commission’s last proposal.

I cannot reply to all of the speakers. I believe that they have all expressed support for our integrated approach, which is based upon three factors: the behaviour of drivers, the safety of vehicles and the quality of infrastructures. The speeches have confirmed that our two institutions take a similar view.

On ending this debate, I would like to thank everybody who has spoken and point out how much I am counting on Parliament to support the legislative proposals being discussed: the implementation of mirrors eliminating the blind spot for existing heavy goods vehicles, the management of infrastructures and, shortly, the cross-border prosecution of offences. I would like to thank Parliament for its willingness to pioneer such activities. Sometimes the Member States are more reticent. I have the impression that Parliament is entirely convinced that we must act with determination if we want to make progress on this important matter of road safety.

  President. The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow.

Written statement (Rule 142)

  Francesco Musotto (PPE-DE). – (IT) Traffic on Europe’s roads has tripled over the last 30 years and, even though vehicles are four times safer than in 1970, road traffic accidents still cause over 40 000 deaths a year, the direct and indirect cost of which is calculated to be EUR 180 billion, or 2% of European Union GDP.

The ambitious target set by the EU of halving the number of road traffic accident victims by 2010 cannot be achieved without taking into account the essential character of education. The report therefore urges the Member States to further stress and generalise their information policies and road safety awareness campaigns for all road users of all ages. Parliament also urges the Member States to intensify their efforts to encourage users to wear seatbelts in all vehicles, including buses, and proposes promoting information campaigns against tiredness at the wheel, installing motorcyclist-friendly crash barriers, and setting common minimum standards for the examination and certification of driving instructors. In addition, the report proposes that health and safety at work regulations should also apply to vehicles used as a mobile place of work.

13. Amendment of the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement (debate)

  President. The next item is the recommendation by Mr Ribeiro e Castro on behalf of the Committee on Development on the proposal for a Council decision concerning the conclusion of the Agreement amending the Partnership Agreement between the members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States, of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part, signed in Cotonou on 23 June 2000 (6987/2006 – C6-0124/2006 – 2005/0071(AVC)).

  José Ribeiro e Castro (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – (PT) Madam President, firstly, I wish to congratulate you on your election. Ladies and gentlemen, almost 800 million people are now covered by the Cotonou Agreement, which, following on from the Lomé establishing agreement, has guided relations between the EU and African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries since 2000. I sincerely hope that these relations will be increasingly close and mutually beneficial. The assent contained in my report, which I call on the Chamber to support, concerns the first five-yearly revision of the agreement, pursuant to Article 95 thereof.

Despite the fact that the amendments put forward are deliberately limited – after all, the stability of agreements of this type and size should be maintained – they are generally to be welcomed. They are aimed at improving the effectiveness of compliance with the Lomé/Cotonou acquis, which is based primarily on equality between the parties and on respect for human rights, democracy, the rule of law and good governance.

After the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War, we were able to include references to human rights and subsequently, in 2000, to provide for a stronger political dimension to our relations and to give priority to fighting poverty and improving our economic and financial partnership. The 2005 revision, on the other hand, strengthened the aspect of political dialogue, which became more systematic, structured and formalised, with a view to helping prevent and resolve crises.

Other aspects that should be brought into the body of the agreement include combating terrorism, given its pressing, topical nature, and reference to the Millennium Goals, which bind the EU-ACP joint commitment to reducing poverty and improving levels of education and health, without which there cannot be genuine development. Other issues that form part of this revision are decentralised local authorities, prevention of mercenary activities, promotion of traditional knowledge, prevention of HIV-AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis, and encouragement of student and youth exchanges, all of which demonstrates the signatories’ greater awareness of the specific problems and aspirations of the people of ACP countries.

I must also highlight, and welcome, the fact that, for the first time, express reference is made to national parliaments as aid recipients. The development of parliamentary capacity is key to ensuring good governance and to ensuring that there is full public debate on the development policy choices and priorities of each of the recipient countries.

Many of the countries to which the Union sends substantial aid as part of the Cotonou framework integrate these funds into their budgets. Nevertheless, there have been many complaints that the funds sent have not always made an effective contribution, in terms of what is necessary and desirable, to promoting and firmly establishing these values. There have also been frequent criticisms that the countries concerned often distribute European funds in a way that is discriminatory and arbitrary and that public administration is not always objective and impartial. This type of situation flies in the face of the core principles that underpin the award of EU funds. The Community institutions must therefore bring in tighter conditions as regards involving all of the political forces and the civil society of the recipient countries in discussing and defining the priorities for using the aid awarded.

As I proposed at the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly, which adopted this suggestion in November 2005 at the Edinburgh summit, this process of inculcating a sense of responsibility and of raising awareness at national level could take the form of an annual parliamentary debate in each national parliament of the recipient countries specifically focusing on external aid. This should take place ideally some time before each country’s annual debate on the national budget and would have the benefit of strengthening democratic institutions and of encouraging the people to exercise their rights as citizens.

Thus, as part of the agreement and the main body set up by the agreement, a spirit conducive to the crucial involvement of parliaments in programming and monitoring cooperation and in assessing the impact of such cooperation in the countries concerned would be created. It is our duty to persevere with, promote and support this effort. Notwithstanding the amendments, the most important of which I have highlighted, the Cape Verde Foreign Minster, speaking on behalf of the ACP countries, felt that the simplification of the administrative procedures applicable to access to the European Development Fund could have gone much further. I share this concern and feel it is right to echo it here and ask the Council and the Commission to take it into account in future revisions.

To conclude, I invite the Members of this House to give their assent and urge Parliament, the Council and the Commission to do all they can to maintain and, where possible, to increase targeted, responsible aid to the ACP countries in the future.

  Jacques Barrot, Vice-President of the Commission. (FR) Madam President, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Ribeiro e Castro and the Committee on Development for their positive assessment of the amendment of the Cotonou agreement, which is the cornerstone of the partnership between the ACP countries and the European Union.

This amendment will enable us to enhance our partnership and to extend it to security issues such as the fight against terrorism, the prevention of mercenary activities and the fight against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Thanks to that agreement, there will be a more systematic, more institutional, dialogue on issues involving human rights, democracy and the rule of law. That dialogue will take place before the launch of the consultation procedure, known as the Rule 96 procedure, except in cases of particular urgency. I would like to stress the increased role of national parliaments and of the joint parliamentary assembly within this context.

Furthermore, the revised agreement maintains a volume of aid identical to that provided for in the ninth European Development Fund with the addition of inflation, the impact of European Union GDP growth and the accession of ten new Member States in 2004.

As you know, that decision in principle was translated, at the meeting of the ACP-EU Council of Ministers in Port-Moresby in June 2006, into a commitment of around EUR 22 billion. That is the total sum of the 10th European Development fund for geographical cooperation with the ACP countries for the six-year period from 2008 to 2013. On an annual basis, that represents a nominal increase of 35% compared to the 9th European Development Fund.

Finally, since no money provided for in the 9th European Development Fund can be committed after 31 December 2007, it is essential that the review of the Cotonou Agreement, and of what is known as the internal agreement of the 10th European Development Fund, is ratified by all of the Member States before the end of 2007. Otherwise, the operations of the 10th European Development Fund will be unable to begin on 1 January 2008. I am convinced, and I am speaking on behalf of my colleague Louis Michel, that the assent of the European Parliament will send a strong signal to the Member States and will speed up the internal ratification procedures.

  Marie-Arlette Carlotti, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (FR) Madam President, I would like you to know first of all that I am very happy to see you holding this Presidency. It is rare to see women in that position.

The review of the Cotonou Agreement was a significant challenge. We would like to give it real political content by refocusing it on the Millennium objectives and the eradication of poverty. It should be acknowledged, however, that this revision does not entirely live up to its ambitions. Our group has had the opportunity to express its disagreement on several occasions on two points in particular. The first relates to the integration of two commitments into the fundamental values of the agreement: one relating to terrorism, the other to weapons of mass destruction. We are not opposed to them as such, but we feel that the principles of democracy and respect for human rights must remain the main benchmarks of this agreement. My second point relates to the financial dimension. The tenth EDF, which has been the subject of tough negotiations, could not be integrated into the revised agreement.

Nevertheless, we are not now proposing that the assent be refused, firstly because progress has been made on many points, such as enhancement of political dialogue, the reference to national parliaments as beneficiaries of aid and support for the International Criminal Court from signatories of the agreement. Secondly, because our ACP partners themselves have accepted the revised agreement and are eager to implement its financial chapter, for which I believe we have obtained a more or less acceptable sum.

It is therefore pointless to look back. From now on we have a new battle to wage. We must be certain that every euro genuinely contributes to achieving the development objectives and therefore ensure that the programming of the tenth EDF is better. For example, by setting political objectives that would consist in allocating 20% of the sums to basic education or health in the ACP countries, or by attaching more importance than we currently do to the gender dimension in our development policy. That is the work facing us over the coming weeks, ladies and gentlemen.

  Fiona Hall, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Madam President, the new provision for building parliamentary capacity in ACP countries is particularly welcome. In recent years the European Union has committed increasing resources to election observation missions in ACP countries, but those of us who have acted as observers are acutely aware that a well-conducted election is only the very first step in the process of establishing good governance. Too many newly-elected parliaments have struggled in the absence of a trained civil service, or any opportunity to look at best practice in areas such as budget control, so the specific reference to enhancing parliamentary capacity is very important.

However, the fact that MEPs’ involvement in the Cotonou Agreement is limited to the assent procedure is frustrating, especially as we take on new areas of scrutiny under the Development Cooperation Instrument. It would be helpful for us to have at least some input into the formulation of ACP countries’ strategy papers, which are the key instrument for the development of the Millennium Development Goals, now specifically referred to in the partnership agreement.

  Jean-Claude Martinez, on behalf of the ITS Group. – (FR) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, we are discussing the revision of a complex agreement, the Cotonou Agreement, which contains 100 articles, 6 parts, 5 annexes and 5 protocols. This revised agreement contains the whole catalogue of today’s politics, with human rights, democracy, terrorism, arms, the International Criminal Court. All the ACP countries need now is REACH, since they risk being victims of the regulation on chemical products, with losses of income and 315 000 jobs under threat. Metals, alcohol, oils, ammonia, which are exported from 24 major ACP countries, will be hit by REACH, representing a potential loss of income of EUR 6 billion for those countries.

That takes us to the real truth about Europe's relations with the ACP countries over the last thirty years. From the Yaoundé agreement of 1963 up to the Cotonou Agreement of 2000, revised in 2005, and the Lomé I, II, III and IV agreements from 1975 onwards, it appears that Europe has been audacious, particularly with the Stabex mechanism, which has protected cocoa, tea, coffee and groundnuts. This demonstrates the spirit of the compensatory inequalities of the CNUCED. Europe has also been generous by means of financial aid from the EDF. Mr Barrot pointed out that there is an allocation of around EUR 25 billion for the 79 ACP countries in the 9th EDF.

The reality is different, however. According to the figures, the ACP countries’ share in the Union market has dropped from 6.7% in 1976 to 3% in 1998, and while the GDP of a European increased by an average of 2.3% per year, that of an African from an ACP country, if I dare say it, increased by just 0.6%. In terms of actions too, Europe has forgotten about the ACP countries, just as it has forgotten about the Mediterranean. Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, Europe has been interested in the East, but no longer in the South. And what is worse, with the WTO, Europe has swallowed up the ACP countries in the world market, as we have seen in the case of sugar and bananas. The multinational banana producer Chiquita has been given preference over Cameroon, which produces bananas, and the Ivory Coast. Ultra-liberal Europe has chosen to make a customs gift of around EUR 2 billion to the multinationals Chiquita, Del Monte and others, rather than to the ACP countries, which have to face the same competition conditions as these multinationals.

Cotonou, with its talk of democracy and dialogue, is all very well, but when people have AIDS, human rights are not going to cure them. In other words, rather than being revised, the Cotonou Agreement should be re-worked so as to be audacious in two respects. Firstly, technical audacity through a new customs technology: rather than seeking, within the World Trade Organisation, to reduce, and eventually abolish, customs duties, we must establish a deduction of customs duties in the form of a customs credit deductible on all purchases in the economy of the importing country. This customs credit would be reimbursable, that is to say, it would be higher than the sum of the customs duty paid, for example by the ACP country. With new customs duties that are flexible, reimbursable and negotiable on the world stock market, Europe-ACP relations would be consistent with the necessary free trade and the equally necessary protection of the ACP countries.

Secondly, we should show political audacity in a reworked Cotonou Agreement. With globalisation, the challenge of the 21st century consists in organising the common aspects of planetary co-ownership – that is to say, water, food, basic medicines and vaccines and education – all with a resource other than the classic State contribution of the EDF, a fiscal resource such as VAT based on the turnover of telecommunications services provided by space satellites. In this case, we would no longer provide improved assistance in the name of co-development, but we would gradually move towards global land management. That would restore the spirit of Lomé, and we would finally begin to build the world, which is the challenge of the 21st century.

  Margrietus van den Berg (PSE). – (NL) Madam President, I am delighted that this week in Strasbourg, we are able to vote on the first five-yearly review of the Cotonou Agreement since we concluded it in 2000 for a 20-year period. This agreement covers 78 countries in Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific Ocean and involves no fewer than some 750 million people.

It is a partnership agreement about aid and trade and sets an example others should follow with regard to sustainable relations between the EU and development partners. Europe as a soft power in conflict prevention, good governance, the fight against corruption – these things mean that, together with the EU Member States, we can make the difference as far as the Millennium Objectives are concerned.

From 1 January 2008, nearly EUR 24 billion, half of the total EU’s development budget, will be available for a six-year period. This is why it would be useful for Parliament to monitor spending in respect of the European Development Fund, but unfortunately, Commissioner, this EDF budget is not incorporated in the EU’s own, which is something you in the Commission and we in this House would both have wanted.

In order to add meaning to the European Parliament’s role, you, together with the Council – which is unfortunately absent today – will need to make specific agreements with us, as we did for the Development Cooperation Instrument, the DCI, which I would urge you to take as a model for the national policy documents of the ACP countries, in other words for more or less the whole of our Africa policy.

This means that Parliament will be informed in good time, enabling it to make a meaningful contribution to the national policy documents. This will also translate into a clear and transparent process and an open dialogue between the Council, the Commission and Parliament. Moreover, this will improve Parliament’s input and scope for monitoring the programme, as well as implementing and assessing national policy documents. This will also mean that the people’s representation is not far removed from us, or from them, the parliaments in those countries or society.

Ownership is all very well, but this does not just involve the Finance Minister in a country like this; it also involves the parliament, the government and society. If we go down this road, then, we are faced with the weighty opinions of the parties involved, even before the policy has been signed and voted on. We want to move away from a situation where we all talk about the Millennium Objectives at the same time as Africa is actually moving further away from them, as is evident from the fact that we only appear to be filling in the cracks in the roads, however useful this may be. We want the Millennium Objectives to take centre stage in the ACP countries too.

I would urge you to give this House democratic clout in respect of the EDF which amounts to half of the EU development budget. This will stand both the Commission and the Council in good stead. Pledge your support to democracy in Europe. Which steps do the Commission and Council intend to take in order to achieve this?

  Glenys Kinnock (PSE). – Thank you very much, Madam President, and congratulations. It is very good to see you in the Chair.

As others have said, we are very proud of the fact that the Cotonou Partnership Agreement represents binding contractual agreements with 78 African, Caribbean and Pacific countries. It is, therefore, a very special relationship indeed.

Commissioner, we regret the fact that the great flurry of activity that we saw in 2005 on development and funding for development did not, in fact, include a substantial increase in the contribution of Member States of the European Union to the European Development Fund for the ACP. The reality is that the 10th EDF represents only 0.28 % of Member States’ GDP. That contradicts what you said in terms of how you saw the results of those negotiations. I agree with you on the pace of ratification; that remains of enormous concern. Only four Member States of the European Union and five of the ACP have currently ratified this part of the Agreement, and I think that is of some concern.

I have some questions for you. I know you are not the Commissioner for Development, but perhaps if it is not possible for you answer them, you will pass them on. In Barbados, Commissioner Michel promised to submit the country strategy papers to ACP countries’ parliaments for their scrutiny. I want to know whether progress has been made on this commitment, and whether we can have some description from the Commission on where we stand on that.

Further to that, I would like to ask you whether you are prepared to enter into structural dialogue with the European Parliament on the country strategy papers for ACP countries. My colleague, Mr van den Berg, has said that we want the same status for the ACP as we have for the DCI country strategy papers.

Furthermore, I want to know how the Commission responds to questions that, I think, we in the Parliament have to ask, for instance on budget support to a country like Haiti, which has been recognised by Transparency International as the most corrupt country in the world. How is it that the Commission is now proposing to give budget support to Haiti? The same question applies to Equatorial Guinea. On our committee, we find it very difficult to understand those decisions. With regard to Togo, we see that the Commission is now prepared to normalise relations. We want to know where we stand on the 22 commitments: are they being fulfilled by Togo. At the Vienna JPA, the Commission promised to send details to us on the progress with Togo and we have, as yet, as I understand it from our secretariat, received absolutely no information on that.

Finally, Commissioner, will you undertake to work more closely with the European Parliament on these issues in order to make sure that the Joint Parliamentary Assembly’s views are taken into account? I urge the Commission to answer the serious questions of this kind that we are addressing to you this evening.

  Pierre Schapira (PSE). – (FR) Madam President, please allow me to stress the curious aspect of this parliamentary consultation procedure. Our institution has been invited to give its assent to the conclusion of the revised Cotonou treaty, which was signed back in June 2005. By issuing our opinion today, we can only therefore approve something that has already been concluded. Nevertheless, the decision-making process with the ACP countries would benefit from being enriched by the participation of the European Parliament. Indeed, during the negotiations on the development cooperation instrument (DCI), we demonstrated our very significant added value and our capacity to defend interests other than those of the Commission and the Council.

Having said that, I believe that the revised Cotonou Agreement represents considerable progress, particularly with regard to the role of local sectors in development policy: for the first time, their role has been clarified, and they are explicitly recognised as full partners in the political dialogue. We have just obtained the same recognition for the DCI. The great development challenges are faced at local level. The time has come to decentralise our development policy. Access to water, healthcare and education are social services provided locally by bodies that are close to their citizens.

If European Union funds remain blocked at central government level, there will be no effective aid to benefit populations directly. That is one of the reasons why I welcome the adoption of the revised Cotonou Agreement. We must now remain vigilant in order to ensure that it is implemented.

  Ana Maria Gomes (PSE). – (PT) I too should like to congratulate you, Madam President. I also wish to congratulate Mr Ribeiro e Castro on his report and on the positive developments evidenced by this revision. I wish to highlight the support for the International Criminal Court and reference to the Millennium Development Goals, without which there could not be a development strategy. Furthermore, I should like to highlight the importance of the new cooperation clause on combating the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, an area in which the EU must do more in terms of close collaboration and technical assistance. We must also do more on the proliferation of small arms, which are the biggest killers in our partner countries.

I must also admit to feeling a degree of frustration as regards EU-ACP relations in seeing our counterparts from some ACP countries in the Joint Parliamentary Assembly convey the official positions of their governments uncritically. We must clearly do more to strengthen national parliaments and their capacity to scrutinise the national budgets, and their budgets for cooperation and for fighting corruption.

For its part, the EU must stop overlooking, and start using, the clauses laid down in this agreement aimed at urging signatory governments to put an end to serious violations of human rights and of the most fundamental principles of democracy and good governance. I join those MEPs who called on the Commission to involve Parliament in scrutinising cooperation policy with ACP countries.

  Kader Arif (PSE). – (FR) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, though it has come late, I am delighted that the European Parliament is being consulted on this subject. This evening’s debate gives us an opportunity to express our satisfaction once again with the progress introduced by the revision of the agreement, particularly in terms of the improvements between partners, as a result of their policies on protecting human rights and promoting democracy. This consultation is also an opportunity to recall our concerns at the time when the text was being signed. I am thinking in particular of the article that makes the fight against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction a fundamental aspect of the ACP-EU partnership.

Having said that, I would like to stress, or recall, that the priority objective of the cooperation between the two regions was the fight against poverty and the fight for development. Since 2005, new concerns have arisen. They involve the future of our commercial relations with the ACP countries. How can we state, as in the case of the revised Cotonou Agreement, that the Millennium development objectives must underpin ACP-EU cooperation, without worrying about the consequences of future economic partnership agreements for the well-being of the populations of these countries, without carrying out an impact study prior to the launch of the negotiations? How can we emphasise the importance of supporting regional integration organisations created by the ACP countries, while not respecting existing groupings in the negotiations and also knowing that, in the negotiations as they are currently conducted, we cannot take account of the interests of countries of different sizes and different levels of development?

The revision of the Cotonou Agreement has above all made it possible to highlight the importance of political dialogue amongst partners. It is on this basis that the European Union and the ACP countries must from now on work towards eliminating misunderstandings, make progressive and constructive progress in the negotiations and reach agreements that are fully in favour of the development of the ACP countries.

  Jacques Barrot, Vice-President of the Commission. (FR) Madam President, I would like to say to all of the honourable Members who have spoken that I shall communicate their remarks as accurately as possible to my colleague Louis Michel, who will pursue the dialogue on the whole of this development policy in the way you wish. I shall tell him that Parliament takes great interest in the evolution of this policy, which he manages with great conviction, as you know.

Many of you have stressed the importance of this partnership. I would like to return to the financial envelope. It is true that EUR 23.7 billion of that sum should be allocated as operational credits for the ACP countries. This sum can be compared to the EUR 22.7 billion proposed by the Luxembourg Presidency. This sum will be integrated by means of an increased effort on the part of the European Investment Bank in its support for the ACP countries through own resources. It is still a substantial sum. On an annual basis, it represents an increase of 35% compared to the 9th European Development Fund.

Furthermore, support for the ACP countries must be seen within the wider context of the Community’s external actions and, in general terms, the ACP countries will also benefit from thematic budget lines and funds reserved for the ACP countries that are signatories to the sugar protocol, in the sum of EUR 1.2 billion. These funds, which are payable from the Community’s general budget, will increase the proportion of the Community’s development cooperation earmarked for the ACP countries, as compared with previous financial perspectives.

I believe that I have thereby highlighted the progress that some of you have mentioned, while accepting that this policy will be subject to many further developments, since it is true that it is now part of the European Union's duty and purpose.

  President. The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow.

14. Agenda for next sitting: see Minutes

15. Closure of sitting

(The sitting was suspended at 23.25 p.m.)