Verbatim report of proceedings

Wednesday, 23 May 2007 - Strasbourg

1. Opening of the sitting

IN THE CHAIR: MR VIDAL-QUADRAS
Vice-President

(The sitting was opened at 9.00 a.m.)

2. Documents received: see Minutes

3. Roaming on public mobile networks (debate)

  President. The next item is the report by Paul Rübig, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on roaming on public mobile networks within the Community and amending Directive 2002/21/EC on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (COM(2006)0382 C6-0244/2006 2006/0133(COD)) (A6-0155/2007).

  Viviane Reding, Member of the Commission. Mr President, I wish to begin by expressing my sincere thanks to Parliament, because Parliament was among the first to focus attention on the problem of international roaming charges, which are one of the last remaining barriers to the single market. This political pressure pointed at the failure of the market and this has helped us to come up with a solution.

Now it is up to you, the parliamentarians, to complete the job by supporting this proposal today. The proposal on which you will vote is a product of intense discussions, even at times heated debates, among the institutions and with the stakeholders. The result is a solid, well-balanced proposal that will deliver tangible results for European citizens, putting an end to the long-running saga of excessive roaming charges as from this summer. The citizens are waiting for this action, for this Europe of results, and it is now in your hands not to disappoint them.

The Commission has completed its part of the job. In December 2004 I urged the operators to solve the problems by themselves. In October 2005 the Commission published a website for the purpose of bringing transparency to international roaming tariffs. At the same time I warned once again that should those prices not go down sensibly, the Commission would have to regulate. To my regret, the market did not respond and that is why on 12 July 2006 the Commission brought forward the proposal for the roaming regulation.

You have worked on this proposal, together with the Council of Ministers, under the leadership of the Finnish and German Presidencies. I would like to underline the excellent work of your rapporteurs, Mr Rübig, Mr Muscat, Mr Mavrommatis and Mr Losco. The result of this work is on the table today.

The Commission can very well accept the compromise text because the core elements, which the Commission always believed necessary, have been preserved. Those are: retail regulation, wholesale regulation, clear benefits for all consumers and transparency.

At retail level, each operator will have to offer a Eurotariff with maximum prices of EUR 0.94 for outgoing calls, to be reduced to 0.46 after 12 months and 0.43 after 24 months, and of 0.24 for incoming calls, to be reduced to 0.22 and 0.19 after 24 months. These caps represent a substantial reduction of up to 70% of the standard charges in today’s market.

The question now is: when will the customer benefit from those reductions? The answer is as soon as possible, this summer. To help ensure effective implementation, I have sent a letter to both Parliament and the Council, which sets out in detail how the retail provisions should apply in practice under the supervision of the national regulatory authorities.

First, the Council has to publish the regulation in the Official Journal. This should be done very swiftly after the meeting of the Council of Telecom Ministers on 7 June 2007. Then, the roaming customers’ operators must send an offer of a compliant Eurotariff to the customer within one month. The customer will be entitled to this Eurotariff one month after responding to the offer. This means that a proactive customer can benefit from the Eurotariff at the latest two months after the commencement of the regulation or even less than two months if his operator has taken a positive approach. Saying it clearly, this means August. Any customer that does not respond will be placed automatically on a Eurotariff three months after the commencement of the regulation. This means September.

The Commission will immediately start working with the national regulatory authorities to ensure that customers are treated properly. The regulation will protect the vast majority of ordinary customers who up to now have been heavily overcharged when travelling abroad.

The regulation also will protect the smaller operators by introducing ceilings at wholesale level. These ceilings are high enough to allow all operators, big or small, a reasonable margin. At the same time, they are sufficiently low to allow for competitive conditions for smaller operators, new market entrants and operators from smaller Member States. I hope and I expect that they will use this margin to come forward with innovative offerings at once.

The final plank of the regulation concerns the all-important element of transparency, which up to now has been sadly lacking. The main requirements are a push system, with basic price information, as well as a pull system, allowing consumers to get more detailed information, which will include prices for SMS and data.

I should like to say one word about the high roaming prices for mobile data. In cooperation with the national regulatory authorities, we will need to watch this market very closely. The operators should know this, heed these warning signals very carefully and bring the prices down to normal by themselves in order to avoid further regulation.

Finally, I should like to point out that this regulation will automatically cease to apply after three years, unless Parliament and the Council decide otherwise. I very much hope that this will not be necessary. However, what will be necessary is now the reform of the telecom markets, going from 27 separate markets to one single truly European market, taking advantage of the power of nearly 500 million consumers. This is the next task which is waiting for us.

However, today let us look at what has been achieved in the roaming dossier. It is very rare, if not to say unusual, to bring about an agreement on a legislative action in only 10 months. I am proud of the European institutions, which have shown that they are capable of listening to the consumers and to act swiftly in order to solve very specific problems. I count on a large majority in this House, which represents the European citizens, in order to complete the task now and to prove by such a majority that the Europe of practical results is a reality.

(Applause)

  Paul Rübig (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner Reding, rapporteurs and shadow rapporteurs, ladies and gentlemen. Today, Parliament and the Council can be proud that we took seriously the Commission’s request for us to produce the Regulation on roaming by the end of summer. We all went into the talks assuming that this would go through the normal procedure with a second and third reading, given the extremely conflictual subject matter and the great disparity between the conflicting interests on the European market.

We had developed healthy competition on the national markets; but competition between the various Member States did not really exist. Now, millions of consumers are looking at their mobile phones – mobiles, as we call them – and waiting for the first offer to arrive, an offer that depends on when this Regulation is published in the Official Journal of the European Union. Then we will hopefully be able to make calls on holiday or business trips, safe in the knowledge that the end of the month will not see a bill higher than the cost of the room or flight, but one within reasonable bounds. Roaming has to be like going into a restaurant and being handed a menu with the prices on. In future, when customers cross the border into a European country, they will receive a text message displaying their personalised tariff and a freephone mobile number on which they can call their home provider and ask the cost of a text message, MMS or data transfer. This transparency alone will achieve a great deal, and I am proud that it can be introduced for all services, not only voice telephony.

We have also mentioned the flat rate, of course – an all-inclusive flat rate that can be offered within a certain period, whereby customers know at the end of the month exactly what they will have to pay. This is the challenge, namely in comparison with land lines, broadband, Voice over IP and many other new technologies. This Regulation opens up a considerable market opportunity for UMTS and GSM, including in the future. It has been a pleasure for me, therefore, to hold intensive discussions with Mr Paasilinna on such customer-friendliness issues in the field of roaming. Our first discussion with Mr Muscat is still fresh in my memory, when we asked whether there would be an ‘opt-in’ or an ‘opt-out’ solution. We agreed that there did have to be a solution. That was the crux of the matter – that we realised: there is a real need for action, it has to happen quickly, it has to be efficient, and then we can stage it accordingly.

We worked on the outermost regions very intensively with Mr Mavrommatis. I hail from the Alpine country of Austria – where transmitter costs are different from those in lowland countries. In the next few months, the Commission will be examining in detail the future possibilities in this regard. This Regulation is also of interest to regulators, since for Member States’ regulators, too, it opens up brand new possibilities for active involvement in the field of roaming and for seeking out what is ideal for consumers.

Also new is the approach of better lawmaking. We have managed, at long last, to draw up a Regulation that automatically expires after three years, and we would ask the Commission to ensure that competition is really under way after these three years. I would also ask the Council and its representatives to press for the Regulation to be published in the Official Journal as soon as possible, as millions of European consumers are waiting to finally see a Regulation on this from which they, too, can benefit. I should like to express my particular thanks to this House. Our services did an excellent job: four days after the agreement with Coreper, all translations were present. This was excellent work in this House, and I am proud of the staff who made it possible for us to work so efficiently.

(Applause)

  Joachim Wuermeling, President-in-Office of the Council. (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Rübig, ladies and gentlemen, it is a double pleasure for me to speak here. On the one hand, it is apparent that one of the main dossiers of the German Presidency can potentially be brought to a successful conclusion; and, on the other hand, it is a personal pleasure for me to return to this familiar hemicycle, where I still feel at home.

Agreement between the Council and Parliament was extremely difficult to achieve. There were tough negotiations; but it was a fair fight. We should like to extend the warmest of thanks to the rapporteur for his constructive conduct of the negotiations, and to the chairmen of the committees for acting as mediators while at the same time standing in solidarity with Parliament. We should like to thank our colleagues in the Council, who endorsed this compromise with great difficulty. The compromise reached is necessary in terms of consumer policy, economically justifiable, and welcome from the European angle. It is necessary in terms of consumer policy because, basically, there was no way of escaping the conclusion that we were looking at market failure. There was no market in this field. Consumers had no choice as regards their tariff, and, basically, the fact of their crossing borders within the European Union was being used to charge high prices. That was unacceptable to us. Now consumers are being relieved of a huge burden, a fact I warmly welcome on behalf of the Council.

The compromise is also economically justifiable. The EU unanimously backs the internal market. The market in mobile phones, in particular, is very dynamic, and it works at domestic level, as everyone can see. For this reason, we set store by not introducing a uniform tariff for all roaming contracts in the EU, but instead imposing a ceiling to rule out abuse. The Council considered it very important that the ceilings did not fall below a certain level, to enable a suitably dynamic market to develop beneath these limits. We hope that enterprises and also consumers engage in sensible market operation beneath this Eurotariff, that this results in a greater variety of offers, and also that consumer behaviour orients itself accordingly.

The European Union has shown its capacity for action. The Council Secretariat, too, will make every effort to enable the Regulation to be published in the Official Journal as soon as possible – although a certain amount of time is required for this. A decision has to be taken by the Committee of Permanent Representatives and a formal decision by the Council. We hope we shall succeed in having it published in the Official Journal on 29 June, so that it can take effect accordingly in the summer recess.

I would be pleased if a broad consensus in favour of our compromise could be achieved in plenary today. As President-in-Office of the Council, I promise to do my utmost to ensure that the same happens in the Council, so that we have a Europe of results to show ahead of the important European summit.

  President. Thank you very much, Mr Wuermeling. It is a pleasure for this House to have you here again, albeit in a different role, but still serving the interests of Europe.

  Andrea Losco (ALDE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, today is a great day for the citizens of the European Union: thanks to the compromise reached on the proposal for a regulation on roaming, around 500 million European citizens will be directly affected by the decisions we take. Firstly, this will include tourists, as well as small and medium-sized enterprises, which will at last be able to benefit from the reductions of the new Eurotariffs.

Less than a year ago it was difficult to imagine such a compromise, and I am delighted to support it as draftsman for the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, which was the first to become immediately aware of the importance of speeding up the process.

From the outset we identified mandatory principles to work from, a European tariff to protect consumers and greater transparency for retail prices. As a liberal democrat I would have preferred to achieve the goal of cutting prices for a product or service by means of healthy competition among market operators, rather than via a dirigiste measure regulating prices directly; however, the fact remains that the normal rules of competition have thus far failed to work in this particular sector.

I would like to express my full support for this one-off measure, introduced for a limited period as a response to a one-off situation. I would also like to congratulate Mrs Reding on her excellent work, and all those who have contributed over the last few months towards this significant and tangible result. This represents another milestone on the road to completing the internal market, which will eliminate the unfairly high international roaming charges once and for all, and will also topple one of the final remaining barriers among the peoples of the European Union. The decision taken by Parliament today will speak directly to around 500 million European citizens.

  Joseph Muscat (PSE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection. – (MT) Thank you, Mr President. Today we are sending out a strong and clear message stating that where there is a distortion of market laws and if the consumer is not being treated fairly, then the European Union, and this Parliament in particular, is prepared to act. We have all heard about the cuts in roaming charges, which are going down by more than half. Personally, I believe, as does my group, that the charges could have been reduced further. However, we are prepared to take the good with the bad and to compromise, because if we waste any more time, consumers will be the ones to suffer. This is a significant victory for consumers. We have armed them with the best weapons – information and transparency. Now, upon their arrival in another European country consumers will automatically receive a message informing them of how much they will be charged when using their mobile phones. Moreover, operators are now obliged to provide a helpline free of charge in order to supply their clients with any help or information they require on the subject. In addition, specific help will be provided for the visually impaired. We want to see these regulations cause an increase rather than decrease in competition. We are aware that there are small and independent operators that are concerned that they will find themselves at a disadvantage. This is why we required the Commission to examine, and issue reports on, the situation of these operators. I will now move on to what is considered to be the most crucial point. It is well known that I was among those who were most insistent that these European tariffs ought to apply to all consumers. However, the Council insisted - in my opinion with equal force - that, in order for this tariff to apply, the consumer would have to request it from the operator. I will not delve into another argument on which this proposal favours the consumer more, because I believe that the facts are obvious. However, we accepted this compromise, firstly because, if we had not done so, we would not have had a regulation, and secondly because the Commission issued a statement during the negotiations saying that it was positive that around 80% of European consumers would automatically benefit from this European tariff. In addition, most of the other 20% are already paying a price that is comparable to the European tariff, and these mostly include businesses and persons with specific contracts. This means, therefore, that the most vulnerable consumers will be protected. To conclude, it is worth noting that the letter sent by Commissioner Reding explains that national regulators, together with the Commission, will monitor the process that will determine which consumers are going to benefit automatically from this European tariff. This is an extremely important process and, through it, we are proving that this Parliament is indeed in a position to respond.

(Applause)

  Manolis Mavrommatis (PPE-DE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Culture and Education. – (EL) Commissioner, after a process lasting approximately six months, one of the most important reports concerning the proposal for a regulation on roaming on mobile networks has come before plenary in the European Parliament to be voted on.

I should like to congratulate Mr Paul Rübig on his excellent work and on his special cooperation with the Commission and the Council, which has brought us today’s very positive results, especially for 150 million consumers.

On the same level, I must congratulate Commissioner Reding both on her decision to propose the regulation on roaming and her robust stand in the face of reactions from exogenous players and for going along with the rapporteurs and the members of Parliament’s committees. Congratulations also to the honourable Members involved in consultations with the Council and the Commission.

Allow me to highlight in particular the point relating to mobile telephone companies and the European Parliament. This is not trench warfare between the two sides. It is, however, part of the right of citizens to seek protection from their parliamentary representatives when they see that their interests are becoming the subject of exploitation by the monopoly tendencies of large companies.

As draftsman for the Committee on Culture and Education, I have tried, in harmonious cooperation with my honourable friends in all the political groups, to find a common line which satisfies everyone. The amendments adopted by our committee gave the rapporteur the opportunity to approach the question of roaming from a different angle because, apart from the commercial and financial factor, culture, education and the media are an important part of every day life in our society.

Businesses, journalists, people of the arts and letters travel every day. Large families take holidays throughout the year. They spend money. Mobile telephones are necessary and useful, but they must not become an excuse for exploitation by the companies. Need does not mean weakness.

The regulation on roaming, as amended, is the regulation we are being called on to adopt today in the European Parliament. A vote in favour of the report will be a victory for Parliament for the benefit of consumer protection. It will be a big step which breathes new life into the internal market.

(Applause)

  Angelika Niebler, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, today we have good news for European citizens: the cost of using mobile phones in Europe is going down.

Parliament has been calling for transparency in the tariff jungle for many years. Prices have been exorbitant and also the opposite of transparent. We all know the scenario: you check your mobile bill after your holiday in another European country, to discover that the few phone calls you have made or received have incurred horrendous charges. This is definitively a thing of the past.

In future, everyone will enjoy a reasonable tariff – which I particularly welcome. This really represents a great triumph for our Parliament. The President-in-Office has already mentioned our weeks of tough negotiations with the Council. We can be really proud of the result we shall have achieved – the cost of a roaming call within Europe will be EUR 0.49 per minute at first, EUR 0.46 the next year, and EUR 0.43 the year after that.

I should like to say a few words to enterprise and industry. I believe we all knew that market regulation, and regulation of retail tariffs in particular, is a very sharp instrument. Since the market had not developed in the way we had envisaged over the years, we all agreed that political intervention was needed. However, this is a special case, of course, a one-off situation. It is important to emphasise that Parliament does not now mean to strive for price regulation in other fields, too; instead, this is a precedent that will hopefully not need to be repeated. Even developments over the last few months, since the Regulation has been on the table, have shown the amount of new-found movement on this market. These developments show that we were right, that our political impetus was appropriate.

I should like to close by giving my sincere thanks to our rapporteur, Mr Rübig, who has conducted many months of negotiations on this. I am also obliged to my fellow Members in the negotiating team – it was not easy to assert our position against the Council – and to the Commissioner for her courage in presenting this Regulation. Finally, my sincere thanks to the secretariat of the committee and to the translators, who have managed to present this Regulation in 23 languages in just a few days. This is sensational, and shows that Europe works well and is committed to implementing its objectives.

(Applause)

  Reino Paasilinna, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (FI) Mr President, I wish to thank the Commissioner and everyone for their excellent levels of cooperation. My group supports the compromise which has now been reached and will be voting in favour of it shortly.

This law will have a direct impact on the lives of tens, if not millions, of people, and make their lives easier. We have been speaking here for years about network charges. The telecommunications package was discussed five years ago with Mrs Niebler. A paragraph on this matter was added to it. At the time, of course, she was rapporteur for the framework law. Now, however, prices are tumbling, which is good news for the consumer. We get advertisements for mobile phones, but no information about charges, and something definitely needs to be done about this. It is quite incredible that some operators call it competition when the purchaser does not receive any information on the prices of products and prices are kept at cartel-like levels. As a result, only a few travellers use their phone abroad. That, on the other hand, harms the principle of free movement and makes it hard to achieve the Lisbon objective of becoming a leading knowledge-based economy.

Mobile communications are a way of internationalising everyday life. Furthermore, phones will then be used more, and more business will be generated; so it is of benefit to companies also. It is vital to have an internal market which is viable, and that must also apply to mobile communications. The interests of the consumer have now been safeguarded and fairness has won through. I would like to ask the Commission how and when it intends to put forward a proposal on data communications. Naturally this would have to be considered carefully first.

(Applause)

  Šarūnas Birutis, on behalf on the ALDE Group. – (LT) Mr President, colleagues, today we have to vote on an item of legislation, the positive results of which will very quickly be felt by all European consumers and businesses, and, to state it plainly, by us ourselves.

The approximate annual volume of the European Union's international cross-network communications market is about EUR 8.5 billion. That accounts for almost 6% of the general mobile communication industry's revenue, which amounts to about EUR 150 billion per year.

Cross-network prices affect at least 147 million European Union citizens, of which 110 million are users from the business sector.

At the moment, about 70% of Europeans going abroad turn off their mobile telephones because of the prohibitive cost of using them abroad. The problem is complicated by the fact that there is no transparency in retail prices, because there is no competition in this sector.

Naturally, when we are able to talk more cheaply we will talk more. Therefore, telephone service providers will not really lose income, and at the same time consumers will benefit and Europe's business competitiveness will feel a positive influence.

In a Eurobarometer survey the vast majority of almost 25 000 respondents were in favour of a compulsory reduction in prices of cross-network communication in Europe.

However, I would like to re-emphasise an opinion that I share with many colleagues; namely, that any interference in the market is not something to be welcomed, and this regulation is just a temporary compulsory measure to regulate the market.

I think that three years is the maximum amount of time needed not only to lower prices, but more importantly, that will be the time limit for closed national markets to coalesce into a united European market in this sector. That is the final goal of this regulation.

I congratulate European Parliament rapporteur Paul Rübig, the shadow rapporteurs, the Chairman of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy,Angelika Niebler, Commission Member Viviane Reding, Commission and Council representatives, and all consumers and service providers on finding this excellently coordinated solution.

Discussion of the cross-network communication regulation did not proceed easily. Each statement was explored in depth, and there was discussion about each tariff and the conditions for applying it. Here Parliament showed unexpected rationality and cohesion.

I am counting on a unified positive vote in Parliament today, a positive response from the Council on 7 June, and a prompt proclamation (not, as we were told, on 29 June) in the official journal, with the regulation coming into effect during the forthcoming summer holidays.

  Romano Maria La Russa, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the proposal for a regulation on roaming charges is a subject in which citizens take a keen interest, and therefore requires us to ensure the best possible protection without ignoring the needs of industry. We can however note with satisfaction that we have witnessed all the political groups taking responsibility for this, which will certainly not have been what European users were expecting. This is a regulation that will bring Europe still closer to its citizens.

Following long negotiations, particularly with the Council and the Commission, to enable us to reach an agreement at first reading, the compromise solution formally reached only on Monday evening can please everyone, even if more could clearly be done. It would clearly have been possible to reach an agreement on figures closer to consumers’ expectations, as confirmed, moreover, by the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, if only the Member States had not opted initially for much higher charges more favourable to operators. The compromise is valid, however, setting maximum charges for the retail market of 49 cents for outgoing calls and 24 cents for incoming calls; in other words representing a cut of around 50% compared to the standard charges.

I believe we have found a successful solution in providing for the protective charges or ‘Eurotariff’ to be applied automatically to all users three months after the entry into force of the regulation, leaving users free to choose tariffs that they may think are better for them. In the future this will prevent users travelling abroad on business or on holiday from becoming victims of unfair charges, as is unfortunately the case today.

The compromise will still leave a profit margin for operators, who may nonetheless benefit from increased mobile telephone use in the future. In the interests of greater transparency, I consider the requirement for operators to inform users by providing personalised information on their tariff plans to be an achievement. I am somewhat less convinced by the gradual reduction of tariffs spread over three years, although this is understandable in a spirit of compromise. Perhaps a more diligent market would have cut prices further than this regulation can do over three years. It is equally true, however, that where the market has failed through a lack of transparency about excessive prices and a presumed abuse of power, regulation of both wholesale and retail is not only desirable but absolutely necessary.

  David Hammerstein, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (ES) Commissioner, thank you for your courageous work. Thank you, Mr Rübig, we have reached a good conclusion, we have a compromise and we have set an historic precedent.

We in the European Parliament have acted with unusual unity in order to break a taboo. The taboo of regulating the market at European level in such an important area as telecommunications. Yes, in this process we have given the European citizens a practical example of what the European Union is for.

We support the compromise despite the fact that it falls short for consumers in certain respects. Because the European Parliament has spoken out against the outrageous robbing of users, who pay scandalous tariffs and are not even told what they pay. We have stood up for consumers. We have reached a fairish compromise, but it is not entirely fair for consumers.

There will be lower prices for the majority, but they could have been considerably lower. There will be much more transparency and information. It could just have been a bit better for existing customers, but during the negotiations and during the trialogue we have seen some of the more positive aspects of the European institutions and some of the more negative ones.

We have seen two opposing positions in this debate. On the one hand, Parliament has generally defended the interests of its voters, the consumers, and on the other, the Council – the Member States – have vigorously defended the commercial interests of the big operators, of the national champions, of the ‘telecoms’ and the ‘telefónicas’.

Why have the MEPs, who represent the same majorities as their governments in the Council, in the Member States, defended such entirely different positions?

There is no question that the same transparency — the same complete openness — is needed in the Council as we have here in this House, because there – in the Council — the asphyxiating pressure of the industrial lobbies has had a great influence on this issue and has restricted our ability to reach an even better agreement.

We support this agreement insofar as it is a step forward. It is a step forward that sets the precedent of being able to regulate a market which has not been able to regulate itself in a fair manner. This Parliament is showing the way. We also have to learn from this experience in order to create European institutions that are increasingly transparent, open and accessible to the interests of the majority of the citizens.

  Umberto Guidoni, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, today’s result – that is, the compromise we have reached – represents a recognition of the failure of the market in that ability to increase competition while cutting prices which it is always claimed to have. It seems difficult to argue that the current charges in a naturally cross-border sector such as mobile telephones should be able to maintain those tariff systems that took no account of the European common market.

Consumer protection has therefore been entrusted to politics, and the Commissioner has done well to bring this issue to the fore. It should be pointed out that Parliament has responded with energy and great unity. Within this debate, however, our group’s concern has been to guarantee a fair price for all, that is the choice normally described as ‘opting out’, in contrast to the position of the Council, which has for the most part accepted the arguments put forward by the major telecommunication groups, to apply the charge only to those customers who request it.

The decision to apply the Eurotariff to everyone is a core aspect of the Commission’s proposal and represents a step towards transparency and safeguarding consumer interests. The margins left for the telecommunications companies are still too high, but I believe that the principle of capping tariffs sets a significant precedent and may contribute towards cutting charges, as it has indeed already done. We accepted the compromise because of the urgency of intervening in a situation of oligopoly among companies at the expense of consumers.

The Commission and Parliament have sent out a strong message; it is now crucial that we insist on transparency in its implementation through the national regulatory authorities, and on a review in three years’ time. This is an ideal way of showing citizens that the European institutions can provide practical answers to issues that no State can resolve on its own.

  Nigel Farage, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – Mr President, it is not often I find myself in this position, but this morning I have to acknowledge what the European Union is doing. In fact I have come along to say thank you: thank you on behalf of international business. You know the kind – the companies that employ thousands of people who are travelling around Europe the whole time – the ones that make billions in profits. They are going to be big beneficiaries of this. And I want to say thank you on behalf of the super-rich in Europe – not the people that just go to Benidorm for a fortnight, but those that travel regularly. They too will be beneficiaries.

But above all, I want to thank you personally. I use this piece of kit an enormous amount. Your proposals are going to make me personally better off by EUR 3000 a year. In fact, I wish to declare an interest. I will not be voting on the Rübig report, as I am personally affected by it, and I would recommend that other MEPs abstain from the vote. We should not be voting on issues which will help to line our own pockets.

The truth is that this is just a giant publicity stunt, is it not? You want to be loved. You want the EU to be loved, so you are telling people they are going to be better off. Frankly, it smacks of Communist central planning when bureaucrats and politicians think they know what the right market price is. They are always wrong. This will lead to higher costs for domestic consumers. It will lead to less competition and innovation in the market place. It is yet another giant EU folly.

  Giles Chichester (PPE-DE). – Mr President, moving on from the sour grapes you have just heard, I would like to say this measure represents a win-win situation for the EU because we are actually doing something practical for our consumers. It has been a long time getting here but now we are here I hope very much that we can implement this measure quickly and that the operators will take the hint and change their tariffs quickly. I hope that they will see the benefit of cutting their prices through getting additional business – even from my colleague sitting way over there.

We are addressing a market failure. A specific market failure but a short-term one I hope, and it is significant that we have the sunset clause to show that we expect this situation to be rectified and competition to assert itself in this part of the market. We owe it to innocent tourists and consumers to save them from suffering that nasty shock when they come back from travelling on holiday – or even business – of being charged for receiving a call and having a huge bill. We owe it to them to fix it. We may hope for something like 60% savings on the average charge for a roaming call, and this is of material benefit to our consumers.

I am very glad that my amendment requiring the operators to give information, the ‘icon’ amendment, has been incorporated into the text. I am grateful for that. And I would like to pay tribute to the consensus across Parliament between the groups, along with the Commission, the Council, consumer groups, and the regulators, in supporting this measure.

Finally, I would like to recommend to colleagues my favourite mobile phone ring tone. Please listen carefully. It is called silence mode.

  Robert Goebbels (PSE). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we must limit the excessive prices charged to the 200 million Europeans who use their freedom of movement within the Union. As the real cost for operators is between 6 and 15 cents per minute, the cumulative price for one minute of active or passive roaming that is provided for by the regulation leaves operators substantial margins.

The advocates of the unbridled free market ought, moreover, to reflect on the failure of their theory faced with the harsh reality of the telephony market. The liberalisation of this sector was helped by a technological revolution that made an increase in supply possible. The enthusiasm of the general public for mobile telephones, SMSs, etc., has not led to genuinely attractive prices. Economies of scale, productivity gains and the huge expansion of the communications market have not resulted in more favourable tariffs. Consumers have merely been confronted with non-transparent offers tying them to a particular operator. Vodafone, Télécom and other operators in the Telefónica Group swear allegiance to the internal market provided that they can maintain the internal borders for tariff purposes.

The political power had a duty to intervene in the market, which is usually so sacred. This is a first in the Union, a welcome precedent. The Commission was still raging about prices, but the roaming dossier proves that the market at times needs the visible hand of the public powers, especially in the case of such a failing market as the telecommunications market.

  Toine Manders (ALDE). – (NL) Mr President, I would like to make a point of welcoming two former MEPs, Mr Wuermeling and Mrs Reding, who have returned to their former inferior abode, and thank them for their contribution to this proposal, which is bound to benefit the European consumer.

It may strike you as unusual that, whilst I, as a Liberal, am vehemently opposed to interference in consumer rates, certainly in the free market, where the Commission and Parliament claim that conditional competition leads to a better price and more innovation, I will be voting in favour of this in order that we may be able to do something about consumer prices.

You may well wonder why; I am doing this because the Commissioner – and I hope that this has dawned on the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy – has spelled out that three years from now, we will boast a European market, rather than 27 individual markets scraped together within their own national borders, because that – as I see it – is where the problem lies and that is where telephone providers take advantage.

It is interesting to know that most consumers who pay high roaming rates and who do not get these reimbursed by their employers or via other schemes, are holidaymakers. They tend to phone each other up from one ski lift or deck chair to the next, and while they may be lounging in a Spanish deck chair five metres away from their friends, the call is directed to the home country before it comes back.

This has to stop. I think it is good that we should give the industry an incentive and that we can look forward to a properly functioning internal market for mobile phone calls in three years’ time, when we will be able to leave roaming behind, and consumers will be able to choose where they conclude their contracts.

There is something else I should like to share with you. I was surprised to hear that the rate is exclusive of VAT. Everyone talks about EUR 0.49 maximum. Since this is exclusive of VAT, the consumer is, in some sense, being offered a carrot, because this means that another 20% is added anyway.

I also hope that the basic contracts, not the calling per minute therefore, the basic contracts, for which no specific arrangements are in place, will not end up being misused, for we will have to intervene again if they are. I hope –Commissioner and Mr Wuermeling – that the system will work, and that we can ensure that the consumer is happy about Europe, but, above all, that the internal market will start to function properly.

  Adam Bielan (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, I would like to join those congratulating and thanking Mr Rübig for his report, and have no doubt that today will be a very important day for the European Parliament and several hundred million citizens of the European Union. We now have the chance to prove to our electorates that the European Parliament is a necessary institution and one that deals with issues that concern them.

The issue of excessive roaming charges imposed on consumers by international telecoms giants is something that has upset Europeans for many years. Telecommunications companies failed to compete on price, which is what should happen in a proper market, preferring, as numerous experts believe, to collude and fix roaming charges. Over the years, millions of tourists and small and medium-sized enterprises have suffered from this practice. We can now put an end to this unjust exploitation – which, although it may sound like a socialist slogan, is what it is, as the speeches of my colleagues from the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe in this House attest.

Like many others, this regulation would not be necessary if the market were governed by healthy and transparent principles of competition. Our position is to stand up for the citizens of the European Union, who have clearly been subjected to a conspiracy that undermines the market. Thanks to the decisive stance of this House, including my group, we have successfully shown our partners in the Council and the Commission that we will not allow regulations to be watered down, or allow consumers’ interests to continue to be flouted.

Already this summer, EU citizens will be able to speak with their families, as well as with companies abroad, at much lower rates. Call charges will be substantially reduced to a maximum of 49 cents per minute for outgoing calls and 24 cents per minute for incoming calls, and these prices will fall even further in the coming years. I share the view expressed by others in this House and hope that these prices will fall more rapidly than in the compromise proposal.

  Gisela Kallenbach (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Mr President, I agree that this is good news for holidaymakers, business travellers, MEPs and other people away in various European countries. There will be an end to the substantially inflated prices in the field of mobile telecommunications, and the competition so often discussed will actually take place, to the benefit of consumers. It is good news that Europe is prepared to enforce common rules against monopolistic interests.

Unfortunately, there is a drop of bitterness in all this. Parliament’s proposals have been watered down thanks to the individual interests of service providers and the monopolies these hold in a number of Member States. In addition, the compromise reached on end prices for consumers is considerably higher than the Commission proposal – which cannot, on the whole, be considered anti-industry. This is bad news for Community law, but a proper and vital first step towards improving the situation for consumers. For this reason, I, too, should like to thank everyone who has contributed to this and ensured that consumers of mobile-telecommunications services will enjoy greater transparency and freedom of choice in future.

  Miloslav Ransdorf (GUE/NGL). – (CS) I should like to make five remarks to explain why I support this compromise, which has proved so difficult to achieve. Firstly, if critics say that this is not a solution that conforms to the market, they should remember that the main problem arose over whether the market itself conforms to the market. If not, then market correction must take place, as has happened here. As the Commissioner said very clearly, attempts at rectifying the situation have been made before. Secondly, I wish to say that this area will at last fall into line with the principles on which our Union is based.

Thirdly, it is very important that there is, to some extent at least, equal access to information on the market. A certain level of equal access to information is, as Joseph Stiglitz, winner of the Nobel prize for economics once said, one of the preconditions for the smooth functioning of the market. Fourthly, even though equal access to information has been significantly strengthened in this area, freedom of choice has been safeguarded. It is very important to us that competition can take place.

Fifth and lastly, this is not, as some would have it, a nil-nil result but rather a win-win situation for all, as Mr Chichester pointed out. Furthermore I am delighted to discover that in Mr Farage we have a specialist in the functioning of the former national planning committees. It is interesting that Parliament too is faced with historic questions.

  Gunnar Hökmark (PPE-DE). – (SV) Over the last 15 years, we in Europe have seen radical developments, with reduced prices for mobile phone calls. There are few areas in which prices have fallen as much as within this particular area. This has been the case, above all, with national calls, but also with international ones – a state of affairs that is worth remembering on a day like today. The problem has been that, as the Commissioner pointed out, we have 27 different markets instead of one. I would therefore congratulate both the Commissioner and the rapporteur, Mr Rübig, on the fact that we are today obtaining a decision that will mean increased transparency and also on the fact that we shall obtain regulation of competition between mobile operators and retailers. This will solve the crucial problem that has led to unduly high roaming fees. In this way, conditions more favourable to competition are being created.

This, I believe, is where we should have stopped, and I therefore regret the fact that we now also have a proposal on the regulation of prices at consumer level. All experience shows that the desired goal is not achieved through price regulation. We are in danger of fixing price development irrevocably around the regulated level. We are in danger of reducing the pressure for increased competition between different operators to lower the prices of both national calls and roaming. We are in danger of not getting to see the kind of rapid price reductions we have seen in the past. Without exaggerating these dangers, I wish to say that it would have been better if we had been satisfied with regulating the area in which we have a problem, namely that of the price differential where retailers and operators are concerned. I say this because the task of the European Union is not, and should not be, to regulate prices at consumer level. The EU should do what the Commissioner indicated earlier today that we should do, namely ensure that we move from having 27 different markets to having just the one. That is where a dynamic is to be found, and that is what we should concentrate on: not on regulating consumer prices but on regulating in such a way that we obtain all-round and constructive competition between operators.

IN THE CHAIR: MR COCILOVO
Vice-President

  Hannes Swoboda (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, I would like to start by thanking the Commissioner for her initiative and Mr Rübig and the other rapporteurs for the splendid work they have done. There has indeed been a failure of the market, which, although some deny it, does sometimes happen, and in this instance it was absolutely vital that we intervene by capping prices.

We are thinking above all of the consumers, although we have no desire to harm the industry – far from it. We are calling on the industry and businesses to do as much as they possibly can to win themselves new consumers and, by means of new, good, and advantageous packages, to make up for the losses that they may sustain from time to time. What is vitally important is that this regulation should, albeit after a short time lag, be of real benefit to consumers and that no tax on ignorance be payable by those who are less well informed.

I really would ask you, Commissioner, to do everything possible to make this regulation known to our consumers and thereby to show them what the Commission and this House are doing for Europe, for that can do more than many abstract debates about the European Constitution to persuade Europeans that the EU really is necessary.

  Lena Ek (ALDE). – (SV) It is a fundamental principle that it is not the European Union’s task to regulate prices everywhere in the market. However, the basic treaty gives us the ability, as well as the responsibility, to protect consumers and to ensure that the market operates and that we have fair and open competition. In this case, we have, for many years, received very clear signals from despairing parents with children studying abroad, from older people who have not read the small print in their telephone agreements and also from parts of the industry, complaining that this market does not operate. It is neither transparent nor fair.

That is why we have been working on the roaming issue since we were elected to the European Parliament three years ago. The problem was addressed as long ago as during our first discussion with Commissioner Reding. For a period of three years, we – the Commissioner, the Council and Parliament – have together tried, through price comparisons and open recommended prices – to ensure that the market voluntarily corrects the shortcomings that exist. It has not done so. The major distortions have remained unchanged. This legislative proposal therefore comes as no surprise, and I welcome it because it is our task to ensure that we have proper competition in the internal market. Our task is to take strategic and systematic decisions that prepare the way for an open market function, and I hope that, in the course of the next three years, the industry will ensure that it changes its business methods and reports on, and clarifies, the price situation for its customers. I hope too that it does so in such a way that this three-year legislation is a one-off phenomenon and that we might subsequently be able to refrain from this kind of intervention in the market.

I want to say thank you for the cooperation we have enjoyed between the political groups and with the Commission and for the work that has led to what I consider to be, in general, sensible legislation.

  Roberts Zīle (UEN). – (LV) First of all I would like to express my gratitude to the Commissioner, the rapporteur and the Council for the compromise reached on this issue, which is of such importance for Europeans. Certainly, from the viewpoint of economic theory, intervention in any segment of the market by setting a retail price ceiling may be considered to be an inappropriate regulation of the economics of the market. Remembering, however, the European Commission’s unsuccessful attempts to influence the roaming market through other methods, this is the legislators’ final instrument and, significantly, it will also be in force for a limited period. In reality, however, this regulation also has a political significance. It shows that Europe’s internal market is really a market on a European scale, and not just the sum of the markets of the individual Member States. The fact that there is an impression that perfect competition holds sway on the local market does not mean that the same holds true at European Union level. Such protection of the Member States’ markets from a truly single European Union internal market persists in a great number of spheres. To mention a few: transport, the provision of services, movement of the labour force, and others. This does not mean that the legislator will always have to carry out administrative measures like these in the European Union to influence the market and even to regulate prices. If, however, it turns out that the retail price ceilings are no longer necessary even before three years are up, this will prove that, at least in the field of mobile communications, we can create a true internal market on the European scale. Thank you.

  Claude Turmes (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Mr President, one general problem with the internal market is that the opening up of the market often goes hand in hand with the creation of oligopolies. What we have now done is to fashion a support that will bring a result in the short term, but what is needed at a fundamental level is the improvement of the underlying conditions of competition.

I take it as read that the dominant telephone companies are not going to put a stop to their racket, whose victims will now no longer be the tourist and the perpetually on-the-move businessman, but rather the most vulnerable participants in the market, in many instances young people and children. Take a look at the aggressive advertising of ringtones and the great problems posed by the content available – for violent or pornographic films are available on mobiles – and you will realise that the next thing the Commission has to do, following the consultations that are going on in this area until 7 June, will be to summon up the political courage to bring in pre-emptive legislative measures that will enable us to get a better grip on the problem presented by use of mobile phones by children and young people.

  Vittorio Agnoletto (GUE/NGL). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, roaming costs are coming down, but Europe is coming to this issue late, and it will continue to be consumers who pay the consequences. For years, the European Commission has taken no measures to protect its citizens and has left the telephone companies to come to agreements between themselves, creating cartels that for consumers translate into throwing money down the drain.

Independent studies, such as that by the Association of European Consumers, have shown that mobile telephone operators bill their customers EUR 3.52 billion too much every year. The actual cost of a minute’s roaming is between 10 and 14 cents, roughly; operators resell it for an average of EUR 1.06, meaning that the gap between prices and costs is over 600%.

Faced with such high margins, we were expecting a more serious proposal with regard to consumers, instead of what has been put before this Chamber: a deduction of 49 cents, which means succumbing to the demands of the Council and telephony operators. Yes, the proposal is necessary, and represents a small step forward, but just lowering prices does not do enough to protect consumers, does not compensate them for the exploitation they have suffered and instead continues to penalise them further.

  Pilar del Castillo Vera (PPE-DE). – (ES) Mr President, I would like to thank the Commissioner for having the courage to tackle a problem that affects the consumers. The Commissioner has demonstrated her enormous concern for consumers and, furthermore, she has immersed herself in a field that is always subject to much criticism; direct intervention in the prices that are set for the market. She has decided to take on that challenge, and we shall see how it works.

Before laying out my position, I would like briefly to thank the rapporteur, who has done an excellent job, and the Council, who, after a relatively short space of time, have very efficiently ensured that this document is ready for voting on in Parliament.

The problem we are facing is essentially as follows: history shows us that intervening in the level of market prices almost always has unwanted consequences and creates other additional problems. Either prices do not fall, or the costs resulting from reductions or from earnings that disappear in that sector are passed on to other sectors in the same field.

For example, there is a degree of concern at the moment: to what extent will there be a transfer of costs to internal national calls? In other words, to what extent will companies raise certain national call costs for the consumer?

I believe, Commissioner, and I put this to the Council as well, that the way this process is monitored is very important, not just with regard to reductions for international calls, but also how the national markets evolve in terms of costs. This will truly provide us with the final dimension and consequences of this Regulation and the decisions that we are taking now.

  Andres Tarand (PSE). – (ET) Today’s regulation is a good example of the positive things the European Union brings its citizens. Reducing mobile telephone bills is a noticeable and positive change. It is odd that the European Union, which began as a common market, should have to fight for seven years for a common market in one sector. What is important, however, is the successful conclusion to which Mr Rübig has guided us.

Although the price level achieved at negotiations held with Member States is not quite what I had hoped for, a compromise is better than a continuation of the status quo. Forty-nine euro cents per outgoing call is six times better than three euros. It is important that the maximum number of consumers be able to benefit from the new prices earlier than, for instance, three months from now, that is to say in September, when the holiday season will already be ending.

Since it is in the interests of mobile phone companies to keep consumers paying the old roaming rates during the entire three-month transition period, we must ensure that the new opportunities created by the regulation rapidly reach consumers of the service. Both we and consumer protection organisations have a great deal of work to do in informing the public.

  Alexander Alvaro (ALDE). – (DE) Mr President, meaning well is not the same thing as doing well, or so we say in German, and one very much suspects that this regulation is more the fruit of the desire to have an effect on the masses than an expression of rational policymaking. Yes, of course, roaming charges are excessive, and yes, of course, we can all see that the market has failed to do anything about it, but the only question is as to how I remedy the failure of the market; can it be done by means of machinery to determine and regulate prices, which is what we are creating here, or does it not make much more sense, when we come to future deliberations on the telecommunications package, to make the appropriate adjustments to the directive on market access, so that service providers the length and breadth of Europe are enabled to offer their services in every country, thus generating competition that will bring pressure on prices and push them downwards?

The liberalisation of telecoms markets has worked; the national markets show us as much, and that must also be possible at the European level. After all, if you have a headache, the doctor does not cut your head off; instead, he might give you an aspirin or something of the sort. It is measures such as these that we should consider rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater. This is a regression to the sort of price-regulating machinery that the EU abandoned all of 20 years ago, and I find it lamentable.

  Alyn Smith (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, I will echo our Commissioner’s phrase ‘a Europe of results’ to start my speech. I believe we can all, especially our rapporteur, take pride in an example of the EU working. Roaming is clearly best dealt with at EU level, as we have a need to act. There is a clear case of market failure. Our citizens are clearly losing out because of it. We had to do something.

The package before us today is a proportionate response and my group supports it. It will impose transparency, rights to information and a protective tariff which will see reductions of up to 70%, and will protect vast swathes – hundreds of millions – of our citizens. Crucially, it is time-limited to three years to specifically correct the market failure, whereupon we will revisit the subject.

At a time when we hear too much talk of institutional minutiae, I will have no difficulty commending this Europe of results to my constituents in Scotland.

  Ivo Belet (PPE-DE). – (NL) Mr President, Mrs Reding, I should like to extend warm congratulations to Mr Rübig on his perseverance and persistence in this matter.

By this regulation, we have finally proven once again that the European Union is of some value to the people, since just about everyone has one of these gadgets and will therefore be able to benefit from the positive impact of this measure.

I should like to share a very small anecdote with the Commissioner. Over the years, my cleaner has only once talked to me about Europe, and that was about the mobile phone rates, particularly about the excessively high bill she received after she had phoned to Belgium from Spain where she was on holiday.

I think that we have taken the right decision with this resolution, because using your mobile to call abroad in Europe is hardly an option at the moment. It is prohibitively expensive, and that obviously makes it a significant barrier within the internal market. Putting a stop to this will be very much welcomed by businesspeople, tourists, students, and all the rest of us too.

What is also very useful is that the mobile phone users can automatically enjoy the lower rates. This is another victory for the consumer and for Europe. I am persuaded, Commissioner, that the mobile phone operators will be able to recoup much of the lost income, simply because the number of calls will increase considerably.

Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the new mobile phone rates are keen and very close to the rates that this House had proposed. The price of a mobile phone call abroad will drop by an average of 60%, which is massive. The Commission and Parliament have taken a firm stand and ended up siding with the consumer in the face of much pressure and lobbying. When things go well, then I think we should be able to say so.

  Evelyne Gebhardt (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is quite clear that the consumers who are today’s winners; that is good news for the public, and it is something in which I take great pride, even though we in the Socialist Group in the European Parliament would have liked to see more, but what has been done today is something positive.

In making this law, we have quite deliberately restricted our attention to telephone calls, without enacting anything applicable to SMS, MMS or other means of transmitting data, but we urge the industry to take what we have done as an example. We will look very carefully to see what happens in this area over the next few years. If you in the industry do not take what we have now done by law to heart, we will be obliged to take legislative action in those areas too, and, there too, the Commission will have our wholehearted backing. This is a warning, and I suggest that you should take it to heart. We do not absolutely want to have recourse to the making of laws, but we will if we have to, and the law will be applied with its full rigour.

  Anneli Jäätteenmäki (ALDE). – (FI) Mr President, this is a temporary, albeit necessary, measure. This is not a genuine market economy. The market economy was not functioning, and the telecommunications operators were charging cartel-like prices. There is something clearly missing, however, in this proposal, which has now come in an otherwise acceptable form. It does not apply to text messages or multimedia services. They can still be billed any way the operators like. Hopefully, they will not make up for their loss of profits by raising charges for text messages. It is a waste of time talking about a viable internal market in telecommunications so long as cross-border calls are manifestly over-priced.

This debate on charges is important, but it is still more important to guarantee that all consumers can effortlessly take advantage of reasonable charges: it should not be left to the individual consumer for the law to be fulfilled.

  Herbert Reul (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, my heartfelt thanks go to all those who have worked on this project, the result of which is an improvement on what we had before we started our deliberations.

There is also a certain amount of good news, firstly that the burden is being lifted from the consumers; secondly that the EU has demonstrated its capacity to act; thirdly, that the House has a regulation before it that is time-limited and expires at the end of three years – and I hope it really will do that – and, fourthly, that we are helping to make things more transparent. That is important if there is to be competition, with the consumers being able to decide for themselves which tariff they want or which service provider they are going to opt for.

There is, though, one big problem, and we must not, I think, mince words in addressing it; it is that we are intervening as a political entity and are nevertheless determining prices, and the prices we are fixing are those paid by the end user, yet that is not what politicians are for; price-fixing is not one of our duties. There may be other political and economic systems in which that is an objective, but I do not see it as something that European policy-makers ought to be doing.

It may well be, too, that we are failing to consider the consequences of this sort of intervention in pricing, for it is very likely that someone somewhere is going to have to pay the price for this. If we carry on carping about the way things are and keep on interfering in them, then, far from achieving what we want to achieve, the whole thing will end up turning out to be a Pyrrhic victory.

Arbitrary prices? Are the prices that we are now determining, really the right ones? In essence, they have been arrived at by way of negotiations. Fair-minded people must concede that what you end up with down this road is a result that is to some degree the outcome of chance. The good thing about it is that the Council has ensured that the prices in question are maxima, and that is the right way to go about it. If we are going to resort to price-fixing, then we ought to start by capping them, something that – theoretically at least – leaves the option of regulation open and does not exclude the possibility of a degree of competition setting in below the maximum imposed.

Is this a one-off situation or a precedent? That is the crucial question. My fear is that it was a precedent. One Member has just been brutally frank enough to say that, at last, a taboo has been broken, for we have intervened in the market, and that is precisely what should not happen; that is what I find regrettable, and, indeed, wrong.

  Arlene McCarthy (PSE). – Mr President, as chair of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection I have got one minute to speak, and if I were speaking here on my mobile phone for one minute, as an ordinary consumer, I would still be paying excessive costs for making the call.

Of course this law will change all of that. Consumers will see the cost of calls halved. They will receive automatic information on the cost of making and receiving calls and they will benefit from an automatic Eurotariff. The IMCO Committee first raised this issue in 2005 when in a hearing we responded to consumer complaints on excessive charging and now in 2007 this Parliament has shown it can deliver for consumers.

So this is good news and we want this to come in as early as possible. We want consumers to continue to benefit from this, even after the three years when the law will lapse, but consumers should be aware that the costs of using their mobile phone for internet access or texting is still excessive. Commissioner, we would ask you to act in this area. The industry itself should move to reduce these prices. We have shown that we will act here on behalf of consumers if they are being ripped off. I hope the industry will take this message seriously.

  Karin Riis-Jørgensen (ALDE). – (DA) Mr President, only nine months after we debated roaming proposals in Parliament for the first time, we now have a result of which we can be very proud. Commissioner Reding, you very much deserve to be congratulated on your splendid work in the fight for cheaper telephone bills. However, we too have done our bit here in Parliament. One winner emerges from this fight, and that is the European consumer. European customers will notice the lower prices by as early as 1 August 2007. It will cost a maximum of DKK 4.50 to call home from abroad. I shall not shed many tears over the losers, namely the European telephone companies. They have bewailed their fate, but the reality is that they have made heaps of money out of consumers. Getting on for 95% of roaming income was clear profit. That is something we have now fortunately put a stop to. It was hard going, however. We were in a lot of disagreement in the Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection. My fellow Members Mr Coveney of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats and Mr Muscat of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament each wanted to go in a different direction, and there was no end of balletic manoeuvring within the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe. Now, we are all united in this House, however. I should like, therefore, to ask you for a second dance, Mr Muscat. Once again, thank you for your constructive cooperation, and I hope that Mrs Reding will now move on to the area of SMS and text messages in general, as this area is missing from the proposal.

  Marianne Thyssen (PPE-DE). – (NL) Mr President, Commissioner, minister, ladies and gentlemen, if we vote in favour of the package of amendments in relation to the Rübig report on the Roaming Regulation today, we will have every reason to be proud of our role as European legislator. Commissioner Reding’s bold proposal, the work of the various parliamentary committees that paved the way for the Rübig report, as well as the progress that has been made under the German Presidency of the Council, all bear witness to vision and political determination to actually do what we always claim to do, namely to ensure that European decisions benefit the public.

The Roaming Regulation bears witness to vision and moral fibre. Of course, we believe in the working of the market, but where the market fails, we are not afraid to step in. Although price regulation is a far-reaching measure to take, this is temporary and therefore appropriate.

I am also delighted with the speed with which we have been able to work. Laying down an act such as this one within the space of ten months is unprecedented. Moreover, the results are already being felt, even before the act has been published and entered into effect. At this rate, roaming holidaymakers will be able to enjoy the lower rates this coming summer.

Finally, the choices made receive my wholehearted support. The objective to call a halt to excessive consumer prices has been met: the maximum price has dropped some 60% below the average price before the initiative was launched, and this is saying something, and the provisions about more information and transparency are an added bonus. I am looking forward to the reactions from the market which, fortunately, has been left with some freedom and which will be able, and hopefully also be willing, to prove that it works.

I should, on a final note, like to thank all my fellow MEPs for their good cooperation on this matter, not least Mr Coveney, who was the shadow rapporteur in the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection and who played a key role in achieving this result, but is unfortunately unable to be here today.

I would also congratulate the Commissioner on her proposal, and wish the Council every success. Ladies and gentlemen, I think that the consumer dimension of European policy has earned itself another star today.

  Eluned Morgan (PSE). – Mr President, calling home while on your holidays has been far too expensive for far too long. Many mobile operators have been charging customers extortionate prices and, in Parliament’s view, very unnecessary tariffs. We warned them to put their house in order. We gave them the chance to do the right thing but they persisted and it is for that reason that we have had to introduce legislation that gives protection to anyone who uses a mobile while abroad.

It is not an ideal solution, but it is the only option left to control those who abuse the market. Let this be a lesson to other industries. One of the things we discovered in our discussions with mobile companies was that much roaming traffic is kept in-house as customers are directed on to partner networks. So for many roaming companies, wholesale prices are simply a way of ensuring different parts of the same company benefit. When we understand this, the market price for consumers becomes even more exorbitant. This is a victory for consumers, a victory for the European Parliament and a victory for the European Union.

  Nikolaos Vakalis (PPE-DE). – (EL) Mr President, I too wish to congratulate both Paul Rübig on the compromise which he has achieved and Commissioner Viviane Reding on her initiative in tabling a regulatory proposal.

I believe that the regulatory intervention was necessary because competition on the roaming market has not been functioning in the European Union for many years, with the result that charges remain high at both wholesale and at retail level.

Despite any weaknesses in the initial proposal which I pointed out from the beginning, I consider that the compromise text we are voting on today covers many of the system’s operating weaknesses. I remember that our main concern was to reconcile consumers’ needs and the competitiveness of the European mobile telephone industry and we have ultimately reconciled them wisely.

To be specific, I am particularly satisfied with the proposed charges at both wholesale and retail level, which are very close to those which I proposed in my amendments. Mainly, however, I am satisfied that the ‘opt out’ rationale prevailed. With the ultimate formula of this rationale, I believe that all categories of consumers are protected, including those who wish to opt out of euro-billing and to maintain their contract with their company as it stands, and those with little or no information, who must benefit from the new reduced prices.

Finally, the regulation we are voting on today guarantees transparency of prices for European consumers who, unfortunately, pay high prices for a great many goods and services, which is unwarranted on a single, liberalised and competitive European market.

  Katerina Batzeli (PSE). – (EL) Mr President, I too should like to thank the Commissioner for her effective proposal on roaming, a proposal which received a political message from the European Parliament many years ago.

We know that what was sought from the outset was to safeguard maximum charges, so that mobile telephone providers would be forced to set transparent and properly calculated charges. I consider that our job is not yet done, either by the Commission or by the European Parliament. If and when the situation on the roaming market is reviewed, once today’s regulation has been applied, more corrections will need to be made to data services and messaging.

In addition, it should be emphasised that serious work needs to be done by the regulatory authorities, which will need to address compliance with today’s agreement.

In a period of widespread scepticism about the immediacy and importance of action by the European Union in citizens’ daily lives, today’s initiative is an opportunity for the institutions to demonstrate that the European Union is intervening to resolve their problems and complete the internal market.

  Zita Pleštinská (PPE-DE). – (SK) I would like to express my gratitude to the rapporteur, Mr Rübig, and also to Mrs Niebler and the other rapporteurs, namely Messrs Muscat, Coveney, Mauro and Matsis, as well as to the Council, as represented by our colleague, Mr Joachim Wuermeling, for their work in drafting this difficult report. At the same time I would like to thank the Commissioner, Mrs Reding, for working closely with the European Parliament and drafting this regulation, together with her team, in such a careful way, and on the basis of detailed analysis.

European consumers, especially tourists, students or business people, have often been unpleasantly surprised by the bills presented by their mobile phone operators when returning from trips abroad. Following constructive discussions in the European Parliament, we managed to set price caps so that on the one hand, the roaming costs incurred by customers will be considerably reduced and, on the other hand, there will be enough room for mobile operators to compete on price.

I am happy with the compromise, which will have major implications for the ordinary European consumer. The consumer will have three months to decide whether he or she wants to switch from the present tariff to a 'Eurotariff', or would rather stick to the current tariff model. I am pleased that the European Parliament has managed to ensure that those who have a better contract will not automatically come under the consumer protection tariff, but will have the option of retaining their existing contracts.

The final draft has also taken on board the idea that regulation should remain in force for only three years. I am convinced that a genuinely competitive roaming telephony market will emerge and there will be no need for further regulation in the future.

Ladies and gentlemen, Europe needs to see concrete results, and the adoption of this European legislation in record time is a great achievement, and one that will bring benefit to the people of Europe. It provides clear evidence that where Europe is genuinely committed to implementing a meaningful and concrete project, it can quickly reach agreement.

  Béatrice Patrie (PSE). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, before long, 37 million tourists and 110 million Europeans who travel with their jobs are going to see their telephone bills slashed by around 70%.

The text that we are due to adopt is going to put an end to the veritable racket of which European consumers have fallen foul for years. Unfortunately, we are not sure whether the prices secured at the end of what was a real hard bargaining debate will fully reflect the true costs. As we have no reliable data on the volumes and associated revenues, we still have difficulty in gaining an idea of the balance required between the margins needed in order to keep European mobile telephone companies competitive and fair prices for consumers. This regulation – especially in relation to retail prices – is an advance, but one that still needs to be improved. We now need to define the prices for sending SMS data and e-mails.

Finally, we must deplore the fact that millions of Europeans who will be travelling until the end of August will still be unable to benefit from the new tariffs. The operators have therefore gained a season!

  Françoise Grossetête (PPE-DE). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, Minister, I believe that we can only welcome today the reduction in international roaming charges.

However, we should avoid taking shortcuts and, for goodness’ sake, let us not systematically and futilely pit manufacturers against consumers, because the blind pursuit of continually reduced ceiling prices does not just have advantages, far from it. Indeed, with overly low roaming tariffs, operators may try to make up for the reduction in their revenue by reducing their investments, thereby penalising consumers as a whole. The risk run is therefore that of seeing a marked increase in national call tariffs.

The ceilings proposed in the compromise – 49 cents per minute for calls made from abroad and 24 cents per minute for calls received – are particularly interesting, all the more so since a demand can be made to reduce them in the three years following the entry into force of the regulation, something about which we can be pleased.

This sensible option will make it possible to seek a reduction in prices in the longer term. We will therefore have a competitive market with the widest possible variety of tariffs, enabling consumers to make an informed choice.

Under the terms of the compromise, consumers will also have a three-month period after the entry into force of the regulation in which to decide whether or not to take advantage of the Eurotariff. If they do not indicate a preference, they will be automatically allocated the best tariff for them. Users therefore have the option not to be allocated the Eurotariff if they already benefited from favourable conditions offered by their operator, and that is a very good thing. This pragmatic solution will enable the millions of consumers who benefit from lower international roaming tariffs not to have the Eurotariff automatically allocated to them.

I therefore hope that this new regulation, which is temporary insofar as it is due to expire three years after it has entered into force, will make it possible for the mobile telephone market to be regulated, while of course respecting consumers, by promoting their interests and by protecting them better, but without for all that hindering competition and innovation in the sector.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (PSE). – Deşi Comisia pentru industrie, cercetare şi energie a aprobat iniţial un plafon tarifar mai scăzut pentru apelurile de roaming, soluţia agreată, care prevede reducerea în trei ani a tarifelor pentru apelurile efectuate de la 49 de euro cenţi la 43 şi pentru apelurile primite de la 24 de euro cenţi la 19, va reduce cu peste 60% facturile celor aproape 150 de milioane de utilizatori de roaming şi reprezintă un progres important. Reducerea tarifelor pentru roaming va determina şi creşterea gradului de utilizare serviciilor, mai ales în rândul celor 63% dintre europeni care, din cauza preţului excesiv, îşi limitau telefoanele când călătoreau în străinătate. Pentru aceasta, însă, în special în primele luni de aplicare a regulamentului, va fi esenţială informarea utilizatorilor. Solicităm Comisiei Europene ca, împreună cu autorităţile naţionale de reglementare, să informeze utilizatorii şi, mai ales, să supravegheze piaţa, astfel încât prevederile noului regulament să fie respectate iar cetăţenii europeni să se bucure de noile tarife, indiferent dacă sunt turişti sau oameni de afaceri. Felicit raportorii şi mai ales pe doamna Comisar pentru elaborarea acestui regulament.

  Jerzy Buzek (PPE-DE). – (PL) Mr President, I would like to congratulate Commissioner Reding and the rapporteur Mr Rübig, and to thank the Council for its favourable attitude to the proposal to reduce roaming charges

What we are witnessing is something unusual. For the first time we are introducing a regulation that will encourage competition, promote the free market and help to implement the Lisbon Strategy in the European Union on such a scale. Small and medium-sized enterprises, students, tourists and millions of Europeans working abroad will all benefit from it. I have to also point out that this regulation will help not just consumers, but also the market.

In the course of the debates we have heard the arguments against regulation along the lines that a free market does not need regulation. This is indeed the case, but there is one exception, and that is when competition and consumers need to be protected against monopolies. This is a case in point. The European Commission has behaved in the way that all consumer and competition protection bodies would act in any European country.

The important thing now is to see how this regulation works. I hope it will not be a one-off, but a precedent, and that we will be able to regulate many other matters to the benefit of the market, competition and consumers in a similar way.

We now face the creation of an energy market, which is a huge challenge. We will have to deal with some national giants, of which we may be proud, but need to be worked into the market.

In the first round, when we initially relied on national governments to take decisions, the Lisbon Strategy failed. Things turned out better when the European Commission took the matter into its hands. The results are there for all to see, and for this I congratulate the Commissioner and Mr Barroso.

  Dorette Corbey (PSE). – (NL) Mr President, I should first of all like to thank our negotiation team, with all of whom we have reached a balanced outcome.

Ladies and gentlemen, it is unusual for us to intervene in market pricing, but unfortunately, it was something that had to be done. There was far too much ambiguity surrounding the use of mobile phones abroad by holidaymakers. Excessive call charges and high costs for receiving calls made for unpleasant surprises when bills landed on the doormat a month later.

We have now prescribed maximum prices, albeit still, if you ask me, somewhat high ones, and – something that is even more important – we have demanded more transparency from the telephone providers. If people make phone calls abroad, the precise cost must be clear to them. If prices are transparent, competition will be normalised, and maximum prices will become redundant. All things being equal, telephone companies will soon offer rates that are below the maximum.

There is still disappointment about the commencement date, and the telephone companies would do well to themselves take the initiative in offering favourable rates even before 1 July, when the schools break up for the summer. The holidaymaker has been a milch cow for too long.

  Zuzana Roithová (PPE-DE). – (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, the seven-year struggle between Parliament and the European telecoms operators is drawing to a close. As MEPs we were no longer able to stand by as prices rose to five times the level of costs, thus restricting communications in the internal market. We were no longer able to sit back and watch the huge discrepancies between northern and southern Europe in terms of the cost of international calls, and merely to criticise the lack of transparency. The operators proved unable to demonstrate their steep costs to us and the national regulators confirmed that they do not have any influence when it comes to cross-border calls.

We must therefore today take action at a Union level. When the market fails, regulation is the necessary response. The regulation is limited to a three year period, by which time the market will have moved on. The tariff of EUR 49.24 is equal to the average price charged by the three biggest operators, and we are giving the people the opportunity to choose other deals which may be on the market. We are also giving the public the right freely to move from one operator to another and back again. The most important thing is, of course, the obligation to provide consumers with information on prices in good time. Just yesterday, operators began distributing their leaflets and finally publicising their prices. Opponents of the regulation argue that there is no reason to interfere in the market because there are already packages to be found with lower roaming prices. I feel, however, that these offers appeared only when the Commission publicised the regulation; in other words, things started moving only under the threat of regulation and certainly not as a result of market mechanisms.

One might ask whether there was a need for a regulation on the retail price of voice services. I think there was, because the consumer is guided by the final price and it is the consumer’s choice alone that influences the market. We will keep an eye on how matters progress on data services not covered by the regulation. I should like to call on the socialists not to block the adoption of this Council regulation, as this will mean that it can be in force by the summer. I hope that the liberal minister for foreign affairs stands her ground in the face of pressure from the lobbyists. On behalf of the Czech people, I should like to thank the negotiating team, Mr Rübig, Mrs Niebler and others from the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, and the Commission for the job they have successfully completed in the interests of the people of the EU.

  Dariusz Rosati (PSE). – (PL) Mr President, the regulation to control roaming charges in the European Union is an important step towards eliminating monopolistic practices and making it easier for European citizens to benefit from mobile telephony.

The compromise achieved will make it possible to reduce roaming charges by more than two-thirds over three years. Unfortunately we have not managed to gain support for further reductions in roaming charges. SMS and MMS roaming has not been reduced. Nevertheless, the agreement achieved is a huge success for the Commission and Parliament.

I would like to thank the Commissioner and our rapporteur for their work.

The universal availability of cheap mobile phone services is above all good news for citizens travelling around Europe. But it is also good news for the governments of the Member States, as numerous studies have shown that widespread mobile telephony increases productivity, encourages economic growth and improves quality of life. It is decisions such as these that make us look good in the eyes of our citizens.

I wish this House more such decisions in the future.

  Lambert van Nistelrooij (PPE-DE). – (NL) Mr President, having just given my approval, I hope you will allow me to make four comments.

Firstly, this regulation will make companies and members of the public better off to the tune of between four and five billion, while the competition remains intact.

Secondly, small operators, such as KPN in the Netherlands, will not be elbowed out of the market, because purchase pricing is also to be properly regulated.

Thirdly, for the border regions, this is a good result to say the very least, for, at the moment, people are being taken off a network in an instant, which makes for wild west situations there. From now on, a report is to be submitted to the Commission each year on the situation in a given country. This is an undesirable situation, but one that is capable of being resolved, and, in order that it may be, Parliament will keep a close eye on things.

Finally, we often talk about better legislation in this House. Well, this is a prime example of it, in that the regulation ceases to exist the minute the social partners, the operators face up to their responsibility.

In this way, a sound balance is struck between recognisable Parliament policy and people’s own responsibility. All credit, then, to Commissioner Reding and to the rapporteur, Mr Rübig, for a visible policy that produces real results.

  Mia De Vits (PSE). – (NL) Mr President, I too should like to single out two vital points in this issue: excessive charges and lack of transparency. As I see it, the agreement is sound and balanced, and whilst it may not be the result we had hoped for, it represents a major step forward.

I do regret, though, that my amendment in favour of even more transparency, having been accepted by the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection and the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, was rejected in the trilogue. It provided, Commissioner, for a rate simulator to be worked out by the government which would enable the consumers to compare rates of different operators, for these, at the moment, are very complex and leave the consumer in much uncertainty. It could have represented a second star in consumer protection.

Anyway, the agreement that has now been reached receives my backing. I hope that in future, the rates will actually drop even more, due to competition among the operators, and I think that we have proven that, as far as this is concerned, we in this House can make a difference for the man in the street.

  Werner Langen (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, as Mrs Roithová said, a seven-year war is drawing to its close, and of those seven years, the Commission spent five hacking around in the bushes, while we, in this House, demanded that something at length be done. I am thoroughly grateful to the Council for having drawn the bureaucratic teeth of the Commission’s draft, for across-the-board regulation – 130% of wholesale rates – would have involved an immense amount of bureaucracy and would have been incompatible with the objective of better regulation.

We all agree on the objectives, although I have to admit that there are those in this House who are trying to control the prices charged to end-users, and I am thankful that the Europe tariff is high enough to permit competition to develop below it. I am pretty sure that, because this regulation is limited to three years, this competition will kick in relatively quickly, and that we will see the roaming rates remaining below this upper limit, since we will at the same time have achieved the objective of creating greater transparency and empowering consumers. I am convinced that it cannot be our function to fix the prices charged to end-users, and we just managed to strike out that sort of outright fixing of end prices.

Years ago – as Mr Goebbels, who was there, will recall – we opted for another approach when it came to cross-border payments, which we regulated in such a way that prices were fixed within the internal market. Insisting on the same prices for transfers within a Member State and across borders makes perfect sense in regulatory terms, but what we are doing here threatens to transgress the bounds of that which is tolerable. I will nevertheless be voting in favour and would like to express my thanks to the House’s negotiators, to the committee chairmen, to the Council, and, finally, to the Commission for being prepared, once the negotiations were over, to agree to this compromise after all.

  Edit Herczog (PSE). – (HU) Jacques Delors said at one time that it is difficult to love the internal market. Now it has been demonstrated by the Commissioner, by the rapporteur Mr Rübig and by Parliament that it is nevertheless possible. The EU means not only the elimination of custom duties but also the free movement of goods in the internal market. Today’s legislation signifies the strengthening of the European idea.

According to preliminary calculations, roaming charges will keep approximately 800 million forints in customers’ pockets. I am convinced that a wider use of telephone services will successfully counterbalance this loss of revenue and no employee will be put at a disadvantage.

I would like to congratulate the rapporteur and the Commissioner for taking into consideration the case of the blind and partially-sighted, for whom information about rates will be provided by voice rather than SMS. I wish all Europeans happy roaming and happy summer holidays! Let us all enjoy today’s success.

  President. I would like to take this opportunity to extend a warm welcome to my former colleague, Mr Wuermeling, and to give him the floor, as representative for the Council in his ministerial capacity.

  Joachim Wuermeling, President-in-Office of the Council. – (DE) Mr President, honourable Members – who have given me such a warm welcome – I know from past experience that your House keeps to a strict timetable, but I would nevertheless like to say something about one or two of the points that have featured in today’s debate, and I wish to do so not least as an indication of the culture of dialogue that the German Presidency wishes to encourage.

Although many Members of your House – Mr Alvaro, Mr Reul, and Mr Farage, among others – have taken a critical view of the intervention in the market, I should like to remind you that we are all agreed on the market’s need for rules, and for competition to be fair, which it simply was not in the realm of roaming charges, since consumers had no choice between the various services on offer. That was why competition was not fair; that was why it was necessary to do something about it. The single market gains credibility in the eyes of the public only if the European Union ensures that they are not put at a disadvantage within it.

Some people have been given the impression that those who are in favour of low maximum prices are the ones on the side of the consumer, while those who favour higher maximum prices are fighting the companies’ corner. In the Council, too, there were many who spoke in favour of putting the prices a bit higher, but things are not as simple as all that, for it is of course dynamic and tough competition that does most to benefit consumers.

I would like to remind you all that it is that sort of competition on which the success of the single market and of all forms of liberalisation is founded. It is crucial that a diversity of tariffs remain in place, and that there should be innovations in the field of roaming as much as elsewhere, and this is something to which many Member States, in the Council of Ministers, attached great importance. Setting roaming charges in stone would benefit nobody, for then there would be no scope for flat rate, for hourly contract or for bonus schemes, and what we want instead is to maintain the possibility of the consumer, and also industry, being able to determine the services on offer, with consumers continuing to have a free choice, and that is what this compromise achieves.

A great deal has been said from various quarters about the point at which the regulation is to enter into force, and I can assure you that the German Presidency has the greatest possible interest in getting this to happen as soon as possible, but the simple fact of the matter is that a number of formal steps have to be completed between today’s vote and the publication in the Official Journal; first of all, your resolution must be communicated to the Council, which must then come to a policy agreement on it – this will happen on 7 June – and then the versions of it in various languages must be produced – which will happen in the second week of June – then, in the third week of that month, the lawyer-linguists in all the institutions must read through it again, after which COREPER and the Council must formally adopt it, so that a great deal of effort will be required to get it published on 29 June.

I can assure you, though, that this dossier is being given priority in all the bodies required to deal with it; all deadlines are being cut, practically all meetings are being dispensed with, and much is being done through written processes; the fact that only in this timeframe can a correct procedure be ensured is something that should be borne in mind by all those who want to obviate legal risks in the publication of this regulation.

I think I can say, without having checked all the details, that, by the speed with which this directive has been adopted, we have broken a European record, and, since I have never in my life heard of a European champion who was angry at having run two-tenths of a second too slow, then neither should we be. Instead, let us rejoice in our shared success.

IN THE CHAIR: MRS MORGANTINI
Vice-President

  Viviane Reding, Member of the Commission. Madam President, this is a good day for Parliament, with a good consensus to get rid of market failure and to guarantee consumer protection. Permit me to respond briefly to the questions that have been raised.

The first thing is that we are not fixing prices; we are setting ceilings under which competition will have ample room to offer attractive price packages. I would also underline that the consensus reached today is very close to the Commission’s original proposal but with the flexibility, which the Commission welcomes, for customers to choose other packages when they wish.

There has been some criticism of the regulation of prices at retail level. It is true that this is a very exceptional circumstance, which has to be taken into consideration when there is a market failure. Here we have a market failure at European level. We very often have market failure at national level, and then the national regulators regulate retail prices. So what we are doing at European level is also done regularly at national level.

There was a question as to why the Commission is doing nothing against cartels. The Commission is acting; my colleague Mrs Kroes has investigated them under competition rules. In the case of roaming, it is much more efficient to work with ex ante regulation, and that this is effective has been shown by the fact that it has been possible to come up with a piece of legislation after just 10 months of work.

Many colleagues also raised the question of regulating roaming data communications. I can assure Parliament that during the next 18 months the national regulators will monitor the price of data communications and they will report to the Commission. I hope that today will be a wake-up call for operators also in terms of data roaming, and I hope that they will bring down those prices so that we will not have to intervene on that issue.

(DE) Madam President, I will say just a few words in German. I am delighted that Mr Langen has abandoned his resistance and at last agreed to a compromise, something that he found difficult but has nevertheless – I think – managed to accomplish.

To my friend Mr Wuermeling I would like to say that I really do ask the Council to get its skates on and get the regulation published in the Official Journal as soon possible – by which I do not mean only at the end of June, but a good deal earlier.

(FR) Ladies and gentlemen, this is a great day for Parliament, for a Parliament that is united in defending Europeans beyond the usual political divisions. It is an excellent thing and, as a former MEP, I am pleased to see it.

It is also a great day for the European institutions, which are demonstrating their ability to act in the common interest, quickly, effectively and as one. It is a great day for Europeans, who are seeing the Europe of the people and the Europe of practical projects in operation. Finally, it is of course a great day for consumers, whether they be tourists or business travellers: they have seen their European institutions right the failure of the roaming market with capped Eurotariffs and price transparency. They will be able to see the effect of this action because their telephone bills are going to decrease greatly. With today’s decision, one of the last barriers of Europe has come down, that of overbilling, which penalises those citizens who exercise their right to free movement.

Allow me to conclude with an appeal to telephone operators: I should like to ask them not to wait any longer and to enter into a genuine competition to offer the best roaming tariff to their consumers, a tariff below the ceilings on which Parliament is going to decide today.

(Applause)

  Robert Goebbels (PSE). – (DE) Madam President, perhaps I might be permitted to say something brief to the Council; while I would like to thank the German Presidency of the Council in advance for making every effort to get this regulation into the Official Journal as soon as possible, I have to tell Mr Wuermeling that he will probably not break the European record, which is held by the agriculture ministers who have, on several occasions, managed to get a European regulation into the Official Journal within the space of a week.

  President. The debate is closed.

The vote will take place today at 12 noon.

Written statements (Rule 142)

  Alessandro Battilocchio (NI), in writing. – (IT) I am pleased to see that in the case of the report on roaming the vast majority of Members of this Chamber have placed themselves in the position of citizens and consumers rather than, as has happened on many other occasions, advocates of the interests of one or another industrial sector. This Parliament has in fact united to demand, in addition to the reduced tariff system and transparency, that the regulation be applied from the beginning of the summer, so that users may benefit from it during the holiday period. I would like to thank Commissioner Reding, who has been strongly in favour of this regulation, for her efforts, and the rapporteurs who succeeded in obtaining better tariffs than those proposed by the Council. What we need now is one last effort: by the Council to rapidly adopt the document and to show that the EU is with its citizens, and by all the institutions to ensure the greatest possible transparency and provision of information, so that all citizens are aware of their rights and may benefit as much as possible from this success. We have shown that with the right will and cooperation it is possible to confront even the large economic monopolies, to everyone’s benefit. My hope is that, after this, other battles may be similarly successful.

  András Gyürk (PPE-DE) , in writing. – (HU) The motive for the present regulation of roaming charges is the fact that roaming rates have turned out to be unreasonably high in spite of the growing competition and the liberalisation of markets in recent years. Intervention was necessary because the market did not live up to expectations, and distortions showed up in its operation.

That is precisely why I consider it necessary to draw attention to a point in the regulation that aims to prevent similar potential distortions occurring in the data communications market. For in this point the regulation provides that the European Commission shall monitor and evaluate the market not only for voice communication but also for data communication (SMS, MMS, Internet), and if necessary, extend the regulation to that field as well.

The international market for data transmission plays an increasingly important role due to fast-paced technological advances. Internet-based voice transmission (VoIP) is revolutionising telephony, opening the door to cheaper calls. The spread of 3G networks and of other related technologies has a significant impact on the market for mobile services.

Closer attention to market processes is therefore justified in the interest of consumers and competition, with the prospect of proportionate intervention if they are not working satisfactorily. Indeed, a situation where citizens and businesses pay fees over and above those justified for recouping necessary technical outlays has a very negative impact on competitiveness and on the efficient operation of the internal market.

  Gábor Harangozó (PSE), in writing. – The debate on regulating the roaming on public networks activity in Europe is to be seen in the broad context of a lack of knowledge and precise data on the volumes and revenues at stake. Clear assessment and monitoring of the situation are therefore required if we want to successfully achieve a balanced regulation of roaming activity, a balanced approach that would take into account the interests of both the consumers and the telecommunication industry.

Despite the obvious lack of transparency in this area of the market, it is clear that competition distortion and excessive prices have been hampering the development of a healthy and competitive internal market in this sector. We therefore strongly support the main aspects of the Commission proposal and the improvements proposed in Mr Rübig’s report. We cannot allow European citizens to continue paying unjustifiably high prices. We therefore have the responsibility to ensure the development of a fair, dynamic and globally competitive internal market in the roaming sector by providing accurate information to the consumer allowing them to make real choices when comparing operators. Besides better consumer information and closer monitoring of the sector, we have to ensure a substantial reduction in roaming prices.

  Monica Maria Iacob-Ridzi (PPE-DE), în scris. – Regulamentul european privind tarifele de roaming este unul oportun pentru cetăţenii români pe care-i reprezint în acest for.

Motivul principal este cel al corectării unui nivel nejustificat al preţurilor. Conform statisticii Comisiei Europene, preţurile la telefonia mobilă din România pentru o convorbire medie de 4 minute pe teritoriul Uniunii Europene variază între 3,12 euro şi 9,52 euro.

Pe de altă parte, piaţa românească este una matură, înregistrând una dintre cele mai ridicate rate de creştere din ultimii ani. Sectorul comunicaţiilor a contribuit cu un procent de 9% din PIB încă din 2005. Doi dintre cei mai mari operatori din lume au intrat pe piaţa românească de ani buni, ceea ce arată stabilitatea şi maturitatea pieţei. De aceea ne bucurăm că demersurile de excludere a României şi Bulgariei de la aplicarea acestei reglementări au fost respinse prin votul dumneavoastră din comisii. Nu putem pe de o parte să deschidem pieţele, iar pe de alta să limităm accesul consumatorilor români la piaţa comună.

Uniunea Europeană confirmă încrederea românilor. În primul an de la aderare, aceştia sunt în poziţia de a beneficia de un avantaj concret al apartenenţei la Uniune. Libertatea de circulaţie am câştigat-o cu greu, libertatea de a comunica fără bariere suplimentare trebuie să fie şi ea asigurată.

  Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FI) One of the crucial questions in EU legislative work should be what things in general need to be regulated and what method of regulation best promotes the objective set. On the one hand we have to address the flaws in the system and ensure that regulation is detailed enough to achieve the objective. On the other hand, regulation has to be sufficiently flexible for it to encourage competition and innovation and not paralyse development with quibbling details.

The compromise achieved on the proposal for a regulation to lower roaming charges is, I think, an excellent piece of EU legislation.

First of all it corrects a flaw. Telecommunications operators have kept charges for phone calls overseas unreasonably high for years, and they have not engaged in healthy competition in their pricing policies. Despite prompting by the Commission, charges have barely fallen. As in this case the market was unable to correct its own errors, it had to be done by means of EU legislation.

This is a concrete example of a benefit which the EU has produced for consumers, which should be remembered when next time people feel like raging about the EU. We have to interfere if the market is not working and operators are overcharging, using means which directly and substantially reduce people’s mobile phone bills when abroad.

Secondly, the regulation specifically points the market in a healthier direction: it will not stifle it, but encourage competition in the future. Price caps for phone calls in the regulation have not been brought down so low that there is no room for competition beneath them. Low price caps will also boost competition in other areas of the business. The regulation, furthermore, will have a far-reaching impact: if charges are guided downwards it would be silly to raise them again once the regulation has expired.

With capped prices operators will nevertheless be left with a profit margin, enabling product development and innovation to continue.

4. Decent work (debate)

  President. The next item is the report (A6-0068/2007) by Marie Panayotopoulous-Cassiotou, on behalf of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, on ‘promoting decent work for all’ (2006/2240(INI)).

  Marie Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – (EL) Madam President, allow me to wait a moment while the Commissioner takes his seat and please do not count the time.

The concept of decent work as a set of rules and conditions which safeguard respect for workers as human beings was introduced by the International Labour Organisation in 2000 and developed into an internationally pursued objective with the recommendations of the UN Summit of Heads of State or Government in September 2005, within the framework of the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals.

In July 2006, the High-Level Segment of the UN Economic and Social Council adopted a declaration underscoring the priority of managing to achieve productive, full-time employment and decent work for all.

The concept conveyed in the Latin-based adjective ‘decent’ has the sense of bestowal, of condescension, so that there is decorum. The Greek word for dignity emphasises the need to bestow value. However, the German word for dignity completely conveys the objective of the global endeavour, combining as it does the word for dignity and the word for man.

The Commission communication in May 2006 on promoting decent work for all lays the foundations for the European Union to make a structured contribution to the application of all the objectives of the integrated view of human work under conditions of freedom, equality, security and human dignity.

The four basic pillars of the concept of decent work are, as we know, the creation of jobs for productive work with freedom of choice, guaranteed rights, extensive social protection, the safeguarding of conditions of health and safety, the promotion of social dialogue and the peaceful resolution of differences, with a horizontal dimension of respect for the equality of men and women.

Five International Labour Organisation conventions safeguard fundamental employment rights: trade union freedom, the promotion of collective bargaining, the abolition of child labour and equal pay for men and women. We hope that the other International Labour Organisation conventions awaiting ratification will be signed and put into practice.

Following the Council decision in December 2006, the European Parliament Committee on Employment and Social Affairs welcomes the Commission’s objectives in its report. The objectives must be to:

- achieve social and economic progress and ensure that it is spread fairly for the benefit of all;

- strengthen entrepreneurship by adjusting expenditure to the changing phases of the business cycle;

- design active labour market policies as a component of long-term economic policy;

- strengthen the institutional capacity for the participation of the social partners and the development of social dialogue;

- strengthen the employability of all grades of workers, especially of women, youth and the elderly, with renewed education systems;

- consolidate lifelong learning so that everyone can benefit from progress in science, technology and communications and adjust it to the enhanced demand for qualifications and skills.

Certainly there is no one-size-fits-all model of social policies and regulations on the labour market. The European Union is proud because, apart from far-reaching efforts by Member States to ratify the ILO international conventions, it is the economic power that presents common characteristics of social awareness throughout its length and breadth. The European social model aims for productivity and economic performance for the benefit of all, a high standard of social benefits, the safeguarding of conditions of health and safety, the provision of training, education, and retraining of all ages and all categories of workers and social dialogue with equal opportunities for all.

The European Employment Strategy, the social protection and social integration strategies, the national reform programmes, the revised Lisbon Strategy on development and employment which retains and improves the acquis communautaire and the European strategy on sustainable development are the roadmap of the European Union for achieving the objectives of decent work.

Decent work is also a matter of governance. The implementation of effective policies focused on decent work requires accountable institutions, a political commitment to sound management of the state and a vibrant and organised civil society.

As far as the European Union is concerned, I hope that it will find a way to combine flexibility of the market and guaranteed security for workers. However, economic globalisation, the globalisation of markets, technologies, information and labour, is a phenomenon which there are plans to speed up by strengthening economic multi-polarity.

China is proving to be at the top of the league, along with India and other powers. At the same time, a gap appears to be opening between the rich and the poor, even in developed and industrialised countries. It is time for the European Union to show the planet its values.

In this report, the European Parliament is strengthening the Commission’s intention to integrate decent work into its foreign policies, in cooperation with the institutions of the UN, national and regional organisations, the social partners and other segments of civil society.

The Commission and the Member States are being called upon to coordinate decent work more effectively in external cooperation and trade policy programmes and to help to implement the national programmes of the ILO on decent work.

My thanks to the three committees for their opinions and to everyone who helped in the presentation of this report.

  Vladimír Špidla, Member of the Commission. (CS) Madam President, honourable Members, I should like to thank Mrs Panayatopoulos-Cassiotou for her report. It was worked on by several parliamentary groups, and is clearly an excellent report. I should also like to point out that decent work is a worldwide initiative drawn up by the International Labour Organisation, and thanks to staunch support from the EU it has become a genuinely worldwide initiative, accepted by an ever greater number of countries.

The Council has given its backing to the concept of decent work, and it was also addressed recently at a meeting of work and social affairs ministers in the context of the G8. The Commission completely accepts Parliament’s view that the basic elements of decent work – namely, social support, social cohesion, dignified work and the opportunity for free trade-union activities – should be implemented across all international contacts, whether at a bilateral or a multilateral level, and also when setting up individual projects with third countries. This is very much in keeping with the Commission’s social agenda and with the main guidelines set out in the above-mentioned communication.

Although the project is gaining increasing support, it is abundantly clear that much remains to be done. I feel that the priority is to ensure that all ILO conventions are ratified in the EU. In this regard, the Commission is making use of the resources at its disposal and at present we are heavily involved in the ratification moves and social dialogue connected with the new conventions for seafarers.

Honourable Members, the decent work initiative clearly has strong ethical foundations. Furthermore, the initiative will enable us to formulate principles regarding globalisation, so that we may enjoy its benefits while minimising its drawbacks. It is therefore a process which is very much alive and the Commission will, in every instance, make the most of the opportunities it brings.

  Feleknas Uca (GUE/NGL), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Development. – (DE) Madam President, half the world’s workers have an income of less than two dollars per day, and half the world’s population enjoys no social security protection whatever; two million people a year die in accidents at work or from work-related illnesses, and over 160 million workers become ill as a consequence of hazards in the workplace.

The number officially registered as unemployed are only the tip of the iceberg. The poor cannot afford to be idle; many of them work for hours on end under often intolerable conditions in order to scrape at least some sort of earnings together. The European Union and its Member States should do everything in their power to do justice across the board to the promotion of work with dignity as part of the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals. What is needed is a fair and innovative fiscal policy, and I am thinking here in terms of the taxation of such things as financial and currency transactions. Major companies that repeatedly violate human rights and the rights of workers must be brought to the point where they comply with the criteria for proper and decent work, and this should be done by means of sanctions, such as – and this would be appropriate – their being excluded from application for public procurement tenders and from export credit guarantees issued by international financial institutions. A new European development and trade policy is needed if people are to be enabled to economically …

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Harlem Désir (PSE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on International Trade. – (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to begin by thanking our rapporteur, Mrs Panayatopoulos-Cassiotou, for the spirit of cooperation that she has shown and for the quality of her work.

Since the 2005 United Nations Summit, the promotion of decent work has been recognised as an objective of the entire international community. With its communication, the European Commission has begun to consider the issues at stake in this matter, not least its international dimension: I am referring to the EU’s external policies, concerning in particular international trade, hence the work of the Committee on International Trade.

I should therefore like to focus on this aspect and express my satisfaction that, through this report, Parliament is taking up several practical proposals that were submitted by my group. These proposals had already been adopted in the opinion of the Committee on International Trade and will make it possible to initiate a new EU policy aimed at promoting social standards at international level.

Firstly, the Union already makes the signing of preferential trade agreements with developing countries conditional on the ratification of the International Labour Organisation conventions. We are now calling for the sanctioning, the suspension of the preferences granted to countries that seriously and systematically violate fundamental labour standards and, more specifically, freedom of association.

Secondly, all future bilateral trade agreements and, in particular, the new free trade agreements, which are due to be negotiated within the context of the global Europe strategy, must include social clauses on respect for decent work.

Thirdly, the multilateral dimension must not be abandoned, because it is the multilateral framework – that of the WTO – which today governs the bulk of trade. However, the Commission communication does not mention it whatsoever.

The debate therefore needs to be re-opened within the WTO. Europe could take a number of initiatives in this regard. Firstly, it could propose the creation of a ‘Trade and decent work’ committee within the WTO, on the model of the ‘Trade and environment’ committee, which has enabled some important progress to be made. Secondly, it could call for the ILO to be granted observer status within the WTO. Thirdly, it could call for the pre-eminence of the decisions taken by the International Labour Organisation to be recognised when the latter decides to call for trade sanctions against countries such as Burma, for example, which is seemingly violating trade union rights.

We have made a number of other practical proposals. I believe that it is in our interest to promote a form of regulated globalisation that ...

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Philip Bushill-Matthews, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – Madam President, the Commissioner has helpfully reminded us of the worldwide initiative on decent work and that it has been recently endorsed by the G8. Indeed, at a UN summit in September 2005 as many as 150 world leaders agreed that the International Labour Organisation concept of decent work should become a central objective of their own national policies. Essentially, of course, this agenda concerns countries where such a concept does not really exist. Within Europe, frameworks providing conditions for decent work are largely in place, though implementation here can always be improved.

The rapporteur has shown not only personal initiative in bringing this report to Parliament, but also that a member of the centre-right political family can not only take the lead on this important agenda but also generate substantial cross-party support.

That said, there were some close votes in committee that changed the overall balance of the report by inserting new points or paragraphs. These we hope to change in the full vote in the House later today, either by deletion or by modification via agreed compromises with other political groups. In promoting the concept of decent work, we should all be on the same side.

Of course, Parliament does not have the powers to instruct Member States on what to do in this area, and rightly so: it is for Member State governments to decide. However, all such governments should surely agree the importance of providing lifelong-learning opportunities, the need to be proactive on increasing women’s participation in the labour market, the need to do so much more to resolve the challenges of reconciling work and family life and, above all, the need to offer help to the developing world.

This is a thoughtful report, which deserves to be widely read.

  Stephen Hughes, on behalf of the PSE Group. – Madam President, I should like to thank the rapporteur for an excellent report. The report includes a very long resolution running to 94 paragraphs, but for me its essence is summed up in two paragraphs.

Recital V states that ‘in order to strengthen the competitiveness of the European Union in a socially sustainable way, it is important to improve productivity by promoting decent work and the quality of working life, including health and safety at work, a better balance between flexibility and security in employment, lifelong learning, mutual trust and participation as well as a better conciliation between private/family and working life; combating gender discrimination and all other forms of discrimination’.

Paragraph 6 calls for ‘a better mobilisation of the internal and external policies of the EU on the promotion of the decent work agenda, especially in matters of development, external assistance, enlargement, neighbourhood policy, trade, migration and external bilateral and multilateral relations’.

If these two paragraphs were fully implemented, the EU would have made great strides in promoting the decent work agenda, both here at home and globally.

Other paragraphs of importance to me include paragraphs 46, 48 and 51, which broadly cover the need for European multinational corporations to behave in a socially responsible fashion in their global operations. These build on our earlier work on the subject.

A number of paragraphs set out the need for the EU to use its trade and economic power as levers to promote the decent work agenda globally. For example, paragraph 8 calls for the full and proper implementation of GSP+, in line with the debate we promoted with Commissioner Mandelson on the subject last year.

Finally, I want to highlight paragraph 47. This calls for the development of ‘a label for products that are produced under conditions that respect the principles of decent work and conform to core labour standards, and that specifically exclude any child labour input’. Let us empower European consumers to drive forward the decent work agenda in their daily choices.

  Ona Juknevičienė, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (LT) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, firstly I would like to congratulate the rapporteur, Marie Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou, on preparing this very important document and thank her for her cooperation in discussing changes and seeking compromises.

Today we are talking about trying to attain decent working conditions for everyone, whether in the Community or beyond its borders.

I fully support the Commission's initiative, because increasing employment and improving working conditions is one of the most important tasks, one that should not be procrastinated. However, since we are talking about decent working conditions for everyone, it is worth taking a look at what our working conditions are here in the Community.

Not long ago our colleague Baroness Sarah Ludford and I spoke in London with some Lithuanians living and working there, and with some representatives of trade unions and employees of the Lithuanian Embassy.

It appears that most of the Lithuanians working in London can only dream about decent working conditions. Temporary employment agencies often break the law, demanding illegal payment for job searches and for preparation of documents. They take passports and do not give them back. Particularly flagrant is the exploitation in the hotel industry, where employers do not pay the minimum wage defined by law. After this visit, Sarah Ludford called the Lithuanians in London the slaves of the twenty-first century.

Commissioner, we have an agency in Dublin which investigates working and living conditions. More than once I have spoken with the head of the agency and requested that an investigation be undertaken. Now I am asking, Commissioner, that with the help of this agency you undertake an investigation concerning the economic, social and psychological exploitation of migrants in the Community and recommend measures to eliminate it.

I support the rapporteur's position, which is that the Commission should always provide the European Parliament and the Council with all political measures required to stimulate decent working conditions for the Community's people as well as an account of their effectiveness.

  Zdzisław Zbigniew Podkański, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (PL) Madam President, the processes of globalisation taking place in the European Union and the world are attended by tremendous changes in ownership, culture and society.

Varying levels of economic development and living standards have led to migration on a vast scale in the search for work. According to the International Labour Organisation there are some 192 million unemployed people in the world and 86 million migrants, of whom 34 million are in the developing regions of the world.

People who are hungry are prepared to leave their homes and families to take on any work they can find, and this often puts them at the mercy of criminals. The numbers are shocking: according to the ILO, in 2004 alone some 2.54 million people were sold into forced labour, about 43% for sexual purposes.

The question this raises is: why is this happening? Why are so many countries, including some in the European Union, unable to control the problem?

The answer is simple: capital is more important than people, the rich ignore the poor. This means that globalisation and liberalisation favour …

(The President cut off the speaker.)

  Sepp Kusstatscher, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Madam President, this report contains a plethora of good ideas and positive suggestions for decent work, and, for that, Mrs Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou deserves our thanks. While demanding these things, though, we should also bear in mind that there are in the EU over 20 million people without work, many of whom are stigmatised and suffer exclusion; nor should it be forgotten that more and more workers, even though they have jobs, do not earn a living wage and that what are termed ‘precarious working conditions’ are used as a means of circumventing labour and tax law, with young people in particular being exploited. While all this is going on, the economy is expanding and the gross domestic product is on the rise. If a fair society without either poverty or exclusion is to be established, a radical paradigm shift is called for, and the best way of going about this is to be found in the idea of an unconditional basic income for all. The Commission would be well-advised to join with the Council in examining this idea in depth.

  Kyriacos Triantaphyllides, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (EL) Madam President, the report by my honourable friend is, generally speaking, satisfactory. In other words, the fact that it promotes the concept of decent work in accordance with the institutional position of the International Labour Organisation is, in my opinion, a good thing.

However, there is still a lot of work to be done as regards the actual concept of decent work and the application of this concept to all the European Union’s foreign policies.

Balancing economic development and social and labour development presents the Union with a unique opportunity today. Consequently, a very detailed evaluation of trends on the labour market is needed, not only at the level of employment, but also of its nature and quality; in other words, decent work.

Finally, as the European Union, we must make provision so that the promotion of gender equality continues within the framework of the policy for decent work through integrated and better-coordinated overall action for non-discrimination and equality.

  Derek Roland Clark, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – Madam President, we all want decent work, do we not? Cleaning out a cesspit, out in all weathers, knee deep in mud mending broken gas mains or removing asbestos from the Berlaymont Building is hardly decent work, but somebody has to do it – or do generous rates of pay turn a rotten job into a decent one?

I am intrigued, therefore, by paragraph 27, which talks about establishing a standard definition of forced labour. Forced labour, here, in the EU? Or is that a reference to the exploitation of people illegally trafficked from one country to another? Now that does need cracking down on, and the best way to do that is to restore national borders and carefully check all those seeking to cross them. At the moment, it is open house all the way from the Russian frontier to the Atlantic coast. No wonder we now have people-trafficking on a massive scale and forced labour to follow it.

  Cristian Stănescu, în numele grupului ITS. – Consecinţele sărăciei, ale excluziunii sociale, nu numai la nivel european, dar şi la nivel global, sunt devastatoare. Un trai decent în Europa se va baza pe atenţia pe care Uniunea o va da oamenilor care nu au un loc de muncă, acţiune susţinută prin propagarea principiilor sociale şi de politică externă. Desigur, este necesară armonizarea dialogului între instituţii, iar Comisia Europeană are un rol vital în aplicarea legislaţiei şi a responsabilităţilor care-i sunt conferite. Contribuţia organizaţiilor internaţionale, documentele prezentate în preambul de către raportor sunt de mare valoare pentru aprecierea obiectivă a acestui aspect, dar nu şi suficientă, fiindcă trebuie avute în vedere şi firmele private care pot asigura locuri de muncă şi pot oferi premisele creşterii economice şi implicit o viaţă mai bună. Prioritatea raportului dezbătut astăzi la Strasbourg sper să devină şi prioritatea guvernelor naţionale, care trebuie să pună cap la cap piesele acestui puzzle şi să elaboreze strategii socio-economice puternice pentru a se crea locuri de muncă, cu respectarea strictă a drepturilor fundamentale ale cetăţenilor şi cu combaterea încălcării dreptului la muncă. În acest context amintesc hărţuirea, exploatarea şi violenţa la locul de muncă, realităţi menţionate şi în raport şi la care nu trebuie să asistăm fără să dăm o replică pe măsură. Siguranţa şi ocrotirea sănătăţii la locul de muncă sunt alte subiecte propuse atenţiei, deoarece sunt condiţii esenţiale pentru asigurarea unei munci de calitate într-o Europă modernă. Globalizarea, politicile orientate pe principii greşite, delocalizarea masivă a întreprinderilor şi transferarea lor în afara graniţelor Uniunii Europene afectează cel mai mult piaţa de muncă şi relaţiile sociale în contextul strategiei de dezvoltare durabilă. Precaritatea sistemului trebuie stopată prin încurajarea legislaţiilor naţionale în domeniu, reformarea sistemului de învăţământ în zonele rurale şi acordarea unor facilităţi...

  Alessandro Battilocchio (NI). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I am grateful to the Commission and to the rapporteur for having decided to tackle such an important issue. I shall not dwell upon the need to ensure that all the countries in the Union and, above all, the new Member States ratify the main agreements on this matter as soon as possible, or on the EU’s duty to eliminate all types of discrimination based on gender, religion, ethnicity or sexual orientation, as well as all types of improper conduct such as the still prevalent phenomenon of harassment, which may interfere with workers’ professional or private lives.

I would like most of all to urge that we stop seeing things through the prism of an economy on an industrial scale grafted onto an eighteenth-century model. We cannot rely for our growth either on our own natural resources or on the availability of labour such as that in China, so we need a real revolution in thinking; we must realise, in fact, that we need to invest in human resources and to train people, offer them security and opportunities for growth. This is the best solution, if not the only one, for promoting the EU’s competitiveness and achieving the Lisbon objectives. If in the new economies such as Brazil or the Asian tigers the challenge of international trade is based on quantity, Europe has a duty and above all the possibility of differentiating itself by focusing on quality, creativity, and its cultural, intellectual and scientific heritage – in other words, on the main elements of our circumstances.

The tertiary sector, whose raw material is people, seen not as bodies but as brains, is now the dominant sector. If, therefore, we give our citizens the possibility of expressing as well as they can their capacities and the skills acquired during years of study, then we will be ready to be a principal actor on the international stage – a role that we are in danger of losing. Economic development must be at the service of human beings, and not the other way round.

  José Albino Silva Peneda (PPE-DE). – (PT) Madam President, I support the report by Mrs Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou, whom I wish to greet and congratulate. The issue of the quality of work is not just about workers’ rights; that would be a reductive view. It is vital that the quality of work be seen as a much broader issue, because, for a start, higher quality in the working environment is one of the most significant factors in increased productivity and, in turn, increased competitiveness.

The quality of work revolves around having the right public policies and the performance of companies in different areas such as access to infrastructure and communication technologies, education, vocational training, lifelong learning, health and safety at work and access to the labour market. From the companies’ point of view, the quality of work revolves around leadership, career prospects and the organisation of work. I should also like to mention a further reason why we need to focus on this subject. For Europe to carry out much needed reforms at various levels in order to become more competitive in relation to the rest of the world, there needs to be a change of behaviour and attitude, on the part of both companies and workers.

The greater the trust between the parties, the easier the reforms will be to implement. Moreover, the more intensive the dialogue, the higher the level of trust, and the greater the transparency on issues relating to the processes of restructuring or change. In my view, European political, economic and social agents must, as things stand, make the most of the opportunity to step up social dialogue at both Member State and European level. This issue of the quality of work will also help to realise this big opportunity.

  Anne Van Lancker (PSE). – (NL) Commissioner, it is extremely positive that the Commission will be actively supporting the International Labour Organisation’s strategy for decent work.

Decent work is more than simply respecting the ILO’s fundamental working standards, important though they are. It is also about people’s entitlement to viable pay and to social protection, and to their right to organise themselves in trade unions.

At the moment, one and a half billion people in the world do not earn enough to cover their basic needs, even though 90% of all countries in the world have a legal minimum wage; in many cases, though, people working from home, workers on the land or people with precarious contracts do not fall within its scope, or the law is not applied. Social consultation and trade union rights are therefore crucial to guarantee the right to decent work for everyone.

This is why I am particularly pleased about the joint declaration by the European Trade Union Congress and the American trade unions of their shared intention to fight for decent work.

Europe should place decent work at the heart of its foreign policy, so that the benefits of globalisation can be shared more evenly and social dumping in respect of pay- and work-related conditions in more developed economies be avoided. Trade agreements concluded between the European Union and countries such as India or Korea, which are the subject of current negotiation, should support decent work, and trade preferences should be withdrawn if countries systematically violate fundamental social rights.

Europe should also support its partners in the developing countries so that these can prioritise decent work in their national or regional strategy plans and in European partnership agreements.

Not only governments, but also multinationals bear a heavy responsibility with regard to guaranteeing fair wages and working conditions. Multinationals that have head offices in the European Union, but subsidiaries and sub-contractors elsewhere in the world, and that persistently violate those fundamental rights should be blacklisted and excluded from all public tenders in Europe.

It is in this way that Europe can take the lead in international efforts to add a social dimension to globalisation.

  Marian Harkin (ALDE). – Madam President, I congratulate the rapporteur on this comprehensive and balanced report. There are a number of statements in this report that have given rise to some debate, but I would pose the question: is there anything in this report that should not apply to a member of my family? And whether members of my family live in Ireland or in Poland or indeed if they are third country nationals, I would want the provisions in this report to apply to them. So, if we really mean to promote decent work for all and not just those who because of their birth, their position in society or education can access decent work, then this report is a major step in the right direction.

As I said, this report is balanced. Just as a member of my family might be seeking work, they might equally be a small entrepreneur, an SME struggling to survive and thereby create decent work. This report promotes business that does not seek to exploit, that does not engage in social dumping and that does not violate core labour standards. I suspect that most of us would like to work for, or indeed manage such companies.

There is constant tension between the demands of the market and the promotion of a just and equitable society. One group of workers, carers – in fact the largest single group of workers in Europe – often falls between two stools. The market does not recognise or reward them as they do not contribute significantly to GDP growth. Yet they are the glue that holds society together. Without this group of workers societal structures as we know them would collapse, and then who would the market serve?

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Decent work, which is rightly promoted by the International Labour Organisation, must include the promotion of workers’ rights in a wide range of areas, namely employment, salaries, contracts, health, hygiene, safety at work, vocational training, promotion, social protection and security, collective contracts, social dialogue and removing discrimination and inequality. Yet one only needs to look at the growth in unstable work, poorly paid work, the millions of accidents at work, poverty among workers, unemployment and fresh attacks on the rights of those who are in work – of which so-called flexicurity is a prime example – to realise the contradictions with which we are dealing and which lead workers to protest and struggle. Indeed, there is to be a general strike in Portugal on 30 May, organised by the CGTP union.

The Commission itself is an example of these contradictions, insofar as it has submitted this communication and yet at the same time has published a draft Green Paper on labour legislation …

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Kathy Sinnott (IND/DEM). – Madam President, there is no question that in some countries exploitation of workers is the norm. We rightly criticise this but we buy, wear, eat and drink the products of abusive labour on a daily basis. As long as we do not insist, the abuse goes on.

But decent work is a two-way street. Working conditions must be fair for the worker, but also the worker must perform his or her service in a fair and responsible way. It is only when there is mutual decency and respect in the European workplace that the EU will be competitive and socially sustainable. I would like to congratulate Mrs Panayotopoulos on her report. She has covered all the areas of vulnerability – young workers, mothers, even breastfeeding mothers, part-time and older workers. She even mentions home workers, and I would like to think that this includes the unpaid family carer of children, disabled people and older family members.

  Jean-Claude Martinez (ITS). – (FR) Madam President, work for all, and decent work at that! But what is it? It is the work of young people, of women, of children, in the United Kingdom or in Portugal; it is the work of migrants, of slaves in diplomatic missions, especially in the Middle East; it is the work of employees in France; it is those who commit suicide at work, at Renault for example; it is the obscene salaries – EUR 1 000 per month for cashiers, builders, workmen – that make it possible precisely to re-form the workforce; and, at the end of a life of exploitation, it is the retirements of shame: EUR 130 for a farm woman’s husband. When it costs EUR 10 to impound a dog, one cannot even impound a retired farm woman!

What are the causes? Well, the causes are the new forms of global capitalism, which is not industrial capitalism, but financial capitalism, in search of a 15% return. In order to obtain such a profit, the capitalism of pension funds, speculative funds, hedge funds, exerts three types of pressure: on salaries, on employees – who use just-in-time methods and who are stressed, hence the suicides – and on the number of employees. Another cause is the immigrant workers from Latin America and Africa to El Ejido in Andalusia, in workshops, in the restaurants of Barcelona, on worksites. It is globalisation, where Chinese workers on 25 cents an hour become the model international worker.

What should we do? Four things: we should wage social battles, we should wage legal battles, at the ILO and the WTO, by showing imagination, not least with deductible customs duties, we should wage political battles and, above all, we should be clear-sighted and call things by their true name – the deregulated market is capitalism and globalisation, and it is also worldwide financial capitalism.

  Jan Andersson (PSE). – (SV) I wish to thank not only the rapporteur but also the Commission for a very well-balanced report. I would also thank the Commission for the position it has adopted. The fight for decent work is beginning in the EU. We are concerned here not only with the fight against moonlighting but also with decent working conditions within the EU, with living wages and with opportunities for professional development and for exercising influence in the workplace. The fact is that if we are to be able to make progress with these issues globally, we must ourselves first comply with the principle of decent working conditions at home, and that is not something that we are doing fully. We need also continually to work on the situation in all the EU Member States. In international work we have the International Labour Organisation’s conventions, which constitute a good basis for working on. Trade and open borders are important, and I am a supporter of both. It is also important, however, that we at the same time work to bring about sound environmental and working conditions for people in countries poorer than the EU countries. What is at issue in these countries too is the right to organise and to obtain decent wages and working conditions. What responsibility do the various players have, then? Clearly, the EU has a responsibility as an international player in trade and other contexts. The Member States have a responsibility, but companies, too, have a responsibility, including a social responsibility. Sometimes, conflicts are set up between decent work and opportunities for growth. I believe, however, that the two are linked, as without decent work we shall not obtain long-term sustainable growth.

  Georgios Karatzaferis (IND/DEM). – (EL) Madam President, there are no indecent jobs or indecent professions. Even the oldest profession in the world is not indecent. However, there are indecent conditions and they are bred by our policy.

When someone is poor and weak, he will take recourse to indecent work. Jean Valjean in Les Miserables was not indecent when he stole the loaf of bread. However, we have given birth to 100 million European Jean Valjeans and the multinational companies exploit this need.

Some people need to understand that, if we do not change policy, if we take the bankers’ word as gospel, we shall have people who end up in indecent work. Mr Trichet doubled interest rates in two years.

When someone on a salary of EUR 800 takes a loan, you can understand that he is unable to pay it off. So he will accept indecent work. We are responsible and we must therefore take a leap forward. After so many years, we are going back to feudalism. In the old days, the liege lord had a reputation. Now he has a bank.

  Magda Kósáné Kovács (PSE) . – (HU) Mrs Panayotopoulos’s excellent report speaks for us all. It connects the requirement that ‘we must talk’ with serious, relevant and strategic statements.

Serious, because the report provides a responsible and expert exposé of those social differences which speed up the process of decline. Women figure repeatedly in the text, as do the aged, people living with handicaps, migrants, ethnic minorities, and the low-skilled, because of demographic constraints and those arising from the new labour market.

The report is highly relevant, since a debate was recently launched within the European Union’s institutions concerning labour law reform, social dialogue and measures that strengthen social security. These debates might turn out to cancel each other out, but our decision now could help ensure that they lead in the same direction after all.

And what the report has to say is strategic as well, since its concepts of ‘decent work’ demonstrate what employment security, social security, partnership, rights in the workplace, and the equality of men and women mean or ought to mean. All this is inseparable from the strategy for ending poverty, for eliminating the threat of the poverty trap.

Poverty is a mark of shame on the face of Europe, and therefore the introduction of a minimum wage system in each Member State is unavoidable, although in this area as well, significant differences between the old and new Member States are to be expected. Nonetheless, in the long term this arrangement will mean putting an end to living standards that are beneath human dignity.

  Ole Christensen (PSE). – (DA) Madam President, every year there are 270 million industrial accidents. In all, 2.2 million employees per year die as a result of unsafe working environments, and it is estimated that 60 million children around the world are engaged in hard and dangerous work. In the World Trade Organisation, in our trade agreements and in our development aid, there must be more focus on decent work. European consumers must also be mobilised, however. Consumers are willing to fight for employees’ rights. We see this in the growing interest in fair trade products, for which consumers are willing to pay extra if they can be certain that they are produced under decent working conditions.

Consumers, customers, employees and investors should have the opportunity to choose or reject products and suppliers on the basis of whether or not workers have had to risk life and limb in the manufacturing process. A voluntary product label for goods produced in decent working environments would give consumers the information that is necessary if decent working conditions are to remain in the interests of both consumers and companies. An EU product label developed around the fundamental workers’ rights laid down by the International Labour Organisation could make a difference.

  Vladimír Špidla, Member of the Commission. (CS) Honourable Members, it would be very difficult, in the time available to me, to make an adequate contribution to this debate. I should like therefore to try to focus only on the most important point. It is clear from the debate that Parliament is strongly in favour of promoting the concept of decent work for all in such a way that it forms part of a strategy formulated by the Commission. Secondly, this is a global project which applies under all conditions and in all countries, regardless of their level of development, and that naturally includes the Member States of the EU.

It was also emphasised that even in the EU, standards are not always upheld in some situations, particularly when it comes to illegal work. The Commission has therefore adopted a proposal to crack down on migrants working illegally, and is planning to draw up a more cohesive strategy on combating undeclared work.

I should also like to say that in the first half of 2008, the Commission will publicise a monitoring report on Union initiatives concerning decent work. The promotion of this global concept is something that brings together many areas, and this comes across very clearly in the proposed report. I should like once again to praise the report for its high quality and to thank the rapporteur.

  President. The debate is closed.

The vote will take place today at 12 noon.

Written statements (Rule 142)

  Tokia Saïfi (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) At a time when globalisation is the source of unrest and social injustice, it is necessary to emphasise the European strategies that increase the social dimension of globalisation. The implementation of the decent work agenda is part of these strategies. Decent work can in fact help the fight against poverty and social exclusion because it enables the advantages of globalisation to be optimised by reducing the disadvantages.

True, the liberalisation of trade must contribute to the objectives of growth, full employment and a reduction in poverty, but, above all, it must be based on the promotion of decent work for all. Furthermore, if it is to be a constant factor in the EU’s external policies, then the promotion of decent work must be the premise and condition of the EU’s trade relations with third countries. In this connection, it is relevant to point out a mechanism guaranteeing the promotion of decent work, namely the system of generalised preferences. The SPG+ is in fact a vital lever that is able to encourage efforts in favour of sustainable development, good governance and the promotion of fundamental social rights.

IN THE CHAIR: MR McMILLAN-SCOTT
Vice-President

5. Voting time

  President. The next item is the vote.

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

5.1. Community financial aid in the field of the trans-European transport and energy networks (vote)

– Report: Mauro (A6-0169/2007)

5.2. Roaming on public mobile networks (vote)

– Report: Rübig (A6-0155/2007)

- Before the vote:

  Martin Callanan (PPE-DE). – Mr President, on a point of order, in line with the Rules of Procedure, I would like to declare a pecuniary interest in the Rübig report. I will not be taking part in the voting on the items in question.

  President. That is very proper. Most of us have mobile phones!

  Roger Helmer (NI). – Mr President, I also rise under Rule 166 to declare a pecuniary interest. As a Member of the European Parliament and a frequent user of mobile phones, I stand to gain a great deal from this legislation. Therefore I disqualify myself from voting. I trust many of my colleagues will join me!

(Laughter)

  President. Well that is noted!

  Richard Corbett (PSE). – Mr President, following the logic of the last two speakers, will you enquire whether there may perhaps be a solitary Member of the European Parliament who does not possess a mobile phone? Then that Member can determine whether or not we adopt this legislation!

(Laughter and applause)

  President. I think we can move on now.

- After the adoption of the legislative resolution:

President. Congratulations to Mr Rübig and to the mobile phone users of Europe!

(Applause)

  Paul Rübig (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, my thanks go to the House for its assent and in particular to the Council for having agreed that the Regulation will be put into effect on 27 June at the latest, while what I have to say to those Members who abstained is that we are reducing the cost to the taxpayer.

5.3. EC-Mexico: Economic Partnership, Political Coordination and Cooperation Agreement (vote)

– Report: Markov (A6-0138/2007)

5.4. Excise duty on alcohol (vote)

– Report: Lulling (A6-0148/2007)

- After the rejection of the Commission proposal:

  Ieke van den Burg (PSE). – I should like to request that the document be referred back to committee, because now we have contradictory voting outcomes.

  President. Because the Commission has not made any proposals, it will automatically be referred back to committee. That will happen anyway.

  Astrid Lulling (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – (FR) Mr President, I proposed to my group and to many of my fellow Members who supported me that they reject the report, because the line that I had proposed has not been followed and because I have the impression that, in view of the close outcome of the vote, certain Members of this House did not know what they were voting for.

(Protests)

Sorry, were unaware of the significance of their votes.

Furthermore, Mr President, given that the Commission is keeping quiet – even though Commissioner Kovács spoke twice last night while I, the rapporteur, was not allowed to respond to him – I really must highlight its powerlessness.

We made a proposal in order to break the deadlock. Unfortunately, we have not been supported, Mr President. Therefore, there is no report by Parliament on this proposal, and the Commission and the Council can persist in maintaining the status quo and persevere in their state of deadlock.

(Applause)

  President. There will of course be a debate when the matter comes back before the House.

5.5. Composition of the delegation to EUROLAT (vote)

5.6. The exclusion of health services from the Services Directive (vote)

– Report: Vergnaud (A6-0173/2007)

- Before the vote:

  Bernadette Vergnaud (PSE), rapporteur. – (FR) Mr President, I am taking the floor simply to point out to the House that there has been an error.

Indeed, as the same sentence appears in three different paragraphs, Parliament’s services have rightly deleted paragraphs 47 and 53 from the report, since this sentence appears in its entirety in paragraph 51.

I simply wished to inform my fellow Members of this matter.

5.7. Structural policies and EU cohesion (vote)

– Report: Pleguezuelos Aguilar (A6-0150/2007)

5.8. The EU's Aid for trade (vote)

– Report: David Martin (A6-0088/2007)

5.9. The economic partnership agreements (vote)

– Report: Sturdy (A6-0084/2007)

- Before the vote on Amendment 23:

  Margrietus van den Berg (PSE). – (NL) Mr President, the last sentence of Amendment 23 now reads ‘calls on the EU to set up the compensation mechanisms required to avert consequences of this sort’. This has met with opposition, for it seems to imply that we, the EU, should carry all financial consequences. In order to avoid this misinterpretation, I would suggest an oral amendment according to which it would read ‘calls on the EU to help to set up the compensation mechanisms required to avert consequences of this sort’.

(The oral amendment was accepted)

5.10. Common Foreign and Security Policy 2005 (vote)

– Report: Brok (A6-0130/2007)

- After the vote:

  Vittorio Agnoletto (GUE/NGL). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, when paragraph 10 was voted on, the Italian translation stated paragraph 11, meaning that I voted differently than I would otherwise have done.

5.11. Decent work (vote)

– Report: Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou (A6-0068/2007)

  President. That concludes the vote.

6. Explanations of vote

– Report: Mauro (A6-0169/2007)

  Hubert Pirker (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, while I do endorse Mr Mauro’s report, I do regret the absence from it, as also from the Commission draft, of any reference to Community grants being tied to measures for protection against noise from rail and road traffic. However much development work might need to be done, the people living nearby also need to be considered, and not only their health but also their acceptance of the work.

I therefore urge that the rules on protection against noise for rail vehicles be amended as soon as possible to make reference to lower maximum levels and to promote noise abatement measures in exactly the same way as they promote the extension of trans-European networks.

  Andreas Mölzer (ITS). – (DE) Mr President, I have voted against the Mauro report on the grounds that the amount of traffic in Europe is increasing enormously and that overcrowded roads and permanent traffic jams presage the collapse of the transport system. Although it was many years ago that we decided what projects would form the Trans-European Transport networks, we are lagging far behind when it comes to putting them in place, so that what should be Europe’s masterpiece is still more like a piece of patchwork.

We must also do something about making rail travel more appealing, and I believe that should be done not only for transnational traffic, but also, and to an increasing extent, for local travel.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) Although the proposal for a regulation on the granting of Community financial aid in the field of the trans-European transport and energy networks provides for an increase in the current level of Community cofinancing, it falls short of what the original proposal as regards both the transport and energy networks, due to the detrimental agreement on the financial perspective for 2007-2013.

There is a further fundamental issue at stake here. The ‘trans-European networks’ are implemented with Community and Member State funding – in other words, clearly public funding – with the aim of completing the internal market, as explained in point 1 of the Council common position: ‘strong and integrated energy and transport networks are the cornerstone of the European internal market and that better use of the existing networks and the completion of missing links will make it possible to increase effectiveness and competitiveness.’ In other words, the completion of the internal market lies at the heart of these projects, with the opening up of the markets and with key sectors in the economy of a country being handed over to private interests, once, of course, public investment has been made.

Given the importance of these sectors to the development of any country, we argue that they should be kept in the public sector and are thus opposed to its privatisation.

  Alyn Smith (Verts/ALE), in writing. Mr President, my group wanted to see our amendments incorporated to this report which would have increased the powers of Parliament over future budgets on trans-European Energy and Transport networks, though they were unsuccessful. However, it remains important that this area of investment remain under close parliamentary scrutiny as it represents such a clear instance of ‘EU added value’. The EU has broken down barriers across Europe for many years, yet so many infrastructural barriers remain in energy and must be addressed. Scotland in particular has much to contribute to Europe’s energy needs but we need the necessary connections to do so, and I will be exploring all ways to lever EU funding into connections to maximise Scotland’s green energy potential.

– Report: Rübig (A6-0155/2007)

  Gyula Hegyi (PSE). – (HU) I believe this has been one of the most important votes, at least from our citizens’ point of view. Ordinary citizens know little about EU legalities. They are more interested in finding out what EU membership means in their daily life.

When borders crumble, when one can cross from one country to another without a passport, the question arises: why must we pay extra punitive charges for getting in touch by telephone across borders? I think the best thing would have been for Parliament to decide to abolish completely all roaming charges and declare that all mobile rates within the European Union shall be identical.

However, I admit this would have been difficult to implement as a first step, and therefore welcome the fact that at least we have come to the gradual reduction of roaming fees. 10 million people live in Hungary and 9.5 million of them use mobile telephones. In my opinion, it was extremely important to vote for this.

  Ivo Strejček (PPE-DE). – (CS) I voted against the proposals on roaming calls, for the following reasons. Firstly, these measures are not economic but rather political in nature. They are an expression of protectionism and the new form of European commercialism. Secondly, they go against the principle of supply and demand. Thirdly, although I do not expect the mobile operators to make up for the shortfall by raising prices on the domestic market, they will presumably cut investment in development and almost certainly break the cycle of falling domestic prices.

The most worrying aspect for the EU is that investors will lose confidence, as they will see that the regulatory body is moving the goalposts in the middle of the game.

  Jim Allister (NI), in writing. It makes a pleasant change to welcome a piece of EU legislation. The enforced reduction in mobile roaming charges is good for consumers across Europe. Though still high at 35p per minute to make a call and 17p per minute to receive a call, they are set to fall further over the next three years. Now reductions must be obtained on texting and email connections.

  Derek Roland Clark (IND/DEM), in writing. UKIP MEPs, like all MEPs in Parliament, have a vested interest in reduced mobile roaming charges. Therefore, UKIP MEPs will not vote on the Rübig report. UKIP believes it is morally wrong for MEPs to vote on an issue which could lead to personal enrichment. Moreover, we never approve of EU regulation.

  Richard Corbett (PSE), in writing. I warmly welcome the new deal on mobile roaming charges. Labour MEPs have been campaigning for two years to introduce these measures which represent a genuine triumph for European consumers and could not have been achieved without the EU. For too long mobile phone companies have been charging outrageous sums to people using their phones elsewhere in the EU.

It is a shame that Conservative MEPs sided with the mobile phone industry to oppose consumer protection, making the case for higher charges to be levied.

  Brigitte Douay (PSE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the Rübig report on roaming on public mobile networks within the Community because the positions upheld in this report are going to make it possible significantly to improve the situation of European consumers. Many European citizens, including the inhabitants of the Nord-Pas-de-Calais border area, frequently travel abroad, for professional and personal reasons, and the tariffs currently in force when they make or receive calls on their mobiles are excessive and unjustifiable.

The Rübig report remedies a situation that penalises mobility. I am therefore in favour of the fixed tariffs in this report: the costs per minute that have been adopted are totally satisfactory and much lower than those currently applied. We would, however, have preferred even lower tariffs, which could have provided a better incentive for people to move about Europe.

In addition to significantly reduced tariffs, the requirement for transparency that has been requested is an important principle. The Socialist Group in the European Parliament also sought greater transparency concerning the cost of calls and secured a result whereby, from now on, European citizens will be able to know how much a call received or sent from abroad will cost them.

  Edite Estrela (PSE), in writing. (PT) I voted in favour of the Rübig report (A6-0155/2007) on roaming on public mobile networks in the Community. I feel that the preliminary agreement between Parliament and the Presidency of the Council on the text of the regulation, which MEPs from the Socialist Group in the European Parliament played a key role in formulating, represents a significant victory for the consumer.

I feel that these measures will prove vital for the future of the information society. They will enable us to save billions of euros and better to serve the consumers’ interests. The reduction in roaming rates will make it possible to break down the remaining barriers in the internal market, thereby strengthening European competitiveness.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) This regulation states that its ultimate aim is to ‘create a smooth-running European internal market in telecommunications.’ This, as the report says, is because ‘self-regulation does not work’.

It is interesting to note, in this case, the acknowledgement that the market does not work. Hence the need to regulate prices. They therefore propose both wholesale and retail price regulation, including the creation of a regulated retail price – Eurotariff – which all operators will be obliged to offer, in order to achieve a significant reduction in the price of roaming. Even so, the possibility remains of huge profit margins for the large operators in the sector. That being said, there are advantages for consumers: cheaper international calls, without this cost being transferred to national markets, and the freedom to choose the most favourable operator and tariff.

This is another example of the ‘market’ clearly not protecting users and consumers, and this is why regulation is needed. It is high time the Commission and the Member States acknowledged this in other areas and brought benefit to consumers.

  Bruno Gollnisch (ITS), in writing. – (FR) There are times – extremely rare times in this House – when the Members are asked to vote on a text that is genuinely useful for Europeans and when, for once, Europe provides real added value.

Such was the case a few years ago for cross-border credit transfers in the euro zone: European legislation stipulated that the cost of cross-border transfers be the same as that of national transfers. This was merely very logical and very normal, since the single currency had just been brought in.

It is the case today for the regulation on mobile telephone roaming charges. Though imperfect, like all compromises, this text will nevertheless make it possible to monitor more effectively the prohibitive tariffs set by operators on Community international communications. Furthermore, the revision clause, which will be laid down in 18 months’ time, will, we hope, be an opportunity to go further in terms of protecting consumers.

  Hélène Goudin (IND/DEM), in writing. (SV) The report contains many practical proposals with a view to improving the situation for consumers. The June List welcomes these proposals which, when it comes to consumer information and easily accessible price information, are to people’s advantage.

Roaming fees certainly seem absurdly high at present. Before a decision is made on political measures, however, it must be made clear what market failure is behind this unsatisfactory state of affairs. Is it a question of insufficient competition through what is known as implicit collusion? In that case, it would be quite wrong to introduce price regulation, as this would do nothing at all to solve the problem. To propose treatment without a prior diagnosis would be absurd. Researchers in this area should investigate what market failure we are facing before populist measures are taken.

In the long run it is free competition rather than price regulation that will most benefit consumers. To allow politicians to set prices instead of the market is almost never a constructive long-term solution.

In my opinion, the proposal will also hit that part of the population that, for economic or other reasons, seldom travels abroad.

  Bogusław Liberadzki (PSE), in writing. – (PL) I am voting in favour of the report on the proposal relating to the Regulation of the European Parliament and Council concerning roaming on public mobile telephone networks within the Community and amending Directive 2002/21/EC on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications (COM(2006)0382 – C6-02442006 – 2006/0133(COD))

Mr Rübig correctly pointed out the need to find solutions that would allow EU citizens to use mobile phones to contact home while abroad. There is no single market for mobile telephony at the moment, and this is a barrier to the daily use of telephones abroad.

I agree with the formula which sets maximum wholesale and retail rates. It is very important to reduce the unreasonably high levels of roaming tariffs, to explain to users how to activate new tariffs and to inform them of the date the above legislation takes effect.

Another positive initiative is that any customer who does not choose any particular tariff within three months of the Regulation becoming effective will automatically enjoy the regulated EU tariff, and the fact that mobile phone operators will have to inform their customers of the roaming charges for outgoing and incoming calls for their particular tariffs.

  Astrid Lulling (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) It was with a heavy heart that I voted in favour of the report on roaming on public mobile networks because it goes against my most important political convictions. Indeed, I regard any tariff-fixing by the legislator as undue intervention in the market economy and as a vestige of another era that ought not to be revived.

The application of the Eurotariff thus set will create big problems for operators from the small Member States, who will have difficulty in funding the investments needed to apply the new roaming conditions. The long-term effects of this regulation could even end in an increase in national communications tariffs, which would be counterproductive and disastrous for the proper functioning of the national economies.

I support transparent price setting and a reduction in roaming charges in a spirit of free competition, but this reduction must not be achieved by means of retail price fixing and at the expense of national communications tariffs.

I am also pleased that the ‘opt-in’ principle has been safeguarded in this compromise, even though an ‘opt-in’ with no conditions or time limits would have been preferable.

This regulation has a mere three-year lifespan: what a consolation!

  Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM), in writing. (SV) The report contains many practical proposals with a view to improving the situation for consumers. The June List welcomes these proposals which, when it comes to consumer information and easily accessible price information, are to people’s advantage.

Roaming fees certainly seem absurdly high at present. Before a decision is made on political measures, however, it must be made clear what market failure is behind this unsatisfactory state of affairs. Is it a question of insufficient competition through what is known as implicit collusion? In that case, it would be quite wrong to introduce price regulation, as this would do nothing at all to solve the problem. To propose treatment without a prior diagnosis would be absurd. Researchers in this area should investigate what market failure we are facing before populist measures are taken.

In the long run it is free competition rather than price regulation that will most benefit consumers. To allow politicians to set prices instead of the market is almost never a constructive long-term solution.

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. I supported this first-reading compromise agreement. This is an important victory which will benefit consumers, who will be able to enjoy cheaper roaming costs by this summer.

  Claude Moraes (PSE), in writing. I voted for the report on the proposal for a regulation on roaming on public mobile networks, which will lead to a reduction in prices for millions of roaming customers. The initiative will help an enormous number of consumers who are affected by the roaming charges that are unjustifiably high.

The regulation will ensure that prices paid for international roaming when travelling within the European Union will not be unjustifiably higher than the charges for calls paid within the user’s country. Consumers will benefit from lower prices for making calls in the visited country, back home or to any other EU Member State. Consumers will also make considerable savings when receiving calls.

  Dimitrios Papadimoulis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The Confederal Group of the European United Left/Nordic Green Left voted in favour of the Rübig report on roaming because, following pressure from the European Parliament, a satisfactory compromise was achieved for the benefit of European consumers.

Of course a great many steps still need to be taken in the direction of transparent charges and extending the scope of and further reducing the uncontrolled charges made by mobile telephone companies.

The procedure also needs to be speeded up before the Telecommunications Council, so that the regulation can be adopted as quickly as possible and consumers can benefit from the regulations already introduced this summer.

This regulation must set an example. Regulatory frameworks need to be created in other sectors where the rules of the free market have proven to be inadequate and cartels reign supreme.

  José Ribeiro e Castro (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) Current roaming prices penalise users travelling between different Member States and constitute an obstacle to a genuine single market.

In view of the cross-border nature of the contractual relations involved in these services, the Member States have shown they are scarcely capable of tackling this issue. Although the solution ought ideally to lie in the sector regulating itself, this again has proved impossible.

Europe’s consumers deserve fairer, more transparent treatment. A Europe-wide regulatory amendment is therefore called for, one that stops abuse, creates transparency, ensures balance in the market, enables greater ease of movement and communication, and fosters greater economic dynamism.

Although the limits on the price of calls fall well short of what Parliament initially called for, I feel this is a first step in the right direction. It also introduces the kind of clarity and predictability that the market has been missing.

I hope that the operators do not react to the loss of revenue with an unjustified increase in the price of national calls, but instead take the opportunity to raise revenue by increasing the number of customers and by improving the services they provide both nationally and internationally.

  Frédérique Ries (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) By endorsing the regulation on mobile telephone roaming charges this lunchtime, the European Parliament has just adopted legislation that was awaited by millions of consumers: workers or tourists, exasperated by the exorbitant costs of cross-border calls made or received on the GSM and who have gained the support of the European Commission, as the author of this legislative proposal.

Furthermore, although my liberal philosophy does not sit well with interventionism on market prices, I am above all opposed to the laissez-faire, lax approach and to cartels being formed in a given economic sector.

This European law is a significant advance when it comes to protecting consumers, who are going to see their bills slashed by as much as 70%. A further advance is the freedom of choice given to operators to offer clients an option between the regulated tariff and a fixed tariff that will also cover SMSs and MMSs. I have one regret, however: this reduction in roaming charges will not be operational for the summer season.

Europeans will find consolation in this desire clearly expressed by the three European institutions to try to win them back and to fulfil the first task: to make laws that change their everyday lives for the better.

  Olle Schmidt (ALDE), in writing. (SV) I abstained from voting on the roaming issue today. Anyone who has ever been abroad knows how expensive it is to make and receive calls, but there are dangers in the EU setting price ceilings. I would have been able to accept regulation at wholesaler level governing, for example, the relationship between Telia and a company in Spain, but I do not approve of setting a ceiling on prices for the consumer. It would not be a ceiling but a floor. If the ceiling is set at 49%, it is obviously that percentage that the companies will deduct. Companies’ profits would decline as they would previously have had revenue that could be used for competing in the national arena. If profits disappeared, this might lead to companies having to increase their national prices. The EU would then, instead, have weakened the vulnerable consumer whom it had always maintained it wanted to protect. The mobile market is a relatively new market. In Sweden, the market adjusted gradually and prices have fallen significantly. If only the system had been made more transparent, better technical solutions sought and the information systems spoken of in the proposal introduced, these measures would presumably have been enough to force prices down. Roaming prices have fallen substantially, and although this has certainly happened unevenly throughout Europe, it is still a sign that the market is regulating itself.

  Peter Skinner (PSE), in writing. I voted in favour of this measure as so many European citizens are affected by higher than necessary roaming charges. The reduction of costs for so many people and businesses is a very useful contribution to peoples' private pockets, as well as business costs. The function of the mobile telephony market is to allow the maximum efficiency of the industry, while striking the right balance in consumer interests.

  Andrzej Jan Szejna (PSE), in writing. – (PL) I am voting in favour of the report on the proposal relating to the Regulation of the European Parliament and Council concerning roaming on public mobile telephone networks within the Community and amending Directive 2002/21/EC on the common regulatory framework for electronic communications.

When we adopted the Lisbon Agenda, our aim was to turn the European Union into the world’s most competitive knowledge-based economy. For that reason we must ensure that the market for mobile phone technology within the European Union is a dynamic market with no internal barriers.

Currently about 80% of EU citizens have a mobile phone, but mobile phone roaming charges are so high that they limit demand for this service. However, mobile telephony is not restricted to voice communication, but also includes other types of new-generation communication such as GPS, Wi-Fi and remote Internet access. These are very advanced technologies, which are a particularly important element in helping to promote a knowledge-based economy.

For this reason we cannot afford to allow their usage and their development to be stifled by exorbitant price barriers.

  Jeffrey Titford (IND/DEM), in writing. UKIP MEPs, like all MEP's in the Parliament, have a vested interest in reduced mobile roaming charges. Therefore, UKIP MEPs will not vote on the Rubig report. UKIP believes it is morally wrong for MEPs to vote on an issue which could lead to personal enrichment. Moreover, we never approve of EU regulation.

– Report: Lulling (A6-0148/2007)

  Danutė Budreikaitė (ALDE). – (LT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the introduction of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages in 1992 was the start of attempts to coordinate taxes in the creation of a common market. This was and is a complex process.

So far there has been partial success in managing to coordinate indirect taxes, setting a minimal level for alcohol, alcoholic beverages, tobacco and fuel. However, in reality, taxation policy has remained under the jurisdiction of the Member States.

Increasing excise duty based on EU inflation indices for 1993–2006 is not logical. Why does this rate of inflation have to be applied to countries that joined the EU after 2004?

Complete abolition of excises based on the fact that these are small incomes for Member States is also not justified. Following the aim of the introduction of excise duties, analogically one ought also to abolish tobacco and fuel excise duties.

I support maintaining the status quo, not changing excises and allowing Member States, based on the principle of subsidiarity, to further set their own tax levels. All the more so, because among the Member States themselves there is no common agreement on the abolition of excises.

  Andreas Mölzer (ITS). – (DE) Mr President, I have done what the rapporteur, Mrs Lulling, actually wanted people to do, and voted against her report on the grounds that it seeks the increase of more taxes, this time reheating the old familiar argument that this is needed to prevent distortions of competition, although it now turns out that – as the experts had predicted – the minimum rates brought in in 1992 did no more than widen the gulf between the rates in the Member States, some of which increased their rates repeatedly and now want the others to be compelled to do likewise.

To act on this proposal would, I believe, be seen by the public as another outrage by Brussels.

  Jan Andersson, Göran Färm, Anna Hedh, Inger Segelström and Åsa Westlund (PSE), in writing. (SV) We Swedish Social Democrats should ideally have liked to have seen Parliament being able to support the Commission’s original proposal for an increase in minimum taxes that took account of inflation since 1993.

Since the vote was predicted to be very close, we chose to support the amendments aimed at increasing minimum taxes so that they took account of inflation since the 2004 enlargement.

We are pleased that the report has now been referred back to the committee and hope that the latter will this time come to the view that taxes on alcohol are needed in order to reduce the harm caused by alcohol in the EU.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) It is a good thing that the majority in Parliament rejected this report. We voted against imposing excise duties at supranational level, as this would have restricted tax sovereignty and the sovereignty of political decision-making by means of taxes and the budget.

The main purpose of excise duties, which are currently a significant proportion of the revenue of many Member States, is to moderate consumption, as in the case of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages, and in turn to protect public health.

In addition to the direct impact of excise on activities in the agricultural sector and a significant part of the industrial sector, this should, first and foremost, be a national decision based on consumer preference for traditional products, on varying social choice as regards the consumption of alcoholic beverages, and on how different countries use different tax instruments, as in the case of wine in Portugal, where it is important to maintain the current minimum zero euro rate, a move that has been accepted in plenary.

We are opposed, however, to the Commission’s proposal to increase minimum rates and the rapporteur’s ideas on having a maximum rate.

  Bruno Gollnisch (ITS), in writing. – (FR) As the report itself notes, the 1992 directive on excise duties did not result in any approximation of these rates among the Member States, or even settled the so-called problems concerning a distortion of competition. If it were consistent, the Commission, in line with its ‘better lawmaking’ programme, ought itself to call for the abolition of this text.

The truth is that it is the responsibility of the Member States, and them alone, to set taxes, whether direct or indirect, on their territory, in accordance with their budgetary, economic and social requirements, and that the fiscal harmonisation sought by the Commission has in fact only an ideological aim.

I shall conclude by saying that it is more than a little paradoxical for those who campaign for the abolition of border controls, the free movement of persons, goods and services and free competition to be the first to complain when this abolition and this freedom of movement encourage Europeans to use competition to their advantage.

  Hélène Goudin and Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM), in writing. (SV) We have voted against this report because it does not address the conflicting aims that are central to the problem concerned. What we are really concerned with here is, of course, the fact that the Member States’ right to decide on an issue as crucial as alcohol policy is in conflict both with the demand for a free internal market and the Member States’ right to make their own decisions about their tax systems. Alcohol is not just any old product. The internal market is at the heart of the EU, and the right of taxation is one of the sovereign state’s most important assets.

The rapporteur has made no attempt at all to analyse and resolve these conflicting aims. The issue should therefore be addressed seriously by experts and political representatives with a proper grasp of the subject before Parliament is faced with new proposals.

– Report: Vergnaud (A6-0173/2007)

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE-DE). – (SK) I have voted in favour of the realistic approach presented in the Vergnaud report, since it is obvious that the decisions of the European Court of Justice defending the right of patients to be treated in a country other than their own where their health would otherwise be seriously at risk or where their life is at stake, interfere with the powers of national governments.

As we know, the Directive on Services in the Internal Market excluded healthcare from the competence of the European Union and left it under the exclusive purview of national states. It is self-evident that patient mobility in Europe will increase. Patients will naturally be demanding access to care including the latest forms of treatment. This will not be confined to workers working in another country; it may also involve patients seeking out high-quality treatments abroad which for objective reasons are not available in the home country, and then travelling abroad to obtain such treatments.

  Jim Allister (NI), in writing. Believing that the provision of quality and universal health services is the sole competence of the Member States, I voted against the Vergnaud report and the attempt to re-introduce healthcare into the Services Directive.

  Jan Andersson, Göran Färm, Anna Hedh, Inger Segelström and Åsa Westlund (PSE), in writing. (SV) We have chosen to vote against this report, partly because we believe that the Member States themselves should be able to decide for which health services prior notification can be required. We believe that a system involving planned care in which, following a medical examination, prior notification could quickly be obtained would be to patients’ advantage. It would be a system that provided equal access to cross-border care services for everyone and not just for those who could afford to pay out of their own pockets and then wait to be reimbursed. We have voted in favour of amendments that recommend political decisions rather than court decisions based on case law, even if we have reservations about all the political initiatives being subject to codecision by Parliament. We have also voted in favour of wording that contains references to freedom of establishment, but we would emphasise that we do not believe that this necessarily means having access to public resources.

  Françoise Castex (PSE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the Vergnaud report.

The vote on this report in plenary has confirmed the specific nature of health services and hence their exclusion from the Services Directive. This vote has meant that equal access to health care and the financial viability of social security system will not be called into question.

In my view, the discussions begun at Community level on health services must henceforth focus on the legal uncertainty resulting from the case-law of the CJEC and on the areas for which the European Union is liable to create added value.

As far as I am concerned, a directive on health services that is in keeping with the goal of a framework directive on services of general economic interest remains the only tool that will enable the European Union to provide its added value and to regain the trust of the people of Europe in an area that is the very essence of their lives.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) In common with other Commission communications on healthcare, this own-initiative report is, to some extent, aimed at once again applying to health services the same approach as the internal market for services, which it does by tabling a fresh proposal for a separate health services directive. We therefore voted against the report. We welcome the fact, however, that the proposal to include health services in the directive on liberalising services was rejected.

Universal access to high-quality, universal health services is a fundamental right of all citizens, which must be provided by the existing national social protection systems in the EU. Health services are a public good and the public authorities of each Member State have the crucial task of guaranteeing equal access to all high-quality health services, and of providing adequate public funding. We therefore oppose the creation of a liberalised internal market for health services and the current trend of reducing or privatising health services or making them ever more dependent on internal market regulation or on competition rules.

  Bruno Gollnisch (ITS), in writing. – (FR) Health services are services like no other. Therefore, under no circumstances must they be subject to the European rules on competition, State aid, public contracts or the internal market. Above all, their organisation and funding must be the responsibility of the Member States, and of them alone.

Despite the predictable rejection of the paragraph calling for services to be made subject to the Bolkestein Directive, we feel that the text of the report is still dangerous. It proposes to encourage the mobility of health workers at the risk of creating shortages of those very workers, and thus treatment for all the citizens, in certain countries; or to encourage, with no controls, patient mobility, which may undermine the quality of treatment, lead to the saturation of infrastructure and compromise the balance of the social protection systems.

The objective of access for all European citizens to high-quality and community-based health care cannot under any circumstances be achieved by a European directive based on the case-law of the European Court of Justice, ruling on a few contentious cross-border issues. In actual fact, this objective can only be achieved if there is a guarantee that Brussels will never be able to legislate in this field.

  Jean Lambert (Verts/ALE), in writing. I voted against this report, as amended, because I believe it still leaves our national health services at risk from creeping liberalisation and legal uncertainty. I welcome Parliament maintaining its position to exclude health services from the scope of the Services Directive. However, we are now apparently refusing to set boundaries on the role of the market in relation to the right of Member States to decide on the method, financing and scope of the health services they provide. Unless we adopt a clear legislative framework, preferably backed by a Treaty change, we are actively encouraging the Court of Justice to decide what is, or is not, a medical treatment and whether or not it should be reimbursed or require prior authorisation. As the Rapporteur on Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems, I wish to make it clear to some in this House that the reimbursement situation is not a new system: it has been in place for over 30 years and has proved invaluable to thousands of citizens but its scope and workings should be determined by Parliament and Government – not the Court, so I regret the adoption of amendment 24 from the Liberals.

  Carl Lang (ITS), in writing. – (FR) This report shows the will to bypass the content of the Services Directive, which legitimately excluded health services from its scope. Health services are not commercial services but services vital to our ageing populations. Health must escape the desires of the ultraliberal vultures and the European federalist ideology that is going to harmonise everything downwards. The matter of excluding health services is the responsibility of the Member States and must remain so.

Next, it is worrying to note that this woolly Lisbon Strategy is still being referred to as a prerequisite when we have known for a long time that it is a symbol of ultra-European inefficiency. Furthermore, in view of the differences between our countries, one might say that the universality of a so-called European social model is utopian. Finally creating a legal framework in this area amounts to implementing a quasi-internal market in health services or at least to laying the foundations for one.

Our duty is to prevent the quality of health services from being jeopardised, to preserve medical ethics and to guarantee strict controls in relation to the authorising and reimbursement of treatment at national and ministerial level.

  Diamanto Manolakou (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The report on the impact of the exclusion of health services from the Bolkenstein Directive, on the pretext of protecting patients and health professionals, promotes the commercialisation and further privatisation of a choice sector for capital, so that it can generate profits for it.

We MEPs of the Greek Communist Party clearly express our opposition to the Bolkenstein Directive and are fighting with the workers to get it repealed.

The report takes it as given that national health systems will be inadequate and that health services will not be free. That is why it promotes the reduction of health services covered by insurance funds to the lowest common denominator, using the health card as the tool to do so. Nomadic employment is proposed for workers and the need for rounded scientific knowledge based on training and the acquisition of skills is underestimated. Professionals are also obliged to have indemnity insurance, thereby reducing the obligation of the state to provide medical and care services to a personal responsibility. The patient’s choice of treatment is also reduced to a personal responsibility, through information networks which replace the state’s obligation.

That is why we MEPs of the Greek Communist Party voted against the report. Health is a social commodity and the workers need to extend their fight against its commercialisation by demanding modern, free, national health services run exclusively by the state which meet the workers’ contemporary needs.

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. I voted for this report on the consequences of excluding health services from the Services Directive. In particular I am pleased that the report asked the Commission to propose "an appropriate instrument" to codify the case law of the Court of Justice.

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) In spite of the controversy generated by this report, which has been sorted out in time, I feel that the report in its current form reaffirms existing rights and fosters patient mobility. This was precisely the intention.

Given the particular importance of this issue, the debate must encompass the broad range of different systems in the various EU Member States. In any event, the most important thing is to make sure that the facilities opened up by patient mobility are clear and viable.

Health is one of the issues that the citizens hold most dear and it would be wrong to impose solutions on the Member States by means of Community legislation that would undermine rules on which the citizens and the politicians have agreed. Nevertheless this does not stop rules from being introduced to facilitate the use of this facility in a free area such as the EU, where there is a tradition of mobility on various issues.

I therefore feel that the outcome is a positive one, and favourable to the citizens’ interests and rights.

  Bart Staes (Verts/ALE), in writing. (NL) European policy in the area of healthcare should not confine itself to regulating patient mobility or creating a unified market. We must avoid a two-speed policy by means of which anyone who is financially secure can choose to travel to find the best care.

That undermines social and territorial cohesion and solidarity, and is therefore inappropriate. Healthcare – just like other social services of general interest – often forms part of a national structure of social protection which ensures that the citizens’ fundamental rights are safeguarded.

It was for those reasons that this House, last year, decided to exclude health services from the Services Directive. We should not undo this today!

The text that was approved a moment ago which examines the impact and implications of this exclusion, urges the Commission to develop a suitable instrument to codify jurisprudence in respect of the rights and duties of mobile patients as well as care providers. I do not believe that this goes far enough.

If jurisdiction is taken as the only basis for policy, then this does not do justice to the importance of this area in a social Europe. Health is a fundamental right. Everyone is entitled to travel to a different country in order to receive the best care. Every care provider, as well as the Member States involved, has the duty to place all patients on an equal footing.

  Marc Tarabella (PSE), in writing. – (FR) At the time of the vote on the draft Vergnaud report within the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, Members from the right supported an amendment aimed at reintroducing health services in the ‘Services’ Directive. By means of this vote, the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats broke an earlier compromise with the Socialist Group in the European Parliament that protected health services by keeping them outside the scope of the ‘Services’ Directive.

Fortunately, the members of the PPE-DE Group decided during the vote in plenary to abide by this compromise, and to respect health care by refusing to make health a commodity. At the end of this vote, the will of the Socialists to protect accessible, high-quality and affordable health services for EU citizens triumphed.

– Report: Pleguezuelos Aguilar (A6-0150/2007)

  Richard Corbett (PSE), in writing. I very much welcome the fact that, as of next year, agriculture will no longer be the biggest item of expenditure on the EU budget, but the various structural funds will. This is a welcome reallocation of resources – provided, of course, that the reallocated money is well spent! And here too, I would give a cautious welcome to the gradual shift within structural funding itself towards developing innovation and enterprise in our less prosperous regions.

Structural funding must be more than a simple transfer of resources from the more prosperous Member States to the less prosperous ones – if that were all it is, this could be done simply by adjusting budget contributions and rebates. Structural funding must bring added value and be a genuine European policy in its own right, helping less prosperous regions rather than Member States, developing transnational linkages and helping ensure that all can benefit from the European single market.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) Bearing in mind that the intention of the report is to contribute to the debate on the future of the EU’s cohesion policy, we must point out our disagreement with some significant aspects of the report, as follows:

- the idea that the granting of funds as part of cohesion policy is conditional on compliance with economic performance criteria established at Community level, as a means of exerting extra pressure on the way in which Member States define their social and economic policies;

- the establishment of mandatory ceilings on the manner in which structural funds, either at Community level or in the Member States, are to be used, for example ‘to earmark at least 20% of the structural funds for promoting R+D+I’;

- promoting the use of the structural funds for financing private investment by means of what are referred to as private-public partnerships;

- the use of new cohesion indicators, namely employment, the level of disparities in GDP between neighbouring regions, decentralisation and accessibility index, infrastructure and transport provision, the level of research/innovation, education and training activity and the diversity of production, without safeguarding the idea that GDP per capita must continue to be used as the base indicator of eligibility when it comes to EU cohesion policy.

  Bogusław Liberadzki (PSE), in writing. (PL) This report rightly emphasises the key role of cohesion policy in supporting the internal market through the commercial and jobs exchange that has arisen through projects that have enjoyed cofinancing by the European Union. We should also bear in mind the role played by cohesion policy in increasing the profile of the EU in the eyes of its citizens and growing support for it in regions which have benefited substantially from cohesion policy.

Encouraging the Commission and the Council to assess whether allocating at least 20% of the structural funds to research, development and innovation is feasible deserves support. The proposal to devolve the function of technological initiator to local and regional level also deserves attention, as access to European programmes and assistance will make it easier for enterprises to innovate.

In her call for greater exposure and publicity for projects supported by the structural funds, Francisca Pleguezuelos Aguilar wants to give our citizens greater awareness of the benefits of cohesion policy.

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) The idea of cohesion, which has been with us since the Treaty of Rome, is one of the cornerstones of the EU. In a nutshell, the development of some is the development of all.

History has shown us that cohesion, a tried and trusted concept, is characterised by generosity and realism, both for the Member States that have just joined and for those that have been in the Union for longer. I therefore feel, like the rapporteur and most European politicians, that cohesion, as a value, should be promoted and defended. I also feel, though, that it needs to be brought up to date. Objectives that ten or 15 years ago were excluded from cohesion, on account of more significant shortfalls and differences, are today issues that should definitely be included, in the context of a growing, more competitive economy. That being the case, cohesion must promote enhanced competences regarding research and development, on the one hand, and support for the most competitive parts of each area, on the other.

Cohesion is not a one-size-fits-all solution; it is, more than anything, about investing in deriving the maximum benefit from our differences and about ensuring that the investment is sustainable over a period of time, with a view to harmonious development.

  Alyn Smith (Verts/ALE), in writing. Mr President, I was pleased to support this own-initiative report on the importance of Structural Funds to EU cohesion, as in Scotland we have vast experience of using the funds to develop our peripheral areas and regenerate our urban centres. As the new funds roll out, we have an expertise we are now using across Europe to assist our new colleagues as they set up their programmes, and we of course retain a crucial interest in this topic so I am pleased to see this report gain the majority it has today.

– Report: Martin David (A6-0088/2007)

  Glyn Ford (PSE), in writing. I commend my colleague David Martin for his all too apposite report, which I will be supporting. The EU has a responsibility to ensure that developing countries have the capacity to engage in and benefit from the global economy. It is not just about a fairer, more open trading system. Despite enormous advances in market access including the ‘Everything but Arms’ initiative by the Commission, the Least Developed Countries’ share of world trade has halved over the last 40 years from 1.9 % to 1 %.

Aid for trade is necessary to create the conditions and infrastructure to trigger growth, but this aid must be under the control of the recipients themselves to fit within their own national development plans.

I am delighted that the UK is taking a lead in delivering its share of the EUR 2 billion annual aid for trade budget promised by EU Member States at Gleneagles by 2010. We can only eradicate Third World poverty by empowering businesses, particularly those engaged in fair trade, to provide the decent work so desperately needed.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) As far as we are concerned, EU ‘aid’ cannot, and must not, be considered as part of the ‘liberalisation of trade’, as the rapporteur would like to see. It must also not be used as ‘one of the most effective drivers of economic growth’ of the poorest countries. This is for two reasons. Firstly, aid is contingent on the appropriateness of these countries’ ‘internal policies’ and a ‘real improvement in the capacity for good governance’, in the interests of the powerful multinationals in the EU and the USA. In other words, conditions are placed on the ‘aid’-based development of these countries, which is tantamount to exploiting their inherent structural fragility, following a history of colonialism, for the benefit of EU capital. They are forced to produce for export, in particular low added-value products with lower financial return, the price of which does not cover the production costs. This is true of many agricultural products, obliging them to erect customs barriers to block the entry of products from outside.

Secondly, this guideline establishes a hierarchy between countries, thus deepening still further the gap between the so-called rich and poor countries, with consequences at national level for the EU Member States, and in what are known as third countries …

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

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. As rapporteur I gladly supported my report. There were only a handful of amendments submitted to the plenary vote, some of which added to the report or positively changed the language, some however changed the emphasis of the report too much, meaning I was unable to support some of the amendments.

  Jean-Claude Martinez (ITS), in writing. – (FR) On the objectives of finally getting the countries of the South out of poverty, we are all agreed – even if the real measures are still not being taken for Black Africa, and by that, I mean the sharing out of water, food, basic medicines and education.

As a tool for fighting poverty, international trade is necessary, but inadequate. It may be adequate in the long term but, as Keynes said: ‘in the long term we shall all be dead’.

Momentum and innovation are therefore required, not least through the invention of a new customs technology of deductible customs duties in the form of a customs credit offered by importers to exporters, to be deducted upon purchase from the economy of the importing country and equal to the sum of the customs duty to which the credit is charged. For the countries of the South, this customs credit would be subsidised, along the lines of matching credits and sparing credits, which already exist in international taxation.

In this way, poor countries would no longer lose the precious revenue from their customs duties.

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) As the report correctly says, ‘opening up trade is one of the most effective drivers of economic growth, which is indispensable for reducing poverty and promoting pro-poor economic growth and employment and is also an important catalyst for sustainable development worldwide’. Of course, it does not follow – and nor is it my view – that all one has to do is open up trade and stable democracies will flourish in free and pluralistic societies. That is not the case, as evidenced in the modern era, with China being just one such example. Nevertheless, the fact is that there is no such thing as a free, pluralistic and democratic society that is not, in essence, open to trade.

It is this idea – and not a watered-down or totally illiberal version thereof – that should be at the forefront of the EU’s guidelines when it comes to aid for international trade.

Our undertaking on the world stage should be geared towards opening up the world more and more to trade, without this leading to vulnerable economies and markets being left unprotected.

– Report: Sturdy (A6-0084/2007)

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) In spite of its ‘politically correct’ language, the report fails to hide the EU’s true intentions behind the current Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs), with African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries.

What the EU is seeking, with the EPAs, is to achieve as much as it can from the current WTO negotiations, on issues on which it has thus far failed, in other words, to try the back door having failed to get in through the front door.

It therefore calls for ‘the pacing, timing and scope of liberalisation to be gradual and flexible.’ It ‘highlights the development benefits that the Singapore issues may engender’. It ‘believes’ that ‘agreements on investment, competition and government procurement … could contribute to shared aims of good governance and transparency, creating an environment that should enable greater private-public partnership.’ It ‘recalls’ that ‘sound regulatory frameworks are an essential part of any liberalisation process,’ as regards services and public services. In other words, this is merely a sugar-coated version of the neoliberal agenda.

What is needed is an entirely different agenda, one that will promote effective cooperation, solidarity, independent development and social justice.

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. Economic Partnership Agreements have been highly divisive and controversial. At times it has seemed as though development considerations have not been foremost in the Commission's thinking on EPAs. This Parliament report presents a very timely and balanced contribution to the debate and the Rapporteur Robert Sturdy is to be congratulated on his approach to the report.

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) Within the limited framework of the WTO rules, the Economic Partnership Agreements can still be – and they must be – an effective instrument for promoting trade and, most importantly, for supporting the creation of infrastructure conducive to trade. Against this backdrop, this is a welcome report that sets out its principles clearly and that is underpinned by decent values.

As regards similar issues discussed in this plenary session, I wish to reaffirm my conviction that the promotion of free, open and fair trade sustains the democratisation of societies and encourages the plurality of social forces. This is a further reason for the importance of the partnership agreements.

  Tokia Saïfi (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) The negotiations on the economic partnership agreements will enter a crucial phase, on 1 January 2008, marking the expiry of the current agreements.

Due to the essential nature of these agreements, I voted in favour of the report, believing that these agreements will enable a new economic and commercial framework to be established that is conducive to the sustainable development of the ACP countries’ economies. I would emphasise this development dimension: these agreements cannot be reduced to mere free trade agreements under the WTO and must be instruments serving economic and human development. Therefore, the EPAs will also be as asymmetric and progressive as possible.

I voted in favour of Amendments 20 and 28 on the need for the negotiations to take account of the specific circumstances of the overseas regions and territories pursuant to Article 299(2) of the EC Treaty. We should in fact examine the interests specific to these territories, consider market access differentiations and make the existing support methods more consistent with those of the ACP countries. I should like also to qualify paragraph 13 of the report by pointing out the conclusions adopted by the Council that provide for transitional periods in the provision of EU market access for certain products that are particularly sensitive from the EU’s point of view.

  Bart Staes (Verts/ALE), in writing. (NL) To date, the Generalised System of Preferences (GSP) has guaranteed the ACP countries preferential access to the EU market, with lower import tariffs at the EU’s borders and better market access. This has enabled the developing countries to export their products to the richer European countries more easily.

This arrangement within the WTO forms a formal exception to the non-discrimination rule of the Most Favoured Nation principle. According to the Cotonou Agreement of 2000, this exception is to be lifted by no later than the end of 2007, and to be replaced by individually-negotiated Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs). If not, every WTO member would be able to report discrimination.

This report is right to strike a critical note. It is of the essence that the Commission should negotiate the EPAs with due consideration for the level of development of the ACP countries. The principle of total liberalisation of the market should not come into play here, because it forms a real threat to them, both socially and economically.

The report does not, however, take sufficient account of the circumstances on the ground. Whether the EPAs will have a positive or negative impact remains to be seen. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that the countries in question are not in a hurry to sign these agreements much before the end of 2007.

If Parliament does not remove the time pressure and is not prepared to persevere with the GSP+ system, I will be unable to vote in favour of the report.

  Margie Sudre (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) In line with the Cotonou agreement, the EPAs are not mere free trade agreements under the WTO, but a genuine partnership enabling a new economic and commercial framework to be created in favour of the ACP countries.

Due to their geographical location, near many ACP countries, the overseas communities are at the heart of these preferential and reciprocal agreements with the ACP countries.

It is imperative that the particular circumstances of the outermost regions be taken into account in the context of these negotiations, in accordance with Article 299 of the Treaty.

Special attention must also be paid to the OCTs located near to the ACP countries, in accordance with the association agreements that already link them to the Union, under Article 229(3) of the Treaty.

We should examine the interests specific to the outermost regions and the OCTs without omitting to involve them as far upstream as possible in the negotiations, so that market access differentiations can be considered and their respective support arrangements coordinated, for the purposes of integrating them more into their regional environments.

I welcome the adoption of my amendment, which is designed to strike an intelligent balance between the regional integration of these overseas territories and the ties binding them to Europe.

– Report: Brok (A6-0130/2007)

  Hubert Pirker (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, I have voted in favour of this report on the grounds that the steps outlined in it need to be taken as a matter of absolute necessity if this European Union of ours is to be made a political union speaking with one voice to the outside world and hence capable of becoming a global player rather than a lame duck.

For this, the European Union needs in particular the further development of its own security and defence policy, with joint research, a joint procurement office, shared defence forces capable of acting autonomously, and joint operations funded from the EU’s Budget. Such a thing is dependent, however, on our acquiring a new regulatory framework in the shape of a new Treaty, and I trust that Mrs Merkel’s presence in the chair of the Council, combined with Mr Sarkozy’s pragmatism, will make it possible for a decisive step to be taken in the right direction.

  Jan Andersson, Göran Färm, Inger Segelström and Åsa Westlund (PSE), in writing. (SV) We Swedish Social Democrats do not think that Mr Brok’s report is the right forum in which to debate the Treaty and what it should and should not contain. We think that cooperation on foreign policy should be increased, but we do not think it appropriate in this situation to commit ourselves irrevocably to having a common EU foreign minister. We therefore chose to abstain on these points.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) Among other issues, the report advocates the rejected (!!!) ‘Constitutional Treaty’. It makes strong calls for the Treaty’s ‘full ratification’ (?) and ‘entry into force’ (?) ‘in order to ensure that the Union is ready to face up to the global responsibilities, threats and challenges of today's world’, by means of the common foreign and security policy and the European security and defence policy, so they say …

This position adopted by the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats and the Socialist Group in the European Parliament (encompassing the Portuguese Social Democrats, Conservatives and Socialists) is especially significant given that it is these very political forces that are negotiating the wording of a ‘simplified’ Treaty, which they tell us is different in content from the ‘European Constitution’. Let us make sure this is clear. Ultimately, how can something be presented as being different when it reaffirms precisely what it is supposed to be different from? This is where the discrepancy lies …

The true intention of the political forces and the economic and financial interests at the root of European capitalist integration is to speed up the militarisation of the EU, in a legal and constitutional framework – within the NATO framework, remember – and this would be established by the so-called ‘European Constitution’. Hence the ‘common’ foreign policy of interventionism, with its aggressive approach, in thrall to the ambitions and interests of the large economic and financial groups of the major powers, headed by Germany.

  Anna Hedh (PSE), in writing. (SV) I have voted against Mr Brok’s report (A6-0130/2007) not only because the rapporteur had chosen to include the issue of the Constitution but also because he raises the issue of whether the EU should have a common foreign minister. At present, we have no ministerial functions within the EU, and nor should we have. All the Member States already have their own foreign ministers. What can we expect next: a common minister for the environment and perhaps, in the end, a common prime minister?

  Richard Howitt (PSE), in writing. The European Parliamentary Labour Party supports much of this resolution, in particular the high priority given to the consolidation of democracy, promotion of human rights and non-proliferation, and the important EU role in conflict prevention and building effective multilateralism.

However, the resolution focuses too much attention on internal procedural changes rather than foreign policy priorities. The EPLP voted against paragraphs 1, 5 and 11, and abstained on 2, 3, 4 and 5, as the references to the Constitutional Treaty and the detailed provisions within are inappropriate whilst its future is still being discussed. In particular, the adoption of the Constitutional Treaty should not be seen as a prerequisite for future enlargement. The EPLP also abstained on paragraph 8(g), as the added value of an EU diplomatic academy has yet to be proven, and on paragraph 8(h) – whilst agreeing that there is certainly a need for external delegations to be strengthened, these will not be EU ‘embassies’. The EPLP fully supports reform of the UN Security Council and also supports improvements in the way that the EU speaks at the UN – however it is inappropriate to talk of a single EU seat, as in paragraph 10.

  Jaromír Kohlíček (GUE/NGL), in writing. (CS) Mr Brok’s report exposes the threadbare nature of the EU’s common foreign and security policy. On the one hand, it calls for the EU to be more closely involved in the conflicts in the Caucasus and Transnistria, and therefore opposes the emergence of states in these areas and international recognition for them. On the other hand, it attempts to breach the incomplete Resolution 1244 and to declare the ‘controlled independence of Kosovo’. The author, alongside Mrs Beer from the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, has accordingly chosen to reopen the can of worms of territorial change in Europe.

I am curious to know when the call will go up for Catalonia, the Basque country or even Galicia to be separated from Spain and when the voices of the separatists in Slovakia, Romania and Serbia will be heard. What indeed will we do about the demand to break up Macedonia (or should that still be FYROM)? Has an example been set for the relatively compact Muslim communities in some parts of southern France, or perhaps for the migrants concentrated in the large cities of Western Europe?

Similarly counterproductive is the fear expressed in Article 25 concerning the first trials of an anti-satellite defence mechanism in China. We do not have similar fears about the United States. Unfortunately there are so many similarly unacceptable parts of this report that neither I nor my parliamentary group will be supporting it in the final vote.

  Bogusław Liberadzki (PSE), in writing. – (PL) Mr President, I am voting in favour of Elmar Brok’s report on the Council Annual Report to the European Parliament on the main aspects and basic choices facing the CFSP, including the financial repercussions on the overall budget of the European Communities for 2005 (paragraph 40(H) of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 6 May 1999).

Mr Brok’s report rightly underlines that without a constitutional treaty, the European Union will not be in a position to face the main challenges that the common foreign and security policy currently poses. Appointing a Foreign Minister who is also a member of the Commission and who also heads the Council of Foreign Ministers will allow the EU to act more effectively and robustly in the international sphere. The sum of EUR 1 740 million allocated for common foreign and security policy for 2007-2013 is inadequate for the EU’s ambitions to be an international player.

The report correctly notes the need to bolster the role of the European Parliament in the common foreign and security policy and the Council should not be limited to simply informing Parliament but primarily to fully involve it in the main choices and activities of the common foreign and security policy.

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. I voted for this report and in particular am pleased that it emphasises the need for internal setting of external priorities, for example the fight against poverty, in order to have a common European voice in international affairs.

  Marek Siwiec (PSE), in writing. – (PL) Mr President, Elmar Brok’s report on the main aspects and fundamental choices facing the CFSP highlights the merits of the case well. Without a constitutional treaty, it will be impossible to speak of a common foreign and security policy that is capable of meeting the challenges faced by the European community.

In addition, the report correctly defines the areas of interest for the EU on which we need to concentrate, including the fight against terrorism, immigration, energy security and non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The report is balanced and all the accents are in the right places, which is why I fully support its adoption.

  Georgios Toussas (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The annual report proposes strengthening the military and political sector of the CFSP to the tune of EUR 1.8 million, which is three times the expenditure for the period 2007-2013, in order to step up the EU’s aggressive policy, so that it can claim a greater share of the spoils for the Euro-unifying monopolies from the imperialist interventions under way against the peoples.

It restores the adoption of the European Constitution, which is ‘dead’ following the referenda in France and the Netherlands, as the necessary tool for promoting the CFSP. In order to implement the imperialist views and remove possible obstacles, it proposes abolishing unanimity and the application of qualified majority voting, so that the ruling imperialist powers can further their plans.

In order to prepare and implement new interventions in the name of combating terrorism, of ‘restoring democracy’ and other pretexts, it promotes further militarisation, the completion of the formation of battle groups and the preparation of military occupying forces in Kosovo to replace the NATO forces.

There is no reference to ballistic-missile defence, which indirectly but clearly proves it is being accepted through ΝΑΤΟ and the ΕU itself.

It proposes increased funding, basically calling on European workers to pay for the EU’s aggressive policy.

We voted against the report on the CFSP.

– Report: Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou (A6-0068/2007)

  Hubert Pirker (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, I endorse the demands made in this report, particularly for the introduction of a minimum wage in all the Member States, which will be a safety net and is particularly calculated to protect those who are in work from exploitation and poverty, while also, at the same time, safeguarding competitiveness and preventing the loss of jobs in countries like Austria, which have higher standards of social protection.

I am also in favour of the introduction of a quality mark for products from third countries that are manufactured under proper conditions and without the use of child labour; it would be an invitation to consumers to ensure, by purchasing such products, that humane and fair working conditions prevail in third countries and that jobs here are not wiped out by the import of cheap goods.

  John Attard-Montalto (PSE). – (MT) Thank you, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. I wished to explain that when it comes to work, and to decent work in particular, our Constitution is wholly based on work. I also wanted to make it clear that, throughout the years, Labour governments have always sought to improve conditions in the workplace for our country’s labour force. It is important to note that whenever there has been a case where an employee has improved the quality of his job conditions, this was down to the initiative of Labour governments. I would also like to praise the unions in Malta, especially the General Workers’ Union, for their hard work and efforts in the interests of Maltese workers. Thank you.

  Jan Andersson, Göran Färm, Anna Hedh, Inger Segelström and Åsa Westlund (PSE), in writing. (SV) We Swedish Social Democrats in the European Parliament voted in favour of the report. The report is a good one, and we unreservedly support the EU’s commitment to decent work. It is important for us to be able to guarantee people productive work, done under free, fair and safe conditions, both within the EU and internationally.

We wish, however, to offer a number of clarifications. It is important to point out that a tax on financial and currency transactions must be international because a European tax would place countries outside the euro zone at a disadvantage.

We are opposed to common standard definitions of the concepts of forced labour and abuse of vulnerability. The International Labour Organisation’s definitions should be taken as basic, and further definitions should be left to the Member States.

The report calls on the Member States to consider minimum wages. That is something we have already done in Sweden, and we have actively chosen a solution in which the matter is left to the social partners.

  Marie-Arlette Carlotti (PSE), in writing. – (FR) This report by the European Parliament is a step in the right direction.

It makes decent work a tool of European development policy, firstly by cofinancing, with the ILO, a development programme for decent work, and secondly by creating a European label and a blacklist of companies that violate fundamental labour standards, and lastly by implementing trade sanctions against countries that seriously infringe fundamental social rights.

It brings about progress for decent work in Europe, where much also remains to be done: by urging the Member States to ratify the ILO conventions on the health and safety of workers, maternity protection and migrant workers; by calling for the introduction of a minimum wage as a safety net to prevent workers from being exploited in any way; by improving access to lifelong learning and by calling for greater harmonisation of pension schemes.

These are the foundations of this social Europe that the Socialist Group in the European Parliament wants to build. I shall therefore vote in favour of this report.

  Françoise Castex (PSE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report on promoting decent work for all.

The notion of ‘decent work’ seems to be a reference to the terms of multilateral declarations and agreements, but policies, for their part, are still far removed from the concept.

Presentations and declarations are one thing; the everyday political actions and decisions of international institutions are quite something else. Indeed, the world is marked by a ‘deficit’ in decent work: in many unproductive and low-quality jobs that involve dangerous work for a precarious income, rights are flouted and inequality between the sexes prevails.

Faced with this situation, the WTO and the ILO have adopted international labour standards. However, the IMF and the World Bank do not support any initiatives designed to ensure that the fundamental rights of workers are respected.

If decent work is to become a reality worldwide, priority must be given to it by all the international institutions, which will have to work together to make this happen.

Decent work must be a universal objective for all the international institutions. It is imperative that these fundamentals – quality employment, workers’ rights, protection and social dialogue – determine all economic and social policies at international level.

(The explanation of vote was abbreviated in accordance with Rule 163(1) of the Rules of Procedure)

  Edite Estrela (PSE), in writing. (PT) I voted in favour of the Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou report (A6-0068/2007) on promoting decent work for all, because productive labour in conditions of freedom, equality, security and dignity should lie at the heart of EU trade relations.

I feel we should demand that our partners comply with the International Labour Organisation’s conventions on workers’ rights, with regard to fair salaries and adequate social protection. I should also like to highlight the need for multinational companies to assume their social responsibility, either in Europe or anywhere else in the world.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) What happened in the vote on this report was disgraceful. The majority in Parliament blocked the adoption of some of the best paragraphs adopted in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs on the theme of ‘Promoting decent work for all – The EU contribution to the implementation of the decent work agenda in the world’. This position needs to be highlighted because it is clear that it is intrinsically linked with the increasing emphasis on so-called flexicurity.

As we know, between 2000 and 2005 unemployment rose by one million in the EU, alongside a massive increase in unstable work: more than 4.7 million workers were on fixed-term contracts and at least 1.1 million found themselves working part time. The high number of workers who, despite earning a salary, are living below the poverty line, is also unacceptable.

The promotion of decent work for all entails ensuring compliance with a progressive labour law, ensuring the dignity of those who work, guaranteeing decent living and working conditions, without any discrimination and inequality. This must not be restricted to mere good intentions – it must be matched by practical action.

  Glyn Ford (PSE), in writing. I will be voting for this report despite the Conservatives and Liberals gutting it of its most vital elements, for example deleting ‘binding initiatives in corporate social responsibility’, the need to introduce a ‘fair and innovative tax policy’ and investigating/listing companies violating core labour standards. I am appalled at their anti-labour movement attitudes.

  Timothy Kirkhope (PPE-DE), in writing. UK Conservatives fully support the ILO principle of decent work.

We agree upon the importance of providing lifelong learning opportunities, the need to be proactive on increasing women's participation in the labour market, and the need to do so much more to resolve the challenges of reconciling work and family life.

However, we disagree with the idea that the European Parliament should take up its time issuing pronouncements on this subject, however worthy or well-intentioned. Parliament does not have the competence to instruct Member States on what to do in this area. It is for Member State Governments to decide, and rightly so.

So, while we have taken part in the debate, and also in the vote to curb the interventionist excesses of the Left, Conservative MEPs abstained on the final vote.

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. I voted for this report and against the Liberal and EPP Amendments which sought to delete the references to binding initiatives on corporate social responsibility. CSR should be at the core of European businesses activities both internally within the EU and externally and I was highly disappointed that these two groups did not support the steps outlined in the report.

  Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL), in writing. I do not want EU policies to be imposed on national labour market policies.

  Georgios Toussas (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The EU proposal and the report debated in plenary of the European Parliament with the misleading title of ‘decent work’ (COM – 2006 – 0249) are the new reactionary, anti-grassroots framework of the ΕU for achieving the objectives of the ‘Lisbon Strategy’, minimising the price of labour and striking at the workers’ fundamental rights, in order to increase the profits of the Euro-unifying monopoly business groups.

The basis of the capitalist restructurings processed and formulated in the EU and in the international imperialist organisations and the plutocracy and its political spokesmen on the subject of so-called ‘decent work’ are being integrated into the anti-grassroots policy of the ΕU. They include the following:

- lifelong learning, extending flexible forms of employment, striking at collective labour agreements, exacerbating the terms of insurance and retirement and further privatising education, health and public services for the common benefit in general;

- setting a minimum wage for workers, a poverty-level safety net, in order to prevent reaction from the workers and grass roots, while the plutocracy reaps huge profits from its exploitation of the working class.

That is why the parliamentary group of the Greek Communist Party voted against this EU proposal.

7. Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes

(The sitting was suspended at 13.10 and resumed at 15.00)

IN THE CHAIR: MR POETTERING
President

8. Approval of Minutes of previous sitting: see Minutes

9. Debate on the future of Europe (debate)

  President. The next item is the debate on the future of Europe, in which we are joined by the Prime Minister of the Netherlands and Member of the European Council, Mr Jan Peter Balkenende, whom I welcome most warmly to this House.

(Applause)

Mr Balkenende, it is a great pleasure for me to be able to welcome you, the Prime Minister of the Netherlands, to the European Parliament today in order to discuss the future of the European Union.

Prime Minister, Mr Balkenende, the Kingdom of the Netherlands was not only among the founding members of the European Union, but also, in the course of the past 50 years, played a leading role on repeated occasions, on which it showed a great deal of determination, among those who themselves sought – and supported others who tried – to drive forward the history of our continent and make it an incomparable success story. Significant treaties and agreements within the European Union bear the names of cities in the Netherlands; there is the Treaty of Maastricht, whereby the European Union was founded, and the Treaty of Amsterdam, which accorded this House extensive rights of codecision.

It was, then, all the more a painful experience for us when the citizens of the Netherlands, in a referendum, rejected the draft constitution that contained such significant answers to the questions about Europe’s future. However, like my fellow Members of this Parliament, and like you, Prime Minister, I am persuaded that the citizens of the Netherlands were not, by this decision, saying ‘no’ to the European Union itself, or to its worth or to its values.

This European Parliament very much values your willingness, Prime Minister, to participate in today’s debate, above all in view of the fact that now, the cooperation of all 27 Member States is needed to put in place a renewed basis for the European Union, one that will stand the tests that the future will bring. The German Presidency of the Council, and the Federal Chancellor, Angela Merkel, in particular, is currently engaged in devoting all its energies to finding a solution on which all can agree and which will satisfy everyone, not only those countries that have not ratified the Treaty, but also those 18 Member States, and hence the majority by population of the European Union, which have already done so.

The European Parliament supports the substance of the Constitutional Treaty, and we want it to become a reality. That will involve necessary reforms and will enshrine our common values. This House will not under any circumstances be satisfied with a result that is not in the interests of the European Union and of its citizens.

We are aware, Prime Minister, that the people of the Netherlands, too, have a great interest in making the European Union fit to face the challenges of the future, and in making it possible for shared European solutions to global tasks to be found, and I am convinced that, with good will, we will be able, in the course of the negotiations over the coming weeks and months, not only to reach an accommodation with one another, but also to produce something that will make the European Union democratic, transparent, and effective in action. Prime Minister, I now ask you to take the floor and address us.

  Jan Peter Balkenende, Prime Minister of the Netherlands. (NL) Mr President, honourable Members of the European Parliament, Commissioner Wallström, Commissioner Frattini, ladies and gentlemen, thank you kindly for your invitation to join in your debate on the future of Europe. I would also like to express my gratitude for the very useful visit by your President, Mr Poettering, to the Netherlands on 12 April last.

(DE) Mr President, thank you very much for coming to The Hague. We very much valued your presence and your contribution to the debate. It was an important visit, and thank you very much again for coming.

(NL) Mr President, it feels good to be back in your Parliament and I have good memories of our meeting during the Dutch Presidency in 2004. We held stimulating debates, which were a great source of inspiration to me at the time.

Today, however, I am here in a different capacity, as a representative of a Member State – the Netherlands, which is a pro-European country, a country where the overall support for European cooperation has always been – and still is – above the average. At the end of 2006, 75% of the people were in favour of EU membership.

It is a country with an open economy that owes much of its prosperity and employment to the opportunities offered by the internal market. A country that wants to play an active role in the world, as is evident from our involvement in development missions in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the world, in which respect, the Netherlands relies on cooperation. The Netherlands, however, is also one of the two Member States where a clear majority of the people said ‘no’ to the Constitutional Treaty in 2005, something to which you, Mr President, have made reference.

I know that a large majority in your Parliament were in favour of the Constitutional Treaty, and I respect that, but whatever verdict one passes on the Constitution, what is now called for is a joint solution, one that is acceptable to us all. A solution that does justice to public concerns which came to the surface in the Netherlands and in France in a very visible way; to concerns that are also felt elsewhere: both in countries that have already ratified the Constitution and countries where no decisions have been taken to date.

I am persuaded, Mr President, that obstacles can be overcome, because, in terms of future prospects, there is much more that unites us than divides us, and also because we have a firm foundation of shared values and shared interests.

I would like to start my statement about how I see Europe’s future with the idea that the Union is a rare and successful project. There is every reason to be proud of what we in Europe have achieved in a combined venture.

The Europe that was torn apart by huge wars and sharp social contrasts now boasts a model of cooperation and integration that is second to none in the world. A model that is typified by balance: a balance between economic dynamism and social harmony; a balance between unity and diversity. The European decision-making model does justice to the equality of the Member States, as well as to that of its citizens.

Europe is a respected world player, and an example to the world. What makes it that is our unique form of cooperation, our focus on solidarity, and our capacity for commitment, united by values and dialogue rather than by battle.

Europe has been renewed in the space of 50 years, which, in terms of world history, is a short period of time. Europe is a young, but adult structure, with a bright future ahead. Step by step, we are facing new challenges, building on our achievements, but always with a keen eye on the public’s expectations and concerns.

One of the main objectives of the new Dutch Cabinet is to further reinforce the support base for European cooperation. If we are to do this, we have to find out exactly why nearly 62% of our population rejected the Constitutional Treaty, and to find the right response to that.

I would first of all like to sketch the background to the Dutch ‘no’ before I go into the detail of what the Netherlands expect of the negotiations for a new Treaty.

Much has changed in the 50 years that separate the Treaty of Rome and the Declaration of Berlin. The Union of today is not only many times bigger than the Community of the Six in those days; it also has a much larger sphere of activity.

The enlargement is a historic success. It was the right decision. We have to realise, though, that following the recent major enlargement, the public need time to adjust. It all went very quickly – for some, too quickly. The feeling of reciprocal affinity has to grow.

In addition to considerable growth, the Union has also experienced an enormous deepening in the past 15 years: the completion of the internal market, open borders, the euro, many new policies in important areas such as the environment, security and law. These are all positive developments in their own right, and have also brought with them a number of new realities that have become commonplace for the public, but not without any resistance, though. For example, the presence of European legislation in many areas is often misunderstood. At a time when citizens had not taken on board the enlargement and deepening, we asked the citizens their opinions about the Constitution.

The question ‘Do you agree with the Constitution for Europe’ was understood by many as ‘Would you like Europe to assume the character of a state?’ or even ‘Would you like Europe to eventually take the place of the Dutch national government?’, which was, of course, a bridge too far.

The term ‘constitution’ has different meanings in different Member States. To some, it is symbolic of democracy, of the curbing of authority. It is that, of course. Elsewhere, however – in the Netherlands at any rate – the word ‘constitution’ has a totally different connotation or meaning still. A constitution belongs to a national state. A constitution says something about national identity – hence the Dutch suggestion of a new Treaty not being a constitution. The symbolism of a constitution was a major factor in the Dutch saying ‘no’.

There was a sense of loss of control, a fear that our own identity would be lost, but a recognisable and accessible government is precisely what people want. People feel there is a limit to what Europe should do. People want control over the areas which we have to tackle jointly in Europe.

Needless to say, there were other reasons why people voted ‘no’. There are those according to whom Europe produces too many rules, or does too many things that should be regulated nationally, while others find the administration in Brussels is too lacking in transparency, and concerns about the Dutch financial contribution also played a part. There was too little appreciation of the specific added value of European cooperation. If you think this through, these issues can, to some extent, be resolved in a new Treaty.

To another extent, we must be aware of these concerns that very many citizens in the Union have in our day-to-day policy decisions. We have made a good start on this in the past two years. Subsidiarity and less legislation are at the top of the agenda, not least in Brussels. There is more transparency. We have a budget that enables us to do what we have to do until 2013. We also have the right policy priorities, including climate change and energy policy.

This, Mr President, honourable Members, we owe to your Parliament, the President of the Commission, Mr Barroso, and the presidents of the European Council, namely, and in chronological order, Mr Blair, Mr Schüssel, Mr Vanhanen and now Mrs Merkel. It shows that Europe is prepared to prioritise matters that occupy the minds of the citizens.

Before I turn to the things that the Netherlands hopes to find in a new Treaty, I should like to make a point. A referendum was held in four Member States, which produced two yes’s and two no’s. In total, 18 Member States approved the Constitutional Treaty via their own democratic process. The Constitutional Treaty was widely supported in your Parliament. There is no two ways about it. I hope, though, that we will be able to concentrate on what unites us, rather than on what divides us.

The Dutch Cabinet seeks to find a joint solution in a constructive manner. This is, with a view to Europe's future, very much called for. The points on which the Netherlands focuses are directly related to public concerns that have surfaced over the past two years. No more, no less. This is to gather the necessary support for ratification of the new Treaty.

In this light there are, I think, irrespective of the specific requirements of institutions and Member States, two major joint ambitions regarding the new Treaty. In the first instance, we want to improve Europe’s democratic functioning. Secondly, we seek to enhance Europe’s decisiveness.

Europe's challenge has always been to set up the institutions in such a way as to ensure that as much justice as possible is done to both – at times – conflicting objectives. The institutional balance which the Convention and the previous IGC worked out offers improvements, both in terms of democratic content and power. The Netherlands is keen to retain these improvements, provided that agreement on this can go hand in hand with a credible way of dealing with the citizens’ areas of concern.

I will outline what the Netherlands faces in order to reach a solution jointly in four points.

First of all, the successful method of changing the Treaty must be continued: improving Europe step by step, with a view to striking a balance. As I said earlier, the symbolism of a constitution plays an important role in the ‘no’, and this is why the Netherlands has argued in favour of a change to the treaty, as was the case with Amsterdam and Nice. This is following in the footsteps of the Monnet method: small steps forward, with concrete meaning. It turns the spotlight to the improvements, the democratic guarantees and increased decisiveness. This is how we can have a positive debate, and move forward from under the shadow of the rejected Constitution. In short: the name, the form, as well as the content that determine the image of a constitution require reconsideration.

Secondly, the Netherlands sets great store by improving the Union’s democratic functioning. A very important lesson we need to take away from the referendum is that the Dutch want to be certain that they have a say in the decision-making process. They want their voice heard in Europe. The institutional proposals of the Constitutional Treaty are a step in the right direction. The rule that the European Parliament always codecides when the Council takes decisions by majority is a case in point.

Improvements are possible, though. In the case of the subsidiarity test for European legislative proposals, national parliaments should be accorded a more important role. If national parliaments pass a negative verdict by majority, this should have consequences. More involvement of the national parliaments should not be at the expense of the European Parliament. This test is done in the very first phase of decision-making. A verdict on subsidiarity is very much something for national parliaments to pass. The European Parliament retains its full role in the codecision procedure. The Commission's right to initiative is infringed upon. As you, Mr President, told me recently, the European Parliament and the national parliaments complement each other. Like democratic partners.

This brings me to my third point: in addition to becoming more democratic, Europe must, and indeed can, become more decisive. I am referring to today’s important topics that concern the public, when I say this: climate change, energy policy, the fight against terrorism and migration require a pro-active, joint approach.

The Constitutional Treaty contains valuable improvements, with more majority decision-making. We cannot get around the fact, though, that people are reluctant to give up vetoes, and are frightened about a creeping increase in powers. This is why we must be quite clear. There is no power without support. Where necessary, we must, therefore, dare take the step towards majority decision-making. And I am prepared to stand up for those choices, provided that the transfer of sovereignty is a conscious choice, safeguarded by proper guarantees. The Union’s powers must be clearly defined. Only then can we ease the hesitation surrounding the transfer of sovereignty. The Netherlands will be tabling proposals to this effect.

A particular point that is related to this has also been the subject of intense debate in your Parliament. I am talking about the relationship between the internal market on the one hand and the freedom of movement on the part of the Member States when shaping their public services on the other. More clarity can be injected there as well, without taking anything away from the internal market. I am in favour of a strong internal market, as the citizens of all Member States stand to benefit from it.

In matters such as the pension system, social security and education, however, the Member States seek to tailor these to the national situation. Europe should allow for this, for example, by laying down a number of criteria for services of general interest.

This brings me to my fourth and final point. I think it is a good thing that the enlargement criteria are included in the new Treaty. We have had the collective wisdom to enlarge the Union and I stand four-square behind that decision. It says something about Europe’s future and the change following the divided Europe dating back to after the Second World War.

Nobody can deny the fact, though, that there is also doubt about the enlargement among the public. In the Netherlands, there is the perception that the Union does not take its own rules seriously, or not seriously enough. We may have the criteria, but these are not strictly followed in the eyes of the Dutch people. As this is something that affects public support for Europe, it is necessary to include the criteria in the new Treaty.

Mr President, honourable Members, Europe has come a long way in 50 years. Expectations are running high. Together, we can set the tone when tackling climate change, the fight against poverty and insecurity in the world. Together, we can use Europe’s economic potential in an ever more integrated world economy. Together, we must commit to a reliable supply of energy and raw materials. Together, we must fight the degrading spread of illegal migration, which is why we need a strong and decisive European Union, a Union that enjoys the trust of those who live in it.

In the Netherlands, I will not hesitate to stand up for a treaty that comprises the four elements that I have just outlined – because I believe that the time is right for this, because I have great confidence in the Presidencies of Mrs Merkel and Mr Socrates after her, and because I believe that together we can take the next step, but above all, because this Treaty is needed to face up to today’s challenges together.

I recently came across the words of Robert Schuman, one of our visionary founding fathers, and I was once again struck by how wise and true they were. In his declaration of 9 May 1950, he said – and I quote – ‘Europe will not be made all at once, or according to a single plan. It will be built through concrete achievements which first create a de facto solidarity’.

I think that Mr Schuman’s words are as current as ever, and can be guiding in our joint task to develop Europe further. Thank you very much.

(Applause)

  President. Mr Balkenende, I would like to thank you for your speech and, most of all, for what we hope is your firm determination that we should, together arrive at a good solution.

  Joseph Daul, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (FR) Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioners, I should like to thank you, Prime Minister Balkenende, for the perspective on Europe that you have given us today, a perspective that the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats very much shares.

(Protests)

I see that those who are interrupting me have a very good perspective and that they listened carefully to Mr Prodi yesterday: he was ready to part with the flag, you have brought us yours today … This is a very good image and a very good example!

Europe means, of course, a currency, a great market, the opening up of borders and student exchanges, but, above all, Europe is the ideals, principles and values that are the envy of the entire world. Europe is traditions, a civilisation, but it is also the adaptation to new realities; it is a certain idea of globalisation, of the reforms aimed at creating a fairer society. Europe is not about maintaining the status quo; it is about movement and progress.

Mr Balkenende, you are the Prime Minister of the country that is perhaps most open to the European spirit, I am not afraid to say, a country in which tolerance and solidarity are the driving force of social cohesion. Seventy-two per cent of your fellow citizens have come out in favour of European integration, when the European average is around 53%. However, the people of the Netherlands, like the people of France, rejected the Treaty in 2005. This certainly means that, as far as the great majority of them are concerned, Europe is not legitimate enough, not credible enough, and not effective enough. It certainly means that they regard the actions of the European Union as being too far removed from their everyday lives. We must learn lessons from these judgments, even if we do not share this opinion, which is often too critical.

I shall not go back over the merits of European integration, as we are very clear about them. However, we must convince Europeans that our common project is not only beneficial, but also absolutely crucial. The draft treaty contained most of the answers to our fellow citizens’ questions and dissatisfactions. We therefore need to take up the best parts of this treaty, namely parts 1 and 2. What Europeans are expecting from us is a better life, is Europe affirming its values in the world, as it has just done in Moscow, and as it must do more in the Middle East, and in Darfur.

By putting ourselves in a position to make decisions, both democratic and effective ones, we are satisfying Europeans because we will be able to tackle the real fundamental problems. Let us cure Europe of its paralysis, let us provide ourselves with the resources for our political ambitions: the sooner the better, and the 2009 European elections is the most opportune time. Let us work relentlessly along these lines.

Prime Minister, you have had the courage to carry out ambitious, long-term reforms in your country. You have not given in to the easiest options or to demagogy, and the results are there to see. You have carried out these reforms by respecting values, solidarity, open-mindedness and responsibility. That is the path that my group calls on Europe, as a whole, to take. You mentioned the role of the national parliaments and the need for a clearer division of responsibilities between the Member States and the European Union. On that point, too, we can only support you.

If the national elected representatives of our countries do not take hold of European affairs – which no longer come under foreign affairs, but national affairs – if our national fellow Members do not seize the European dimension of our major issues, then the road will be even longer and more difficult. Who does what? Who is responsible for which policy? The citizens want to know! Such clarification will prevent the ministers from putting the blame on Brussels, and we will deprive ourselves of an overly facile national alibi.

You also raised the issue of European enlargement, Mr Balkenende. On this point, too, we must be clear. Europe can no longer let in new members until it has resolved its internal problems.

Ladies and gentlemen, our immediate priority, and that of our governments, must be to reach an agreement among the 27, as quickly as possible, on the institutions. Mrs Merkel has created the necessary dynamic and, in spite of the dramatic gestures, both sides’ positions are coming into line with each other. Let us seize this opportunity and let us reach an agreement among the 27 on the key issues, namely Europeans’ rights and the decision-making process.

(Applause)

  Martin Schulz, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (DE) Mr President, I shall begin by commenting on something we have just heard. You said, Prime Minister, that your government is in favour of a legal framework for services. Thank you very much for that; now perhaps you can say that to the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, to whom you have close links, who, this morning, rejected that very idea.

I would like, Prime Minister, to refer to two of the observations you made, and which I see as the most important things you said in your speech. ‘I hope that we can concentrate on what unites us and not on what divides us.’ That was an encouraging thing to say. Until then, we had been under the impression that the Netherlands was focusing on what divides us rather than on what unites us.

If that is meant to be an announcement to the effect that you and your government are willing to make compromises rather than insisting that the Dutch ‘no’ must result in fundamental change in Europe, if it is meant to mean that the Dutch ‘no’ means that the Constitution will not enter into force in its present form, but instead in some other, with some other comprehensive reform that will make the European Union more efficient, and that you, to that end, are prepared to make compromises and then defend them at home, then that, Mr Balkenende, was a good speech.

(Applause)

By it, then, we will judge you, for I was in Rome, where we met, and where I saw you sign the Constitution with a golden pen. As you know, I keep a watchful eye on Dutch domestic politics. Compared with the other battles you have had to endure in the Netherlands, the battle for the constitution was – if I may put it that way – a rather restrained one. Nobody will regret it if you land more punches in future.

Europe must learn to land more punches, but it will not do that on the basis on Nice or of ‘Nice minus’; that will not make Europe a better fighter, but rather less able to take the action that needs to be taken in such situations as that in the Middle East, where, it is worth remembering, 13 000 European troops are stationed on the border between Lebanon and Israel in pursuance of the UNIFIL mandate, and I ask you also to think of the Gaza Strip in Palestine, where we are in the thick of the chaos, and where the place is getting like Somalia. Why is Europe not represented there by a foreign minister who could get something done? It is because of the unanimity rule in the Council, which is preventing Europe from taking action.

(Applause)

I have nothing against Calvinistic self-denial. I gather that you want no more flags, no anthem, and no foreign minister. Good: Beethoven’s symphonies have survived revolutions and wars; they will outlive the European Constitution too.

(Applause)

(NL) As the President of our Parliament introduced this debate in Dutch, I, too, Prime Minister, should like speak a few words in it. If, in future, the Foreign Affairs Minister is called the High Representative of Her Majesty the Queen of the Netherlands, then I have no problem with that, provided that he does his job.

(DE) What is crucial is not what he is called, but rather what he is meant to do.

(Applause)

I am a great admirer of the Dutch people; the Netherlands is a wonderful country with a great tradition, a country with a tradition of seafaring, and seafarers have always been courageous people. It was Dutch people who first sailed round Cape Horn and gave it its name. I, for one, get the feeling that they have today embarked on a ship and set the sails. Mr Goebbels has already pulled the flag down to half mast. I am less sceptical; I get the impression that you, today, have hoisted the flag halfway up again, so I urge you to hoist it all the way up, and I can promise you that this House will put wind in your sails, so that then, Mr Balkenende, you will be sailing towards a compromise.

Yesterday saw Mr Prodi expressing his own willingness to compromise; he is completely in favour of the Constitution. If you want half a constitution and you and he can meet one another halfway, we will end up with three-quarters of it, and a 75% constitution would be the Constitution without the anthem, without the flag and with a foreign minister called by another title. It would be a good result.

(Applause)

  Graham Watson, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, yesterday, in this Chamber, one of Europe’s great champions sketched his vision of a Union fit for the 21st century – a Union that is democratic, transparent and, above all, effective. However, crossing that Rubicon requires firm leadership, Mr Balkenende.

The German Presidency has shown its strength by uniting Member States under the banner of the Berlin Declaration. It must pull them together again in the weeks before the European Council and the Intergovernmental Conference which follows if we are to win the war of public opinion and unite around a revised Treaty.

The stakes are high. Your Foreign Minister, Mr Verhagen, said: ‘In today’s globalised world people are afraid of losing their jobs, their social security, their quality of life’. Yet that is not an argument for less Europe, indeed, it may well be an argument for more Europe.

(Applause)

Europe cannot secure its energy supply, combat climate change or tackle terrorism with a retreat into unilateralism. You, of all people, should know that, Mr Balkenende. For history teaches us that the Netherlands’ golden years – as the wealthiest nation in the 17th-century world – came from uniting the seven provinces, not dividing them. You must convince your citizens that unity and prosperity are inseparable; that inability to make progress on political integration means Europe will lose its place as a global standard-setter and end up at the mercy of powers like Russia with its belligerent energy policy.

To take key decisions on jobs, security and quality of life, the Union needs an end to unscrupulous use of national vetoes. To address the democratic deficit, it needs greater democratic accountability. To maintain its international prestige and internal effectiveness, its institutions must change with the times.

None of this is possible without the substance of what was agreed in the European Convention, and that substance must be maintained, whatever cosmetic surgery you try to effect on the surface.

We are not just talking about ideology here: we are talking about people’s jobs, their quality of life and their long-term prospects. It is time that you, and others like you, retook the initiative and brought Europe back to their people.

Nobody here is seeking a European superstate – diversity of customs, history and language will ensure that. However, we are seeking a European ‘superpeople’, a united people.

Too often our heads of government have taken the advice of the English Conservative Prime Minister Arthur Bonar Law when he exclaimed: ‘I must follow them; I am their leader’. But populism cannot move Europe forward, nor cement our quality of life, international influence or economic strength – only solidarity can do that.

When concerns over the so-called symbols of a superstate – like flags or anthems –supersede debate on real issues, then it is time for a change of strategy.

(Applause)

Your public demands energy security; it demands a European environment policy; it demands common action on migration. From the new Treaty, they will get it, for the tools are already in the text. So sell that to your people, instead of sidestepping the issues. Stop letting the tail wag the dog, and lead the Netherlands back to the heart of European decision-making, as befits the founder status of your country in our Union.

In conclusion, Prime Minister, I would say, do as your countryman Justus Lipsius advised: be stoical in adversity, embrace necessity and be constant in your faith in Europe. For your people’s peace, prosperity and security depend upon it.

(Applause)

  Brian Crowley, on behalf of the UEN Group. – Mr President, I would like to thank the Prime Minister for his presentation today. I was struck by the ideals of compromise and consensus contained within his speech. Particularly when we look forward to Europe’s future, it is a Europe that has to be based on consensus, because, as Mr Daul said earlier on, if Europe means anything, Europe means equality. Europe means equality between nations, between peoples, between cultures. Europe means equality between all people within the European Union.

That means that you cannot drive a coach-and-four and force everybody down the same path. It makes it more difficult to find agreement, yes, but it is still the best way of finding agreement. What we heard yesterday from Mr Prodi was not the new way forward, it was a threat: a threat that we will create a two-speed Europe for those who are with us and those who are against us, words more reminiscent of George W. Bush than of a European statesman.

I am convinced that the future development of European policy and European ideals will not come from telling people to look at the great opportunities they have lost, to look at the things that they have thrown away. It will come by us convincing people that this is the best way forward, that this is the best path to follow.

Many here have mentioned issues such as climate change, pension security, energy security and others. Yes, Europe can play a role and Europe can do things that are positive. Likewise, with regard to immigration and our own internal security, we can do things in a cooperative and consensual way that can achieve good. We have already done that, but there are still things that are best left to Member States, things that require unanimous agreement in the Council, not qualified majority all of the time.

I think it is wrong, and I use this opportunity to point this out again. Commissioner Kovács and others are coming forward with proposals for harmonisation of taxes that they do not have the power to implement under the present Treaties and which the new Treaty would not give them the power to implement, and yet they continue to do it. Why? Because it is ideologically driven. It is a political move and one that is driving people further and further away. If officialdom can ignore the rules, why should we not ignore them too?

George Bernard Shaw once said that some men see things as they are, and wonder, ‘Why?’. We should dream things as they should be, and say, ‘Why not?’. Consensus, compromise, cooperation – yes, that is the way forward, but most importantly of all, we must convince the people that it is the right way forward.

(Applause)

  Kathalijne Maria Buitenweg, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (NL) Mr President, my group would also like to extend a warm welcome to Prime Minister Balkenende and thank him for accepting the invitation. In the Netherlands, the new Cabinet has just spent 100 days talking with the public, but it was 500 days ago that we last heard anything said about Europe. Just as well that this came to an end. The question is, of course, whether people have actually been listened to.

You seem to have been shopping selectively. With regard to your interpretation of the ‘no’, you only mention those objections to the Constitution that lead to a less ambitious Treaty, in other words, to fewer changes. This is a very bizarre way of thinking. Do you really believe that people have voted against the European Treaty because they are so satisfied with the current European Union? Do you also think that the flag and the national anthem really are the biggest problem?

According to 80%, not least of the ‘no’ voters in the Netherlands, the negotiations should be seized as an opportunity to carry out more thorough reforms and to continue the democratisation process in Europe. Sixty-eight percent of the people also want a real European foreign and security policy.

There is no mention of this more far-reaching democratic ambition anywhere in your proposals, though. You also want to scrap the Foreign Affairs Minister. You only want less, and you present this as an inevitable development.

This situation is comparable to that of an unsatisfied customer who goes back to the bicycle shop and says ‘fine, you can swap the bike, but only for a scooter’. I will not settle for a scooter, though; all I want is a better bike. One with brakes, that would do. After all, not all decisions should be taken in Brussels, and it is a good thing to demarcate national and European powers better. Brakes only make sense, though, if there are pedals.

You claim that people want more control, but this seems to be in conflict with your commitment to the Charter of Fundamental Rights. You did not make reference to it on this occasion, but I have a hard copy somewhere of the debate in the Dutch national parliament, when you said: ‘In the case of the Treaty being changed without any constitutional pretensions, the text of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights should not need to be included in its entirety’. Surely this is a bizarre interpretation of the ‘no’! There will not be many people who have voted against the constitution because this would have entitled them to more rights.

(Applause)

Unlike the ECHR, the European Charter of Fundamental Rights also contains social fundamental rights, which can put up a barrier against anti-social interventions from Brussels in the welfare state. Now that would be a brake that I would think worth having on my bicycle.

Finally, your real reason to remove the flag, the constitution, the Charter of fundamental rights and the anthems, is purely domestic. If the Treaty no longer shows any signs of a constitution, then you will be able to avoid a referendum in the Netherlands. We might be able to agree to disagree then. My party is quite happy to abandon the idea of a national referendum if you fear that in future, you will end up feeling isolated again. Perhaps we might get a European referendum instead, though, in which case you would not be isolated, but would instead, be doing what twenty-first century democracy requires of you. I would welcome your comments on this.

(Applause)

  Erik Meijer, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (NL) Mr President, yesterday, the Italian Prime Minister, Mr Prodi, urged the Members of this Parliament to defend in their countries the old draft for a European Constitution and said that this draft already contains so many compromises that it is virtually impossible that there should be any more of them.

This sort of talk goes down well here, for this is a place where democracy is mainly seen on a large scale and from up above. It has transpired that this can really clash with a small-scale democracy from the bottom up, in which many more people feel involved.

In 2005, the parliaments of the Member States were in favour of this constitution by large majorities. In the Netherlands, this figure was even as high as 85%, and in the Netherlands, unlike in France, where only the president decides on such things, it is parliament that decides on the subject of a referendum. The referendum was held at the proposal of three parties that were in favour of the constitution and that really believed that the voters thought the same way. Despite a high turn-out, 62% voted ‘no’. It is highly likely that a majority of the voters in Belgium, Germany, the United Kingdom, Sweden and Denmark would have equally said ‘no’ had they been given the opportunity.

Today, the Dutch Prime Minister Mr Balkenende is struggling more than his Italian counterpart did yesterday. Earlier this year, the following agreement was reached in the government agreement on behalf of his coalition and at the behest of the voters – and I quote ‘attempts are being made to change, and possibly combine, the existing EU treaties in which subsidiarity and democratic control are safeguarded and in which content, size and title are significantly different from the previously rejected Constitutional Treaty’.

The Dutch Government was right to point out that in the European Union, the national parliaments must be given more voting power and that national decisions on public services should not be distorted. This is different from the constitutional text that calls for an ever more far-reaching liberalisation of services and free, unadulterated competition. This Parliament, which backed my proposal on 10 May to give the Member States, their regions and their municipalities more freedom in the way in which they organise their public transport should recognise the value of this.

I would say the following to Prime Minister Balkenende and his government. If you receive insufficient support in this Parliament today, this does not mean that you are cut off from Europe. You have the difficult task of realising your government agreement. There is no reason why you should let others who still hold onto the old constitutional project dictate to you.

(Applause)

  Bastiaan Belder, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – (NL) Mr President, Prime Minister, as a Dutch MEP, I am particularly delighted to see you visiting us here. In this House, since the ‘no’ to the European Constitution in our country, we have talked too much about the Netherlands instead of with the Netherlands. Let it be clear that I largely share the Dutch Government’s view, yet, even so, I should like to make a few recommendations leading up to the European Council of 21 and 22 June.

First of all, I appreciate your efforts in respect of the Constitution’s aspirations to do such things as introduce the position of a permanent president; such a person would soon develop into a European President, and so I would propose a rota system for three presidencies, each lasting one and a half years, made up of one large, one medium-sized and one small Member State. This will avoid the unnecessary concentration of power surrounding one permanent president, and all Member States will retain the prospect of a place in the presidency on an equal basis.

Prime Minister, I support your wish to include the Copenhagen criteria in the new Treaty. It is, however, just as necessary, in this new Treaty, to define once and for all the borders of the European Union, for this is something to which the European Union’s citizens, and its neighbours, are entitled. I am specifically thinking of offering countries like Ukraine, Moldova and Belarus a prospect of EU membership in the long-term, this in combination with a powerful neighbourhood policy in order to help these countries overcome structural problems.

I noticed there was some hesitation when you tabled your proposal to give national parliaments the power to veto legislative proposals from the Commission. I think it is better to give the European Parliament the power to refuse a proposal from the Commission, in which respect national parliaments can make their concerns known to the European Parliament. This route strikes me as purer institutionally and at the same time, it strengthens interparliamentary cooperation between the EP and national parliaments. Prime Minister, I should like to hear your thoughts on the points I made.

(Applause)

  Philip Claeys, on behalf of the ITS Group. – (NL) Mr President, Prime Minister, the Dutch electorate rejected the European constitution by a large margin. I can only hope that your government will continue to strive for a new Treaty rather than a constitution. I also hope that the voters will be given the opportunity to speak out on this, not only in the Netherlands, but in all Member States.

This debate is not only about the institutional issue, though. It is about the future of Europe, thus including the fundamental question about the EU’s borders, the question as to whether a non-European country such as Turkey could join. When you took over the EU presidency in 2004 and came to the European Parliament for the first time, you said that you would make sure that Turkey met all the Copenhagen criteria. Can you, Prime Minister, three years down the line, declare, hand on heart, that you have kept that promise?

The Turkish-Armenian publisher Hrant Dink was murdered after he was condemned by the Turkish courts as a criminal. Orhan Pamuk, a winner of the Nobel Prize for literature, fled the country after he, too, received threats. In Turkish criminal law, it is a crime to insult what is termed ‘Turkish identity’. Freedom to express opinions is therefore absent. I am not even talking about the murder of three Christian publishers and a Catholic priest.

I could also mention the fact that Turkey still refuses to recognise one of the EU’s Member States or fulfil its duty to open up its ports and airports. Moreover, the trial of strength that is going on between the Islamists on the one hand and those in favour of the secular state on the other, should cause concern in Europe, but the European Union persists with the negotiations as if nothing was wrong. They completely ignore the large majority of the people who are against the accession. And whether they like it or not, this arrogance and this detachment from the world are the biggest threat to the EU’s continued existence.

(Applause)

  Jim Allister (NI). – Mr President, one has to ask how much energy has now been wasted on chasing the moonbeam of an EU Constitution. In the rarefied atmosphere of this House, an EU Constitution may seem important, but frankly, most of our citizens have moved on and care more about things like good education, a good health service and rising house prices – things a constitution will not change.

Part of the reason that the EU institutions are stuck in this rut is because of the refusal to take a democratic ‘no’ for an answer. These debates are dominated by siren demands for what is unobtainable and with demands for stratagems to avoid letting the citizens have their say. Hence the ploys of a change of title, a slimmed-down text and a total aversion to referenda.

But rejig it as you might, that which imposes the apparatus of statehood on the EU, with a president and a foreign minister, and that which further savages national sovereignty by promoting even more qualified majority voting, is the same old tired, tarnished product that has already been rejected, and upon which citizens must have their say.

Desperate as my own government is to welsh on the pledge of a referendum in the United Kingdom, I say the people of each nation-state have a right to have their say. Only those lacking in confidence in their own case or with a knavish design to thwart public opinion run away from letting the people decide.

Prime Minister, you were brought here today – as I am sure you realise – so that the Euro-fanatics of this House could try to pressurise you to depart from the democratic decision made in your own country. I trust you will not be so foolish as to allow that to happen.

  Jan Peter Balkenende, Prime Minister of the Netherlands. (NL) Mr President, I am very much obliged to those Members of Parliament who have spoken for their inspiring contributions. What I sense in this House – and I would not have expected it to be any other way – is an atmosphere of inspiration, one in which the European ideals are considered in the context of the Europe of the 21st century.

This is why I was so moved by what Mr Daul said – and this may well be what matters more than anything – about the values that have made Europe what it is today, the values which Europe stands for and the values for which we shoulder responsibility worldwide: peace, security, democracy, human rights and solidarity. These have made Europe strong, and that is what we need at the moment. This is perhaps where I should like pick up on what Mr Schulz said earlier.

(DE) It really is very good that we should meet again; I well remember our previous meetings. It was really great to discuss things with you, it is so still today, and for that I am very grateful.

(NL) He spoke about the international aspects, the foreign aspects of the European Union, and I can do no other than endorse what he said. We live in a world in which changes are on the way – in China, India and the United States. We see changes in the areas of security, the fight against terrorism, the climate issue and energy. Europe can do better, work more effectively and speak more with one voice in all these areas.

Discussion of what the High Representative is to be called can wait until later, but what is important is the content and the message of the values Mr Daul mentioned. Let us propagate these, and let us do it together. These are issues that say something about our ideals involving the Europe of the future, not only here and on our own continent, but worldwide. Mr Daul made a plea for this, which strikes me as appropriate and necessary.

This brings me to the point Mr Watson made, namely that of energy. I should like to repeat what he said in this connection: we cannot do without one another. If Europe does not speak with one voice, we will face big problems. Energy is not just a matter of its presence, energy is also related to stability. Stability involving the supply of energy has an economic, social and ecological dimension. We need each other on this level too.

Listening carefully to what Mr Watson said, which is what I did, I can see a connection between the European ideals, the way in which Europe presents itself to the outside world, foreign policy, and the way in which it tackles specific issues which we advocate, such as the energy issue to which he referred. If you think about this long and hard, then Europe faces a huge task.

I liked the comparison that Mr Watson drew with the Netherlands of the 17th century, the Golden Century. An era in which the Netherlands did extremely well worldwide. Did all of this come out of nothing? No, it did not. In order to achieve this, we had to take action. We needed to sail the seven seas and have a sound administrative structure in place. Did this happen overnight? No, indeed not; it took time. What we did have, though, is determination in terms of wanting to achieve certain things together.

If this is what you refer to, then you have touched a soft spot in me, because it brings up the question: how do we give shape to the Europe of the 21st century? How can we ensure that Europe can perform in the areas of economy, energy and global relations? The key question today is: are the existing relations adequate? No, they are not. The Treaty of Nice is not enough to meet the requirements of the 21st century.

(Applause)

This, of course, begs the question: what is the best way? Then you face the problem that we in Europe have Member States that have approved the constitution, those that have said ‘no’ and countries that have not yet taken a decision. This is the reality.

The last few years – the time of reflection – have not been in vain. I think that we have given answers to the citizens. We have said, let us work on the concrete projects in Europe. Make it clear to the people how important Europe is, so that Europe can return to people’s minds and hearts.

We have spoken about the process of enlargement. Let us turn this into a credible project. Let us carefully consider the criteria that have already been tightened up. That too is a question of the European project being credible.

We have said, let us tackle those topics that are so critical to the people in Europe. Namely energy and the climate. This is also why, together with Tony Blair, I have written a letter to my colleagues to say that we want the topics of climate and energy high on the European agenda. They are also matters of concern to you. We cannot do without one another. Let Europe prove what it can do.

That is when the period of reflection will come into its own. It should not be the case though, and I would like to make this quite clear, that at the end of the period of reflection, we end up with a climate in which one group is pitted against the other, in which the group of the 18 ratifying countries is pitted against those that said ‘no’. If we were to do this, then we will not resolve the situation.

It is my sincere conviction that it is possible to find solutions. Let us do this in a way with which we can all identify. This is, as I see it, the method of constitutional amendment, as we have done before, a viable route, because it is possible to embrace the sound elements from the Constitutional Treaty. Because those elements of an institutional compromise should play a key role. Because we cannot leave things the way they are.

Needless to say, we have to look at the various sections. Mrs Buitenweg made a comment on the Charter of fundamental rights, which is very sensitive here, and I can see why. If you talk about the Charter, then you can join our camp, because we are equally persuaded of the importance of fundamental rights. Except, what do we see? The question is whether all of this should be included in such a Constitution, or if it would be possible to refer to it using different means. This is the point.

So let us discuss the significance of fundamental rights, whilst considering the limitations of a Constitution. This is a debate that I should like to enter into with you.

It is my sincere conviction that we must make haste. My dream and ideal is that in June, we will be able to say that we will draw up a well-defined time table to resolve the issues. We would like to resolve them within a few years, and that is possible only if we join forces.

I have made suggestions to this effect in my presentation. I argued against a Constitution, but in favour of an amending treaty instead, taking into account the role of the national parliaments without impinging on the role of the European Parliament, because your role is indispensable in Europe. I have mentioned these elements, and we must be able to act in unison, to consider what unites us rather than what divides us; that is where Mr Schulz is quite right, and we have to want to strike compromises. This applies to us all.

If we manage to pull it off, then we can make progress; that is my plan. I am also doing this with the feeling and conviction that we must make sure we only talk about a ‘no’ of two countries, because feelings among citizens and concerns are a reality. We must answer the questions that are around today. If we do this from a position that we want to find a common solution, draw short-term conclusions, check what is needed for this, and I have made a contribution to this, then it is possible to find solutions.

Indeed, what is unacceptable in a time of further globalisation, of social issues, is that we would be unable to find answers, because the division that was would simply carry on.

I think we owe it to the founding fathers of the European Union, Adenauer, Schuman, de Gasperi, Monnet and all the others, to hold steadfast to the ideals, and, as Mr Daul said, to keep the value of Europe, the European dream in mind at all times – not to overlook public concerns, but do what has to be done. If we draw these conclusions in June, then we will have achieved a great deal. For this, we need each other, and I also think that we owe it to the ideals that we seek to achieve.

Mr President, I was inspired by what you said. I will take your words to the Netherlands, and then we shall all have the task of finding solutions quickly, taking into consideration each other's positions, but always considering what we need to keep at the forefront of our minds, namely working on a European dream in the 21st century.

(Applause)

  Maria Martens (PPE-DE). – (NL) Mr President, Prime Minister, I should first of all like to thank you for coming to Strasbourg.

The drafting of a new Treaty is in the interests of all of us. Now that France and the Netherlands have voted against the draft Constitution, we need, as has already been said, to look for another document, one with which all 27 countries can identify. It goes without saying that the Netherlands has a particular responsibility for making a huge effort in this respect. This is why it is useful that you have reminded us of the sensitivities surrounding this issue in the Netherlands, and that you have indicated the direction from which solutions are expected to arrive there.

Whilst the Netherlands is one of Europe’s co-founders and it is still pro-Europe, as is evident from any study, it does not want too much of Europe; it does not want Europe as a super state, or a constitutional set-up. The Netherlands likes to see things progress step by step, with due respect for subsidiarity of the Member States, a Europe that is more democratic and more decisive, and can therefore take majority decisions in more areas, and would like to see the enlargement criteria included in the Treaty.

It is also important to be reminded of the sensitivities and requirements of the other Member States. After all, 18 countries have already spoken out in favour of the draft document and value the progress that could have been made by means of the text that was available at the time. What matters now, is that we all come up with a fresh treaty document in a short space of time, which is in the interest of us all.

I was reminded of Paul-Henri Spaak’s words; he said: ‘Europe still consists solely of small countries. The only relevant distinction that remains is that some countries understand this, while others still refuse to acknowledge it.’ He said that in the 1950s. If this was the case back then, how much more relevant is it now, at a time of globalisation and internationalisation and with huge international issues, for example in the areas of immigration, energy, the environment and the fight against terrorism?

You described Europe as a rare and successful project. Indeed, it benefits the countries and the people. What we could do better together, we should. Anything that can be better regulated at national level should continue to be done at national level. The discussion is therefore not whether we are for or against Europe, it is about how we, in the short term, and involving all 27 Member States, can put the firmest possible foundation in place for a decisive, transparent Europe. The newspaper headlines read: Europe high on Prime Minister’s agenda. Congratulations on your level of commitment in this matter, both at home and in Europe.

(Applause)

  Margrietus van den Berg (PSE). – (NL) Mr President, I bid Prime Minister Balkenende welcome to the European Parliament. Just as, of course, the ‘no’ in the Netherlands was relatively firm, no less so, too, was the ‘yes’ from the European Parliament. I should like to give you credit for the fact that in your contribution and also in your responses, you tried to venture beyond the ‘yes’ and ‘no’ to see how we could come up with a Treaty. Not a Treaty of a kind that, I agree with you, has been stripped naked, but a Treaty that gives answers to a number of key issues that we are facing. Sometimes, this means that more is needed than what was set down in the original constitution, sometimes less or different.

I should like to try to move this debate to the next level with a number of very specific questions. You said that you support the idea of criteria being put in place for services of general interest, so that countries will be able to regulate their own public housing, health care or other areas more. Are you prepared, via a protocol or in the Treaty, to include a basis for this of some kind, so that a legal basis of some kind is in place?

Secondly, you said something about the Charter. If I understand correctly, you say you and your colleagues in the Dutch Government agree with the content of the Charter, and would like to see it become binding, but it need not be included in its entirety, as long as there is a document in the new Treaty that safeguards this binding character. What I would like to know is whether you have a formula that can make this happen, for, if you do, I share your way of thinking.

Thirdly, subsidiarity. Your plea in the field of subsidiarity is to create more room, to keep at a local level what can be done at a local level. Do you have a formula to tighten up subsidiarity, and if so, what is it, compared to the formula included in the draft Constitution? Are you prepared, in this connection, to give the regions more room to experiment?

Fourthly, you stated that you would like to abolish a host of vetoes, which will give us in this House an undoubted right of codecision, although that is not what we want in certain areas. Are you mainly referring to criminal law? Perhaps you would not mind clarifying again what your formula would be in that respect.

You also said that ‘Foreign Affairs Minister’ is not the title we use. So what are we supposed to call him?

Finally, if the Netherlands opts for a Treaty, and a sound one at that, then I hope that the Prime Minister will blaze a trail in his own country, along with leaders of the other coalition parties, to inform the Dutch people and also get them onboard in good time, so that a real debate can underpin positive support for Europe.

(Applause)

  Andrew Duff (ALDE). – Mr President, Prime Minister, three elements puzzled and concerned me in your speech.

Firstly, your determination to keep the three-pillar structure will contribute neither to simplifying nor to making more transparent the system of the Union, nor will it strengthen the capacity of the Union to act effectively.

Secondly, I was quite unable to understand what you were saying on the issue of clarifying competences and the transfer of sovereignty. As we all know, sovereignty cannot be transferred and competences cannot be conferred without the full agreement of 27 Member States.

Thirdly, your demand that national parliaments should be able to block the Union’s legislative process seems to me to be a severe assault not only upon the right of initiative of the Commission, but also upon the legislative prerogatives of the Council and Parliament. The setting-up of an effective third legislative chamber would be quite the opposite of simplifying, it would be an abuse of the principle of the separation of powers and it would certainly confuse the public. I would be grateful for a single example of where the Tweede Kamer [the Dutch House of Representatives] so far could have raised a complaint about a draft proposal breaching the principle of subsidiarity.

(Applause)

  Konrad Szymański (UEN). – (PL) Mr Prime Minister, Mr President. The future of Europe is safe. The development opportunities of the new countries, accelerated economic growth in old Europe, and ultimately emancipation in international relations are just some examples of the success of integration. The European Union works.

That is why I warn against the hysterical cries of a European Union crisis coming as a result of the problems of the reform of the treaty. The ‘constitutional treaty or death’ approach propounded by Romano Prodi yesterday is a serious mistake, and will bring nothing but tension. But even the supporters of this inflexible position are jointly responsible for slowing down negotiations today. Dressing up the old treaty in new clothes, or separating it into smaller chunks is a rather cheap ploy.

I am confident that as the prime minister of a country that rejected the old constitutional treaty, you will be more pragmatic on matters of substantive amendments to the new draft treaty.

I listened to your speech with Jan Zahradil, the Czech negotiator. I would therefore like to say that pragmatism is expected from you not just in Poland, but also in the Czech Republic.

(Applause)

  Johannes Voggenhuber (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Mr President, Prime Minister, on the television a few days ago, a young Dutchman said, on being asked about the European Constitution, ‘What do we need a Constitution for? This is an economic area.’ I found myself wondering how it is possible for a young man in the Netherlands today, in a country that was a founding member of the European Community, was one of the first to embrace the idea of creating a politically united Europe, and had undertaken to overcome nationalism – how it is possible for such a young man not to know that this is a political union?

To that question, you have today provided me with the answer; a government that seeks to remove a symbol, to remove a flag, seeks to do away with an idea, to hide it away, to make it disappear. Take away the rhetorical flourishes and polite formularies, and your speech today is an ice-cold, nationalist, declaration of war on the idea that that flag symbolises.

Let us consider the various points in it, the primacy of European law, for one. It appears to me from the utterances of your foreign minister that the primacy of European law is no longer to feature in the Treaty, although, at the same time, he does emphasise that the primacy of European law is not to be tampered with, which means that he and you are deceiving your own people and lying to them by not having the Treaty state what the actual nature of this Union is. You are trying to conceal it, for the primacy of European law will remain intact, and well you know it. You want to go back to regulations rather than laws, but I ask you, Prime Minister, what does that title signify? Law has nothing to do with the nation state; republics have had laws, and laws have been in existence for as long as human beings have. It is laws that, when enacted through parliaments, serve as a guarantee to the citizen of democratic legitimacy.

Prime Minister, having listened to your demands and understood your thinking, I was grateful that you were, firstly, willing to talk to us, and, secondly, did not also want to do away with this House or rename it, for this House embodies supranational democracy in the shape of the federal and political Europe; by its very existence it assures people that they are living as citizens of a political community rather than in an economic organisation or an association of states.

A constitution has nothing to do with being a nation state; it is the basic law of a political community. Not least in the Treaty that we will soon have, there are such things as European citizens, and European citizenship is a real thing; we are here in the parliament of a supranational democracy and of a European citizenry. If you take the Charter out of the Treaty, while making it explicitly binding in law, what are you thereby doing? You are engaging in the same old deception, hiding it away from the people, while leaving it effective in law, which means that you accept the reality of Europe where you have to, while nevertheless denying it. I have to tell you, Prime Minister, that neither the twenty-first century, nor Europe itself, are going to be won over by a lie.

(Applause)

  President. Mr Voggenhuber, whatever sympathy one might have with your remarks, you ought to be rather more cautious about using words like ‘nationalism’ and ‘lie’.

  Sylvia-Yvonne Kaufmann (GUE/NGL). – (DE) Mr President, your government, Mr Prime Minister, wants the European Constitution to dispense with the symbols of the European Union, with Article I-8 being deleted on the supposed grounds that the blue flag with the twelve golden stars and Beethoven’s ‘Ode to Joy’ are expressions of an identity as a state.

Is that meant to mean, Mr Prime Minister, that any and every local association may adopt a banner and make it binding under its own articles, but that the EU, with its 500 million people, may not? I hope you will not mind me saying this, but that sort of thinking is both prehistoric and idiotic. European integration is an historic project like no other; it is not a state, let alone a superstate, and so it is not least for that reason that it is astonishing that such a dubious idea should originate from a founding member of the Community.

Let me tell you that those who deny the validity, 50 years on from the signing of the Treaties of Rome, of the universally recognised and familiar symbols of the EU are – symbolically, adding grist to the mills of those who, questioning European integration as such, wish to turn their backs on it and return to their own identities as nation states. Surely it is not to be denied that the anthem and the flag bind our states and peoples together; it is because they foster an identity that they need official recognition.

So, Mr Prime Minister, please do not take the people of Europe for a ride, not even those in your own country who voted ‘no’, for they, together with the people of my own country and in others, do not want a dispute about banners; what they want is a social and democratic Europe. They want an answer to the question as to whether the EU exists to protect people or markets; they want something done about dumping – wage dumping, social dumping and tax dumping, and that is what you should be picking up on, for that is where forward-looking solutions are wanted, so stop shadow-boxing with the symbols of European integration.

(Applause)

  Jens-Peter Bonde (IND/DEM). – (DA) Mr President, Prime Minister, you can be proud of the Dutch people. Sixty-two per cent of them voted ‘no’ – contrary to the advice of the majority of politicians. You are now, however, being put under pressure by Germany, where at least 70% of people would vote against the Constitution if they were allowed to vote on it. That is, of course, a statement that the Germans are welcome to disprove. As an itinerant critic of the Constitution, however, I have not been in any country with more opposition to it. People want less interference by the EU and they want the proximity principle genuinely to be applied. Even the former German President, Roman Herzog, now warns against over-centralisation and the dismantling of democracy. Eighty-four per cent of German laws come from Brussels. In Brussels there is, emphatically, no democracy. Mr Herzog says that it is doubtful whether the Federal Republic can be called a parliamentary democracy. It is that Germany that is now threatening its French and Dutch neighbours and saying: your people were mistaken; you should dress the Constitution up in new clothes and abolish referendums.

Why do you accept that, Mr Balkenende? Why do you not insist that Germany too consult its electorate before making war on the voters in neighbouring countries? The Dutch negotiators now want the Constitution to be presented a second time – ‘presented’ being the operative word - so that a referendum can be avoided. However, you are not proposing any real and substantial changes to the rejected text, and two years have now gone by without the approval of 80% of the Member States yet being obtained. The Constitution is legally dead. We should start afresh with new negotiations and a referendum throughout the EU. It will then be possible to discuss matters with the German Government.

  Andreas Mölzer (ITS). – (DE) Mr President, like millions of people the length and breadth of Europe, I am astonished by the creativity with which repeated attempts are made to resuscitate the EU constitution, which was formerly believed to be – and indeed pronounced to be – dead. In order to secure Brussels a licence to satisfy its evidently insatiable need for more powers, the spectre is conjured up of a European Union that is impotent and increasingly insignificant, but I do not believe that the object and point of the European Union, or indeed of European integration, can be to constantly undermine the Member States’ scope for sovereign decision-making.

Cooperation between governments is surely no less indispensable than the unanimity principle in the core areas of national sovereignty, particularly in foreign, security and defence policy. Our people have no need of an EU constitution negotiated secretively in backrooms, endowed with a revised dustjacket and small cosmetic adjustments, ratified by an aloof EU elite and sold as a new product. I do not expect the public, across Europe, to fall for that sort of trick with a change of labels. What we have to do is to abandon any new EU constitution in favour of a foundational treaty on the cooperation, as equals, of states and peoples secure in their own identities, relying, I believe, on the principle of maximising strength in our dealings with the outside world and freedom at home, as well as laying down a demarcation of powers between the European Union and the Member States that is not susceptible to misinterpretation. In all these areas, it will be necessary to let people have their say through the holding of referendums, for there is no doubting the need for weighty conventions such as this sort of foundational treaty to be made subject to a referendum by the people of the EU in the various Member States.

  Timothy Kirkhope (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I should like to welcome the Prime Minister and congratulate him on his election success earlier this year.

As he said, the June Summit will be an important one, and we know that the German Presidency is keen to reach an outline agreement then. Agreement will not be easy. The stated positions of the Member States continue to vary quite substantially and in these circumstances I believe it would be counterproductive to try to force through the wrong sort of agreement in Brussels.

You said recently at your bilateral meeting with the Prime Minister that any new amending treaty should not have the characteristics of a constitution. I wholeheartedly agree with this view and I believe that this is the view of many millions of people across our continent. You also said that you were keen to see the role of national parliaments strengthened. I strongly agree with this view too and I hope you will pursue this at the Summit. I believe that our citizens need to have assurances that their national parliaments will also play a greater role in scrutinising draft European legislation. There remains a tangible disconnection between the European institutions and the people at this time.

I have often said that I am not hostile to the idea of some solution that would improve the workings of the institutions in dealing with enlargement and which address the alienation people feel about the institutions themselves. However, I do not believe this solution is a constitution. We should not be seeking greater powers for the centre. Instead, we should be concentrating on policy delivery.

As you have said, and my party leader David Cameron has also said, there is an urgent need for a greater emphasis on making Europe more competitive, tackling global poverty and dealing with the serious issues of climate change. These issues are what people want us to tackle and Member States can do much more to cooperate in these fields.

I therefore urge the Prime Minister and his fellow heads of government not to get bogged down in institutional and constitutional debate in Brussels. Instead, let us begin responding to what people are asking us to do: reforming our economies, tackling global warming and alleviating the crushing poverty that we are seeing now in the developing world.

(Applause)

  Richard Corbett (PSE). – Mr President, unlike some here I am actually quite encouraged by what Mr Balkenende has said. Mr Balkenende, you could, after all, have come here and done what some over on that side of the House are urging you to do, and say, ‘We said “no”, end of story. Forget it. No new Treaty. No reform’. But you are not. You are coming here and saying, ‘We said “no”, but we recognise that 18 countries have said “yes”, that an overwhelming majority of the European Union wants to go ahead and reform our Union in the way outlined in the Constitutional Treaty’.

You are saying yes, we will sit down and negotiate a compromise acceptable to all 27 countries, and on top of that you are saying that you want to salvage some of those useful key reforms that are contained in the Constitutional Treaty. You do not want to throw away everything in that Treaty, you want to drop some things which gave cause for concern, much of it to do with the presentation and the vocabulary of that draft Treaty, but the substance you are willing to negotiate on and to save. I think that is a lesson to the doomsayers, and I am encouraged that a compromise is possible.

(Applause)

  Jules Maaten (ALDE). – (NL) Prime Minister Balkenende, you have shown courage to walk into the lion’s den in order to clarify the Dutch position. I think you came across convincingly – certainly in your first response just now – as you underlined the European calling of the Netherlands.

With this, a new Treaty is moving closer, and this is important, because we need one, for things are just not going well enough at the moment. We need more transparency, more democracy, hence more powers for the European Parliament and, as you quite rightly stated, for the national parliaments.

Things have to be done more effectively, so that we can really address issues such as climate change, energy policy, immigration and reinforcing Europe's role in the world. I can understand the principles and your main issues in those discussions.

What is called for, in the final analysis, is a pragmatic attitude, for it is in the European and national interest that we find a way out of this impasse. Having, as I do, some background knowledge of you as a person, I can say, in response to what was said earlier, that I have every confidence in your ability to do this. You are not a nationalist and I also know that you are not lying.

By way of final comment, you claim that you support the internal market. I am pleased that you do, but then you should also put your money where your mouth is. If all 27 Member States make exceptions to the internal market, and it is looking this way in the Netherlands, as is evident from the discussions there, then we will be left with no internal market, which would be detrimental to the European consumer and the European economy alike.

  Guntars Krasts (UEN). – (LV) Thank you, Mr President. I have no doubt that both those who support a European Constitution and those who oppose it want to see a stronger Europe. The differences lie in opinions as to how to achieve this. Just like the majority of people in this Chamber, I believe in the idea of the European Union, but lack of support from society weakens our attempts to turn this idea into a reality. We must therefore ask whether adopting the Constitution will help us to obtain the public’s support. As one of the participants in the European Convention for the drafting of the Constitution, I am not convinced of it. We are far from even remotely exploiting the possibilities offered by the existing treaties. Prime Minister, the European services market you mentioned can be seen as an example of this. And extending the use of the qualified majority voting principle would not have assisted the liberalisation of the services sector — quite the reverse. At this period in history it is absolutely vital to achieve mutual comprehension between the Member States and an increased wish for cooperation, based on common values and the idea of the Union, so that the interests of large and small, rich and poor, new and old Member States can be given equal value. I admit that this is a difficult task, but without it it will be impossible for the Member States to regain steady support from the public. Without this the Union cannot become closer. The draft Constitution does not address these challenges.

  Vladimír Remek (GUE/NGL). – (CS) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we have heard many noble ideas about the future of Europe, as well as some that have been less than noble. An overhaul of the constitutional framework, particularly in the interests of making it more operable, is certainly needed. We should, however, be clear about what it is that we are now offering to the citizens of the Union.

In this regard, I should like to point out that there are a number of people here in this Chamber who are not interested in the debate on the need for an EU foreign minister. They are more interested in why it is that people from other, so-called new Member States still cannot travel freely in the Schengen area even after three years. They are amazed that in the much-vaunted Europe of equal rights they are unable to access the labour market in some countries, whilst at the same time capital flows freely in and out of my country. Why is it that the bigger Member States have more favourable conditions in certain sectors than the newer, smaller Member States? Why, unlike the citizens of some Member States, can we not travel to the USA without visas? We want to extend the competence of the Union to areas where it is not needed and where, for various reasons, it makes sense to maintain distinctions on the playing field based on the relative strength of the different players. It is no wonder that many Europeans often cannot understand our profound debates on the future of Europe.

  Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM). – (SV) In the summer of 1787, a number of people in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania sat down and devised a Constitution for what became the United States of America. They were at the pinnacle of their era’s knowledge of political science, philosophy and democracy. They put forward a proposal openly and honestly and obtained popular support and support from the various constituent states.

How different is the process that is now under way to force a Constitution onto the EU countries! The EU’s powerful political elite knows that it lacks popular support for its plans for a United States of Europe. The negotiations are taking place in secret. There is no question of the European project having a democratic basis. Rather, it is designed to blind people with science. Angela Merkel asks, for example, whether it might be a good idea to alter the terminology of the draft Constitution without changing the legal substance. Its proposals concerning the flag and the anthem would be removed. The whole plan is designed to enable the political elite to push through a United States of Europe without being forced to win the peoples’ confidence in the project. That is deceitful.

  Jean-Luc Dehaene (PPE-DE). – (NL) Mr President, Prime Minister, as a resident of the Benelux countries, I have been somewhat frustrated lately. Indeed, we were used to being on the front line for the European project, but ever since the negative referendum in the Netherlands, I get the impression that the Dutch leaders, where Europe is concerned, have been suffering from cold feet to some extent.

This was evident, inter alia, from the way in which you spoke about extending majority decision-making, while surely you know that this is one of the key elements in order to keep the momentum going in an enlarged Europe. I do however, appreciate the difficult position that you are in at the moment.

You, Prime Minister, probably remain convinced that the text that you approved at the IGC does indeed adequately meet the challenge we are facing, but should take the verdict of your people into consideration. I therefore value your efforts to come up with solutions and to look for a compromise, in which respect you clearly recognise that due account must be given to those who approved the text as it was. I hope that this can lead to a compromise.

I am, however, really concerned about what you said about the involvement of the national parliaments. You explicitly plead in favour of the red card, which I do not think of as the right way forward. What you are actually doing is turning the national parliaments into a new EU institution of some kind, and that is not exactly something we are waiting for. You need to convince your national parliament that their role is to monitor the ministers in relation to their role in the Council. This is the role of the national parliaments, and the national parliaments who have done this have not experienced any problems.

Another reservation I have about what you said, and to which you perhaps ought to give some thought, is that when you seek to include the criteria for enlargement in the Treaty, like the Commission, you have to bear in mind that you would then subject the enlargement to the Court’s legal control, while this is, in the final analysis, about political decision-making. I would advise you to give this some thought.

(Applause)

  Enrique Barón Crespo (PSE). – (ES) Mr President, Prime Minister, Mr Vice-President of the Commission, we are concluding a stage that began in Maastricht, followed – and I remember this as President – by the Dutch proposal, the Lubbers-Kok proposal, which was too federalist. You have now come along with an entirely opposite position. These things happen in families and we are prepared to build bridges.

You have imposed four conditions. With regard to codecision and the national parliaments, I agree with Jean-Luc Dehaene: the national parliaments should show the red card to the governments, not to the European institutions. We are prepared to improve our cooperation.

With regard to the new issues that are being added, paragraph 12 of our motion for a resolution contains them. We agree on that. With regard to the issue of public services, convince your political family.

There is a fundamental problem however: splitting the Treaty open, considering amendments rather than its structure, means dismantling everything and it goes against transparency and understanding on the part of the citizens.

One more thing, Mr President, regarding the anthem: the other day, in my constituency, I explained to my fellow countrymen that the Dutch national anthem, the ‘Wilhelmus’, pays homage to the King of Spain. They said, ‘how nice the Dutch are!’

When I then said to them, ‘and they talk about the cruel Spaniard’, they said, ‘that is a football problem’. So I would say one thing: this anthem business is very complicated, and I shall stick to the Ode to Joy.

  Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE). – (NL) Mr President, it has just struck me that, in the debate, most of the support for Mr Balkenende came from the SP, the Vlaams Belang, the Party of Haider, the Polish League of Families and the Eurosceptics from Sweden and Denmark. I just thought that worth mentioning.

The Cabinet’s efforts bear witness to a depressing void and lack of any sense of responsibility in terms of Europe’s future. After all, the consequence of a mini-Treaty will be reduced democracy, minimal involvement for the public and reduced decisiveness in terms of climate change and terrorism. A mini-Treaty will make Europe a political dwarf. The fundamental rights must be legally enforceable.

Is the Dutch Labour Party in this Cabinet really prepared to sacrifice the fundamental rights to avoid a referendum? The national parliaments should indeed be involved more, but rather than introduce paralysing red-card procedures, they should finally develop active interest and knowledge. They can do this now, but just do not bother.

Finally, there is a lot of demagogic twaddle about a superstate. We should stop this, because I did not hear your party discuss this either when you campaigned in favour of the constitution prior to the referendum. Measures in the area of security against terrorism, for example, should, of course, be taken at European level, not as it is being done at the moment, though, in back rooms, but rather out in the open, democratically and with majority decision-making. This is not a superstate, this is democracy.

Prime Minister Balkenende, the Netherlands can contribute so much more to Europe. Please let this be seen.

  Hanna Foltyn-Kubicka (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, one condition for a successful future for a united Europe is developing a European consciousness. This is defined by everything that we Europeans have in common – a Christian history and culture, and the understanding that our only future is together.

We must remember that we cannot force people to adopt a European identity. No amount of legislation, even when it is adopted in an atmosphere of success, let alone a climate of unwillingness, can create it. The fact is that it is not constitutions that create communities, but communities create constitutions. For that reason, a constitutional treaty for Europe will not lead to a new growth in European identity, and there is no point in waging wars to defend it, particularly if it creates unneeded divisions. We must, however, make sure that our common history is punctuated by more events like the recent Samara summit. We need the world to see us as a united entity more often. We must speak in a single voice, because that is the only way we can rise to the challenges facing us.

It is my sincere belief that we can succeed in this, precisely thanks to our common identity, and that is something that no legislation can guarantee.

  Adrian Severin (PSE). – Mr President, I should like to say to the Prime Minister that the Constitutional Treaty is not about losing identity but about organising solidarity in a just, effective and sustainable way. Those who oppose it on grounds of identity are not in fact afraid of citizens losing control over the State but of the State losing control over citizens.

In a world where the market, crime and poverty are globalised, the European Union must be political and coherent. We therefore need the double legitimacy of the European Union as a union of states and citizens and double majority voting.

You will agree that the European Union is simply unable to exist without legal personality and is unable to decide whether the single-country veto is its decision-making rule. While accepting that subsidiarity should be an important principle of the Union, we should also accept the precedence of European legislation over national legislation. We cannot expect European citizens to be loyal to the European institutions if their fundamental rights are not legally binding.

Likewise, without a social dimension, the European dream simply will not take off. However, a social Europe is not sustainable without a harmonised tax policy and European Union funds. Ultimately it is not possible to imagine a Europe which is economically and socially effective without a common foreign and security policy. By considering this aspect in a positive way you will certainly bridge the wishes of your citizens and the aspirations of other Europeans.

  Jan Peter Balkenende, Prime Minister of the Netherlands. (NL) Mr President, I am very much indebted to the Members of Parliament for their comments further to what was said on the subject earlier.

I should like to start by clearing up a serious misunderstanding. I have heard a number of speakers, including Mrs Kaufmann and Mr Voggenhuber, talk about things such as the national anthem, the title of Foreign Affairs Minister and the flag, as if these were Dutch issues.

This is not the case at all. I have indicated to you that the question is whether these symbols – that are wonderful in their own right and I have nothing against them – should be enshrined in a constitution. They are merely examples of the question whether we want to work on a constitution or would prefer to change the treaty. This is what this is about. Let us simply treasure our symbols, the question is only whether they should be included or not.

What I meant went a lot deeper, as I indicated. I have tried to give answers to concerns that are around. In my contribution, I indicated that we must think in terms of a treaty amendment, a test of subsidiarity by the national parliaments. I will say more about this in a moment. The kind of things that matter to us are majority decision-making in relation to the powers of Europe and the inclusion of the enlargement criteria. Seeing things only in terms of symbols would turn the Netherlands’ vision into a caricature.

I also paid close attention when the comment about nationalism was made. It was one that I did not understand. During the debates which we held in the Dutch Lower Chamber and after the ‘no’, I made it quite clear that our future is in Europe. A positive message about the meaning of Europe in everyone’s life. We cannot do without Europe. This has always been my message, and I have no desire, therefore, to be associated with purely nationalistic trends.

There was also the assertion that Europe is about nothing but economics. to which, you, Mr President, of course referred. Everyone says certain things. You referred to the actions of a young media person. I should like to remind you once again that when we held the presidency of the European Union, I repeatedly said that Europe is much more than a market and currency. Do you remember that I took the initiative to organise conferences on values in Europe? I then raised the question: what makes us Europeans? What are our common motives? What makes Europe this continent? It is my dear wish that the debate on European values be continued. We cannot do without this debate. So do not try to tell me that this is just about economics.

When we consider Europe’s future, we face the question as to what the challenge is we are facing. Mrs Martens from the Netherlands made a pertinent comment in this connection. What is actually the ideal situation? What are we trying to achieve together? This subsequently leads to a host of concrete questions which have also been raised on this platform.

I cannot address all of them. There are simply too many and we are also limited in time. Allow me to single out a few issues, though. One of the points that was made was the issue of powers and of subsidiarity. It is my firm belief that we must spell out what we mean. Mr Duff made no bones about the fact that the Union has only those powers that the Member States grant it. We should lay this down in very specific terms. When these powers are implemented, this is when the issues of subsidiarity and proportionality come into play.

Of course, the national parliaments have their part to play in this. This is also true of the Netherlands. The Upper and Lower Chambers, and the Joint Committee, have reflected on the question as to what Europe should and should not do. This is extremely beneficial for involvement.

Indeed, for too long, the debates were avoided and postponed. This is also the method by means of which we would like to say that national parliaments should be fully involved in what is happening in Europe. If there are points of criticism, they should be made.

We, for example, commented on the harmonisation of criminal law in the fight against counterfeit goods, something with which Commissioner Frattini has concerned himself. This is the sort of thing that should be open to discussion. This is how national parliaments can operate. In a wider sense, it is also a good thing that the question of subsidiarity is also addressed in national parliaments.

We should avoid a situation in which national parliaments and the European Parliament are pitted against one another. You have different powers and you play your own role in democracy. We should not see this as a sign of weakness, but rather as one of strength.

I should now like to turn to the criteria of services of general interest, a subject that Mr Van den Berg raised, along with other questions. It is my firm belief that we need clarification. We can discuss the way in which this is done. At the same time I can see Mr Maaten – we know each other well from the days when we both sat on the town council of Amstelveen, a town near Amsterdam – we go back a long time. I can understand very well what you are saying about the internal market. Of course, we must consider this consequence, but I, in turn, would say, if we discuss pension systems, pension funds, schools, let us closely examine how the principles of the internal market work there. We need clarification on this and we can obviously discuss the way this should be brought about in greater detail.

I understood very well that you talked about the importance of the Charter of fundamental rights. With good reason, because these fundamental rights belong to the values which Mr Daul mentioned. The question is only – and I would like to ask the same question – whether this should be included in a Constitution or if other methods could be applied. We need to find a solution for this. I have listened carefully to what you said and heard how important the topic is considered here.

It was a pleasure to hear Mr Dehaene speak. I value him for his involvement in bringing about the Constitutional Treaty and the Convention at the time, and we have found ourselves thrashing things out on many occasions. I am pleased that you feel for the position that we are in, when people say ‘no’ in a referendum. You have also indicated what is needed to resolve this situation. I would respond to that by saying that we must be a little more pragmatic, as Mr Maaten indicated, but obviously whilst retaining the ideals we all share.

If we can reach this solution, we will need to be mindful of the positions on either side. It is for precisely this reason that I repeat today that it is necessary that we look beyond the existing positions, that we should not take sides in Europe and that this, as I see it, can be done by means of an amending Treaty. I think it is possible to find solutions swiftly.

Many comments have been made, which I find difficult to address, although I have taken note of them all for personal use. I listened carefully to Mr Barón Crespo, who mentioned – and I should like to finish with this remark – national anthems. You referred to the Dutch Wilhelmus, our anthem which, it is true, contains the sentence: ‘de koning van Hispanje heb ik altijd geëerd’.

The fact, though, that our anthem includes the line ‘I have always respected the King of Spain’ was related to the fact that Spain was involved in totally different things in the Netherlands, which culminated in a fight for independence and an 80-year war. This is now such a great time, a time in which we, for the first time in Europe’s history, are experiencing peace and security so that we can discuss things here in friendship.

I remember very well when I was in Madrid and visited the monastery where Philip II stayed. It was interesting, alongside our version of history, to hear the Spanish version. This is what is so good about Europe, that we can be different. Europe is a continent of diversity, but we also need unity. What is so special about Europe is that we boast this culture and religious pluriformity. This is what has made Europe strong.

If we are talking about the ideals which we stand for, then I would say: let us use what has made Europe strong: human rights, democracy and working on security. Let us remain keenly aware that this should be a combined effort. Let us recognise the powers of national parliaments, let us get the European Parliament to do what needs to be done without any restrictions.

I always find it extremely stimulating to be here, because the European Parliament is the symbol of a united Europe. I believe it is a good thing that national politicians enter into debate with you. I experienced the debate with you today as extremely stimulating. Of course we do not need to see eye to eye on everything, and of course I can take criticism, but there is more that unites us than divides us.

If we are guided by the European dream, then we will undoubtedly be able to find solutions for the problems that have arisen. Together we can make a difference; together we can work on this solution.

(Applause)

  President. We in this House believe that there is no longer any basis for nationalism, and so the term ought not to have been used today. I would like to thank you sincerely on behalf of all our Members for being here, and will wish you success in your policy in order that we may find a way to preserve the substance of the constitution, in the shape of the necessary reforms and the values we seek to embody. My thanks also go to the Vice-President of the Commission, Commissioner Frattini, and to Mr Gloser, the Minister of State.

The debate is closed.

IN THE CHAIR: MRS ROTHE
Vice-President

10. Situation in Nigeria (debate)

  President. The next item is the statements by the Council and the Commission on the situation in Nigeria.

  Günter Gloser, President-in-Office of the Council. – (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, honourable Members, the situation in Nigeria is of great significance for the stability of West Africa and, ultimately for that of the continent as a whole.

The latest elections in Nigeria turned out very disappointingly, as the Council indicated in its statement of 27 April; there were numerous irregularities and acts of violence, with up to 200 people being killed and many more than that injured or intimidated, and the Council expects the persons responsible for these acts of violence to be called to account for their actions. It is fortunate, at any rate, that there was no evidence in these elections of religious or ethnic conflicts.

The elections took place within an improved legal framework, with substantial funds being made available, and all this led us to expect that the 2007 elections would pass off better than those held in 2003. While we are still awaiting the final report from the EU’s election observation mission, initial assessments give credence to the suspicion that the 2007 elections were an even more badly run affair than their predecessors in 2003.

The main problems were in the lack of organisation exemplified in particular by the late opening of polling stations, the lack of ballot slips and the lack of secrecy around the voting process. What was even more serious was that, in addition to widespread irregularities, there was visible evidence of considerable electoral fraud.

Another major problem with the elections was that failure to publish detailed results from them, with, moreover, those results that were available not being calculated in comprehensible ways, and we should now ask the Nigerian authorities to publish the results with the figures broken down according to the polling stations where the votes were cast, for this is the only way in which the election system can be guaranteed to be transparent.

The Council did, however, find positive encouragement in the indications of greater independence on the part of the judicial system during the election campaign, and we hope that this tendency will continue in the post-election period. The lively debates in the privately-owned media before and after the election were also encouraging, and the Council has been impressed not least by the commitment of the Nigerians themselves to the democratic process, in consequence of which the involvement of civil society organisation is, and will continue to be, of very great importance.

The Council has appealed to all the political actors to use peaceful means and to demonstrate an attitude of responsibility by having consistent recourse to the legal channels in order not to disappoint the Nigerian people. We hope that the independent national election commission and other bodies will make haste in producing the evidence that the electoral tribunals require in order to complete their work with the minimum delay possible.

The Council also hopes that the Nigerian state authorities will be sympathetic to the idea of repeating the election process in instances where there is irrefutable evidence of grave electoral fraud.

This is not, however, the time to turn our back on Nigeria – on the contrary; Nigeria’s stability and development matter not only to its own people, but also to Africa as a whole, and, if the Millennium Development Goals are not achieved in Nigeria, we are not going to be able to achieve them in Africa at all.

Nigeria’s future government will have numerous challenges to face; one fundamental area of concern will be the need to monitor efficiently the resources allocated to the federal states, and another will be the continuing insecurity in the Niger Delta.

The EU should support Nigeria as it faces these challenges, stepping up its efforts to strengthen responsible governance and democracy and promoting respect for human rights in Nigeria. It must involve itself in these areas in cooperation with Nigeria and on the basis of that country’s government’s unequivocal consent.

The Presidency will therefore continue to keep a watchful eye on developments in Nigeria.

  Benita Ferrero-Waldner, Member of the Commission. Madam President, as we have just heard, Nigeria has recently held important elections that will determine the transfer of power from one civilian president to another. On the invitation of the Nigerian authorities, the Commission fielded a large independent election observation mission (EOM), which performed well and cooperated closely with other international and domestic observer groups. I appointed Mr van den Berg – who had also observed the elections in 2003 – chief observer for those elections, and he will shortly give us his report.

The mission concluded that the 2007 state and federal elections fell short of basic international and regional standards for democratic elections, pointing out that they were marred by poor organisation – as has already been cited, a lack of essential transparency and safeguards, widespread irregularities, significant evidence of fraud and disenfranchisement of voters. Sadly, at least 200 deaths from election-related violence were also reported. Other international observers – including those fielded by the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and the US National Democratic Institute, led by Madeleine Albright – were also very critical, as were domestic observation groups.

The EU Presidency expressed disappointment at these elections not having marked progress in relation to 2003, which has now been reiterated by our president, at the irregularities and at the high toll of victims. The reactions and the messages from the international community had been consistent in urging Nigerians who have complaints about the process to use the legal provisions outlined in the Constitution and in the Electoral Act, commending the independence shown by the judiciary and the engagement of civil society and praising the commitment of poll workers and voters.

Disappointment at this missed opportunity is widespread in the international community, as Nigeria – one of the major powers in Africa – could have set an example of successful consolidation of the democratic process, which would have had a tremendous positive impact on the African continent. This is even more regrettable as the elections were held in an improved atmosphere in which the freedoms of assembly and expression were at least broadly respected.

The elections have highlighted the many problems and shortcomings of the Nigerian democratic process, and the Commission is aware that many challenges and misgivings need now to be addressed and overcome. In the short term, pressure should be placed on Nigeria’s Independent National Electoral Commission to publish a complete breakdown of the polling station results, which is a basic requirement of transparency, and the judiciary should also be encouraged to act swiftly and responsibly with the election petitions. If redress is not provided, this could have serious implications for the future.

While the lessons learned will have to be taken into account in our future relations with Nigeria, entrenching positions should be avoided. I think the political dialogue has to restart, but future relations will have to include a deeper engagement at federal, state and Community level with a wider range of players in civil society and government. The topic of the elections must be a key feature of the political dialogue with Nigeria, based on the recommendations of the EOM. Our readiness to engage Nigeria in a political dialogue and the commitment to promote the strengthening of governments and democracy in the country, particularly together with ECOWAS, is highlighted in the joint EU-ECOWAS communiqué issued on 24 April at the 11th EU-ECOWAS ministerial meeting.

While the main instrument for political dialogue will remain Articles 8 and 9 of the Cotonou Partnership Agreement, the programming of the development cooperation to be financed by the 10th European Development Fund will also provide a crucial avenue for dialogue and the opportunity to take into account lessons learnt from the elections and the outcome of the discussions with the new Government, civil society and other key players.

  Filip Kaczmarek, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (PL) Madam President, both the Nigerians and the international community had great hopes for the Nigerian elections for a number of reasons.

Firstly, Nigeria is the most populated country in Africa and as the Commissioner said, a successful democratic process in Nigeria could set a good example that other African countries would wish to replicate.

Secondly, these were the first Nigerian elections where one civilian government would take over another, which is very important in a country with a history of military dictatorships.

And thirdly, there is broad freedom of speech in Nigeria, and the judiciary is independent.

Unfortunately these hopes of a positive example have been dashed. The resolution we are discussing is very critical, and justifiably so. Poor organisation, numerous mistakes and procedural irregularities, as well as electoral fraud have meant that the latest Nigerian elections cannot be regarded as credible, free or fair.

The elections met neither international standards nor the regional standards defined by ECOWAS. Worse still, the elections were marred by violence resulting in the deaths of at least 200 people. Questions about the significance of this violence by discussing the death toll showed that most Nigerian politicians were unaware of the problem.

It appears that long-term education in citizenship is very important in the case of Nigeria. Sending election observers is not enough, we need to invest in education and building a civil society.

It is my belief that the Nigerians must not be subjected to blackmail based on threats that any questioning of the election results would be tantamount to inviting the military to stage a coup again. This philosophy of ‘the lesser of two evils’ undermines democracy and justifies and feeds anti-democratic tendencies. The 64 million registered Nigerian voters have a right to election results that reflect their real will, and the European Union must strive to make this happen.

  Margrietus van den Berg, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (NL) Madam President, I should like to say something on behalf of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, rather than as head of the Election Observation Mission, because that is a different role.

The European Election Observation Mission has had to conclude that the elections in Nigeria were not credible. This is unfortunate, because despite the improved atmosphere in which the freedom of expression of opinion was respected during the campaign and despite the positive and independent role played by the law courts, the election process, and subsequently the results, cannot be seen as credible. The Council has confirmed, as has the Commissioner, that this is indeed the case.

The Nigerian elections were badly organised and intransparent; there were far-reaching procedural irregularities and there was clear evidence of fraud. The process fell well short of the measure of international and regional standards for democratic elections.

The point which the Council made a moment ago, namely failure to publish the results either in polling stations or at higher levels, and hence the complete lack of proof and transparency is, and remains, in fact, the most serious problem, because as a result, nothing can be proven or refuted, and this takes all the credibility out of the electoral result as such.

This is simply, as we have established, one of the toughest verdicts which we as Election Observation Mission have passed in the different countries. This was particularly painful, because after 2003, there was real hope among the people that actual improvements would follow. The people were committed. When many people have made the necessary efforts and have shown commitment, then something like this will hit them particularly hard. If you compare 14 April to 21 April: at the governor’s elections on 14 April, there was still a great deal of hope, whereas the situation on the 21 April was simply demoralising. This also explains the low turn-out, despite the upbeat figures that were published afterwards.

What conclusion are we Europeans to draw from this? That we should, emphatically, remain committed, and this is where I agree with the Council and the Commission in their conclusions. It is, after all, the Nigerian people we are talking about, and they deserve a better future and serious elections.

This means, therefore, that in our diplomatic relations, we cannot pretend that the government that has just been appointed has been elected in a democratic manner at all. This is, of course, a very tricky business. We could do business as usual, provided we remain involved and active. Business as usual would affect not only the credibility of our European Election Observation Missions, but also – and to a far greater extent – our own values for which we stand when we act in the world and in a country such as this. We should therefore come clean and conclude that we have a democratic crisis on our hands at the moment.

This crisis has partly become evident before the courts, where a number of people have objected and tried to prove that certain things are simply wrong. It has also become evident, and can become evident, via working parties of the Senate and the House of Representatives, who are launching investigations of their own and are trying to table fresh proposals. And we have to wait and see, of course, how people in Nigeria come to table their own proposals on the question as to how credible elections can be held.

I have said before that it is not up to us to work this out in detail, but this is the essence and it would be good if in this respect, our resources could be put in place, preferably not with the federal government and with the state, but with all those players in society who can promote governance and democracy in this way.

  Johan Van Hecke, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (NL) Madam President, the analyses of the elections in Nigeria by international observers are, as I see it, strikingly similar: disappointment about the election process that is typified by poor organisation, large-scale fraud, intimidation and violence. These elections do not in any way meet international standards. This is the conclusion of the EU Observation Mission, under the leadership of Mr van den Berg, who has done sterling work under difficult circumstances.

The reaction of certain Member States who would have preferred a slightly less outspokenly negative statement from the European observers has rather surprised me, and all the more so because the Member States in question are constantly banging on about the need for more democratisation in Africa. Diverse interests sometimes lead to diverse reactions – history is repeating itself.

The EU Election Observation Mission was right not to be seduced into adopting a political stance. After all, as Mr van den Berg stated a moment ago, it is now up to the political class and civil society in Nigeria to do their bit. The judgment by the High Court on the Vice-President’s participation in the elections demonstrates that this should not be utopia.

Irregularities should now be reported to the election tribunals and the courts. Our role is more of a structural one. Accordingly, by means of dialogue, as the Commissioner pointed out with good reason, we must spell out that an independent election committee must be put in place that is capable of organising truly independent elections, and the newly elected Nigerian parliament can play an important role in this.

In summary, following promising developments in countries such as Mali, Benin and Liberia, it is a crying shame that a regional superpower such as Nigeria has missed a great opportunity.

  Marie-Hélène Aubert, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (FR) Madam President, as we all know, the development of Nigeria is crucially important for the African continent. Nigeria is one of the largest countries in Africa and, just as it has done in the Democratic Republic of Congo, the European Union has put effort into organising elections and observing elections there.

That being said, the chaotic and violent situation that reigns in Nigeria, especially in the delta region, must open our eyes to a number of issues – obvious and outstanding issues. As in Congo, the issue of the exploitation of raw materials and oil plays an extremely important role in the destabilisation of this country, in the atmosphere of violence and civil war that has come about there.

On this point, I believe that we should be very pro-active in supporting the civil society and the democrats, who are fighting to obtain information and transparency on the exploitation of the resources and who are also seeking to preserve their resources. The delta region is totally devastated and plagued by murderous conflicts, and the manœuvres of the Nigerian army in this area sometimes do more harm than good.

I also believe that the European Union should be far stricter in making the development aid that it provides conditional on the fight against corruption and on the very clear inclusion in the State budget of the profits made from oil and minerals, because it is all the same absolutely scandalous that the people of Nigeria, who live in a state of great poverty, do not see any benefits whatsoever from these mineral and oil profits! At a time when the price of a barrel of oil has increased, the resources should be considerable. It is therefore most unusual that this issue has not been dealt with.

Finally, progress needs to be made, too, concerning the social and environmental responsibility of large companies – Shell, in particular, has a major presence in this country, but it is not the only one – and we should also act together on these major issues, and not just on the matter of organising elections.

  Vittorio Agnoletto, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I have listened with great interest to the reports by the Council and the Commission, and as a member of the delegation of parliamentary observers at the presidential elections, I can fully confirm everything that has been said so far. The elections were definitely not conducted in compliance with international standards, since the standards laid down at international level were not reached, nor even the standards of the African states themselves.

There was even a postponement in the opening time of polling stations that was decided on and notified only the day before, so that the majority of the population was unaware of it. Most of the polling stations closed early. There was an absence of any kind of secret ballot – and I could go on indefinitely, mentioning, for example, an electoral commission that was independent solely in name, but in fact was closely linked to the government.

I would also like to mention the intimidating atmosphere. Hauwa Ibrahim, holder of the 2005 Sakharov prize, was supposed to meet our delegation in a public place but requested a change in the location of the appointment because she did not feel sufficiently safe.

I would like to move the debate on to what can be done in the future. We absolutely must call for investigations into the electoral irregularities, call for an independent electoral commission, call for the Court of Appeal to be truly independent in dealing with electoral appeals and verify this, and state that new elections are necessary. We cannot, however, stop at just this, and I already see in the background the risk that the political choices of the Council are tending in the direction of continuing as if nothing was the matter. Let us not conceal the reason – some people may think that what matters is to have a government that is more or less legitimised, but in a country from which we can continue to buy oil.

This cannot be the solution. I would like to ask what the intentions are with regard to using some instruments that the European Union possesses. For example, there is the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights. Are we able to verify that the Nigerian Government remains uninvolved in the selection and implementation of projects that are financed by this instrument? I would like to ask the Commissioner, as I have already done on other occasions, what is happening with the democratic clause on rights, which was adopted by a very large majority within this Parliament, but never accepted by the Commission or the Council. It has never been transformed into the powerful tool that it could be, and in this case it could be extremely useful to place trade with Europe in the scales too, from the viewpoint of democratic progress.

Last, but not least, there is the issue of what role Europe intends to play regarding events in the Niger delta. It does not seem adequate to me that individual States should do their utmost and be prepared to pay ransoms when someone is seized. We must call for a start in talks, relations and meetings between the Nigerian Government and the representatives of local people, putting pressure not only on the government but also on the large European companies operating in that region without any respect for human rights or environmental rights.

  Bastiaan Belder, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – (NL) Madam President, Demokratie als Farce was the headline on 30 April of the weekly Das Parlement – the President of the Council may have noticed how I am quite German-minded. Above the headline, there is a big picture of two coyly smiling Nigerian boys brandishing their ballot papers. Any comment would be superfluous. The two elections in the most populous country in April have ended in human and political disaster, with more than 200 people killed, and fraud on a large scale – things about which the present joint resolution does not mince words. Where do we go from here in Nigeria?

I am very struck by a page-long article and interview with Nigeria’s current President Obasanjo, who spells out quite clearly that Nigeria’s future lies with its relationship with China. Cheap loans, infrastructure, marvellous, but the European Union is out of the game. What, I ask of the Council and the Commission, is the EU’s response to this? Do you, in light of these statements and this position, have a strategy, both tangible and intangible, for Nigeria, in fact, for the entire African continent?

  Andreas Mölzer, on behalf of the ITS Group. – (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, if a country is trying for the first time, in the aftermath of civil war and military dictatorships, to organise a peaceful handover of power, it follows that not everything is going to run ideally and perfectly smoothly.

We all agree, though, that the elections laid on were a farce, for what has become of democracy when a party rejoices in its own victory even before the votes have been counted, or what of the free choice of the voters when threats are made as the voting papers are counted out, when ballot slips are completed many times over, and when there seem, in rural districts, to have been scarcely any elections at all? What sort of message is it supposed to send out when ballot papers and election material arrive too late or not at all? How, then, are the people of Nigeria supposed to feel that they are being taken seriously?

The election process was meant to have brought the region stability and pointed people to a viable way into the future, but those hopes have proved illusory, leaving behind them a disillusioned people whose experience of elections is, at best, of a symbolic act, and an opposition whose threat to contest the election result will probably avail it but little, for the winning party is hardly likely to agree to new elections, so what we are left to consider is to what degree the European Union can and may exert pressure when power is handed over on 29 May, for the European Union itself has hardly been always the best of examples; it, too, has seen the repetition of referendums until the desired result was achieved, something that is highly dubious in democratic political terms.

  Edward McMillan-Scott (PPE-DE). – Madam President, it was my first visit to Nigeria and my first African election, and I was disappointed: I had expected to see a free and fair election, and it was anything but that. I will not bore the House with my conclusions, because they are the same as those of the leader of the Commission’s delegation and of the leader of the delegation I belong to, and they can be seen on YouTube, in a short video I made, under the headline ‘Nigeria’s rigged elections’.

I should just like to address some lessons for the European Union from this election in the largest country in Africa. It seems to me that the Chinese influence, referred to by Mr Belder, might be a little deeper than we perceive. We know that China is involved in the democracy backlash around the world: working with Russia as a dirty duet, all over Africa, with Belarus, Venezuela, Zimbabwe and Egypt. There is a process under way that the European Union has to respond to, and I believe that the Commissioner is committed to making the most use of the instrument that she and I are very committed to – the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights.

Let me just make some specific points. I was one of three Members of the European Parliament on this delegation, and that was not enough. I believe we have to reconsider as a House the use of former Members of the European Parliament in such delegations. For example, we will send a delegation to Sierra Leone in August; I will not be surprised if there are very few takers.

Secondly, concerning the independence of the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights, we heard that the EU mission in Nigeria is involved with the Government in approving projects. This must not happen: this instrument is supposed to be independent of host-country control.

Then there is the question of follow-up for this election. I know that the final report has not yet been published, but I believe that the European Union has a commitment to the pursuit of democracy in those countries and the follow-up to the process of a bad election.

Finally, the use of the United Nations as an agent for organising these very effective missions is an expensive luxury and needs to be reconsidered.

  Libor Rouček (PSE). – (CS) Last month I went to Nigeria as a European Parliament election observer and I saw there many interesting, often unpleasant and sometimes appalling incidents. On the one hand, Nigerian voters often travel many miles in great discomfort to reach the polling booths. On the other hand, those manning Nigerian polling stations do everything they can to stop these people from accessing the ballot box. On the one hand, people cast their vote enthusiastically with a view to a better, fairer, more decent life. On the other hand, those manning the polling stations falsify people’s votes with the aim of preventing political and economic change.

Ladies and gentlemen, I feel there can be no doubt about where the European Parliament and the Union stand. We are on the side of justice, democracy, and free and fair elections. We are on the side of the millions of Nigerians who believe in democratic elections in the hope that democracy is the key to resolving political, economic and social problems. Last month Nigeria had a historic opportunity to prove to itself, to Africa and to the rest of the world that it is equal to that task, that it is capable of making the democratic, peaceful transition from one government to another. Unfortunately, it has squandered that historic opportunity.

  Fiona Hall (ALDE). – Madam President, I would like to pay tribute to Mr van den Berg for all his excellent work as chief observer in Nigeria in very difficult circumstances. I believe that the standing of the EU Election Observation Missions in general was enhanced by the fact that the EOM to Nigeria did not fudge but came out with a clear message that the elections had been irregular.

The great value of EU Election Observation Missions is that they are independent and completely neutral. They are at arm’s length from EU foreign policy. The one point on which I am unhappy with the motion for a resolution is that in recital V and paragraph 15 a confusion has entered the text. There is an association of election observation and foreign policy, whereas they need to be kept quite separate.

I hope that a way can be found around this through a normal amendment to get over the problem, but otherwise I am afraid that the ALDE Group will have to vote against both recital V and paragraph 15.

  Urszula Krupa (IND/DEM). – (PL) Madam President, despite its rich natural resources, Nigeria is a corrupt and backward country, where the profits from these resources, in particular its oil wealth, do not go towards economic development or improving the life of society. Influential pressure groups who want to maintain chaos in Nigeria are stoking up antagonism between Muslims and Christians, despite the separation of state and religion, and the fact that the constitution should guarantee citizens their rights.

It seems to me, however, that the debate in this House before any pronouncement by the electoral commissions is somewhat premature. I would, however, like to use this heated debate and the dramatic situation in that African country as an occasion to remember here, in the European Parliament, the words of the greatest authority of the 20th and 21st century, Pope John Paul II, that a state’s raison d’etre is the sovereignty of society and the people, and a condition of international peace and cooperation is respect for the right of a nation to have its existence, freedom and culture.

  Bogusław Sonik (PPE-DE). – (PL) Madam President, over 200 people died during the recent elections in Nigeria. The way the elections were conducted had nothing to do with democratic procedures. The head of the EU observers Max van den Berg stressed that they did not justify the hopes and expectations of Nigerians, and cannot be regarded as credible.

Nigeria is a country riddled by social conflict based on religious and ethnic differences, especially between Muslims and Christians. At the same time, the country has vast resources of oil and other minerals and is the ninth largest country in the world in terms of population. Political killings, torture, and summary justice meted out by the army are commonplace. Freedom of speech and of assembly are restricted. Cases of repression of the Christian minority are becoming increasingly worrying.

Since its establishment, the European Union was built on the basis of respect for human rights, fundamental freedoms and citizens’ freedoms. On many occasions in its history the European Community – and later the European Union – has spoken out when democracy and freedom were under threat. The examples of Georgia and Ukraine also show that only decisive action brings results. In Ukraine, this kind of action led to a re-run of the falsified second round of the presidential elections. This was the result not just of the resilient attitude of the Ukrainians, but also of the loud and clear signals sent by the European Union.

In my view, the European Union’s delayed reaction to the events in Nigeria is also cause for concern. Where fundamental standards are breached, instant reactions should follow. Exactly one month has passed since the disturbances and elections in Nigeria, and we should immediately suspend all financial aid from the European Union to government structures in Nigeria, as well as aid for democracy and human rights if there is a danger that this money may go into the pockets of corrupt government structures.

  Pierre Schapira (PSE). – (FR) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, democracy has lost ground in Nigeria. The elections of Saturday 21 April, which were marked by fraud, violence and deaths, will not have been free or fair. All the international observers, as you said, have confirmed this.

These elections were meant to be a test. For the first time since the country gained independence, in 1960, a democratically-elected president could have hoped to succeed another. This is a missed opportunity! It does not bode at all well for Nigeria, at a time when the country, rich though it is, needs stability if it hopes to escape poverty.

Since the elections, the violence has increased: the international community has a duty to intervene.

I should like to remind you that, last year, the European Parliament awarded the Sakharov Prize to Mrs Hauwa Ibrahim, a Nigerian lawyer who courageously defended two women who had been sentenced to death by stoning for having committed adultery, for the Sharia is still observed in that country.

On 28 and 29 May, a coalition of opposition parties, civil society and trade union organisations, including the Nigerian lawyers’ union, will organise a two-day movement to protest against the staging of these elections.

The European Parliament must support this democratic movement. It is by doing so that we will defend Nigerians and Nigeria, a large and important African country.

  Toomas Savi (ALDE). – Madam President, the election observation mission in Nigeria was the first one that I took part in. I have one thought that I would like to share with you in relation to that.

The European Union was one of the biggest donors for carrying out elections in Nigeria. Therefore we must hold a certain degree of responsibility that the aid given most efficiently serves its purpose. The whole organisational burden for conducting the elections was carried by the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC. In Nigeria, INEC was not able to meet the organisational and logistical challenges it faced in order to carry out truly democratic elections. The shortcomings also constitute the most comprehensive part of the resolution. I guess you must share INEC’s responsibility by, for example, educating the approximately 500 000 INEC grassroots-level organisers so that more credible independent and democratic elections in Nigeria could take place next time.

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE). – (PT) Regardless of the election result – and there is good reason to doubt the validity of that result – the most worrying aspect of the Nigerian election was the electoral process, on which the opinion of the other international observers left no room for doubt: it was disorganised and fraud took place.

The report on the subject from our fellow Members who were there as observers is revealing.

The conclusion can thus be drawn that the election was used to secure a degree of legitimacy that the observers do not recognise and that is not acceptable to democracies. The result had more to do with intimidation, fraud and violence than the will of the people. Unfortunately, this is not an isolated case on the African continent; far from it, in fact.

Despite the progress made in recent decades, much of the most persistent violence still goes on and some of the most corrupt regimes are still very much in place. There is nothing in the geography of Africa or in the genetic make-up of African people that stops them living in a democracy, but the international community needs to be determined and resolute in the process of the democratisation of African countries.

This is not only for all the usual reasons, but also because China has become a global player, and one that does not demand democratisation in return for cooperation; quite the contrary, in fact. Ahead of the EU-Africa summit due to take place in the second half of the year, the EU is now expected to play a genuinely effective role and not be reduced to mere rhetoric. Not all global players behave in the same fashion but we need to work in tandem with our allies. This is firstly for reasons both of values and principles, and of interests. In free and stable democracies it is possible to pursue international trade that is predictable and that is of benefit to all but those who seek to fan the flames of corruption and dictatorship.

We must be tough, therefore, at the forthcoming summit, which is to take place during the Portuguese Presidency. We do not want statements of good intent or mere recognition of the mistakes of the past; what we want is political truth and true politics.

The EU must remain the biggest provider of international aid and must actively promote cooperation. At the same time, though, it must succeed in bringing about reform, democratisation and freedom in these countries. Otherwise, the EU will be giving out fish rather than helping people to fish.

  Karin Scheele (PSE). – (DE) Madam President, having been preceded by such tense expectation, Nigeria’s electoral marathon is over, and a new President, new provincial parliaments, and a new federal parliament have been elected. The result was a certainty even before the election was held; while an overpowering victory by the governing party had been reckoned with, none of the election observers had expected the degree of electoral fraud, of falsified results, the logistical chaos and the widespread violence associated with this election. Not only the European Union’s electoral observation commission but also – and this is a new thing – that officially appointed by the West African Economic Union, were merciless in denouncing the serious defects present in this election, which have been documented in a long list to which reference has already been made in this debate. I wish to join with my fellow Members in urging the authorities of the Nigerian state to subject the irregularities in this election to thorough and transparent investigation.

I should also like the Commission to tell us what options are afforded us by the democracy and human rights instrument for taking the necessary steps both in our dialogue with Nigeria and in our cooperation with it; as we know, it is not just Chinese businesses that are disregarding human rights and social inequalities, for their Western counterparts have always turned a blind eye to them in the quest for oil.

  András Gyürk (PPE-DE). – (HU) As vice-president of the delegation of observers from the International Republican Institute, I had the opportunity personally to take part, as an observer, in the recent Nigerian elections. Based on my experiences, I have to say that the coordination of the work between numerous international observer delegations was an exemplary success.

As to the election itself, I can only confirm my colleagues’ statement that Nigeria’s elections can be considered neither fair nor free. They have satisfied neither international standards nor the local norms set by the government of Abuja. We witnessed serious shortcomings in the system of voter lists and in keeping the public informed. In many instances, local polling stations opened late and had no ballot forms. The murky process of compiling the results even raises the suspicion of fraud. It is quite telling that the results of some voting districts have not been disclosed.

What is more, the elections were marred by violence. As we have already heard, some 200 citizens lost their lives in clashes linked to the voting. These massive irregularities are even more distressing in the light of previous Nigerian elections that took place in a much more orderly fashion. This time we witnessed with sadness that the voting public’s allegiance to democracy – this is very important – was not accompanied by the intent of government bodies to keep the voting within legal bounds.

We who were there saw how committed Nigerian citizens are to democratic values. Amidst often chaotic conditions they waited with dignity for the moment to exercise their democratic right. It is in Europe’s interest too to see the consolidation of democracy in Nigeria so that it may become a model for the African continent. For that reason, it is important for the EU to remain an active observer of that process.

  Ryszard Czarnecki (UEN). – (PL) Madam President, I apologise for re-scheduling my speech, as we were holding a very important vote to elect the president of EUROLAT.

Nigeria failed to make use of the opportunity the elections presented. Our observers clearly confirmed that the elections were neither free nor fair. This was because of corruption and very poor organisation. The Nigerian Government is entirely to blame for this. The elections were overshadowed by terror, in which 50 people died, most of them in the Niger Delta. At times they were nothing but a caricature of elections, where some polling stations failed to open, while in others bandits destroyed the ballot boxes.

Europe should be especially meticulous in observing elections in this country, which is the largest in Africa and for many other African countries is a point of reference economically and politically. Elections in a country of 110 million, of which 64 million are of voting age, should focus the attention of public opinion. Unfortunately these elections did not boost, but have effectively weakened, Nigeria’s position in the international arena.

In the run-up to the elections we noted a number of activities and tendencies not related to the election process that are cause for concern. For example, in Muslim-governed areas, girls going to Christian schools were forced to wear veils as symbols of Islamic tradition. This is a clear breach of religious rights and tolerance, but such practices are on the increase, and such discrimination may become even more widespread when Muslims take more power in Nigeria. As the European Parliament, we cannot pass over this matter in silence, particularly as it is an imposition on the minds of children. Tomorrow will be an opportunity to take a stand on this matter in the voting, and there will be voting in an amendment on this very issue.

But what will happen next, after the elections? We should do more than just criticise, for which we have just grounds. What we also need is a clear plan on how to force the observance of democratic rules of play in a country which plays a key role on a continent which is practically our neighbour. In other words we have to force the Nigerian authorities to reflect democracy and free elections or – to be frank – turn off the tap of financial aid. This aid must not be channelled towards state and federal structures. Instead it can and should be forwarded to non-governmental and social organisations. We must also put pressure on the Nigerian Government to act more effectively against corruption, the use of force and the sense of impunity that local authorities, which are practically states within a state, have.

  Günter Gloser, President-in-Office of the Council. – (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, I should like to extend warm thanks to the honourable Members of this House for the interest they have shown and also for their support, and my particular thanks go to those who have performed the task of monitoring elections on the ground and who can therefore give very powerful and truthful descriptions of what happened there.

In his speech, Mr Kaczmarek gave it as his opinion that an opportunity had been missed, and to that I want to add that it was not a case of the overwhelming majority of Nigerians missing an opportunity, but rather of there having been people who would not allow the holding of free and independent elections with secret ballots that might have had a significant impact.

The question has been asked from various quarters as to what we can do about this. In your own speech, Mr van den Berg, you also said, that we cannot stint in our commitment to Nigeria and to its civil society in particular. It is very important that we should now, rather than backtracking on this commitment, clarify how the commitment made by us in the European Union can directly benefit the interested parties, not least civil society.

One opportunity to once again spell out what we Europeans think about how elections should be conducted, and about the ways in which they are manipulated, will be the G8 summit in Heiligendamm, at which the President of Nigeria, among others, is expected.

This first impression of what has been going on in Nigeria must not, however, exercise a generally negative influence on Africa’s image in our eyes. Some of you have already mentioned the positive examples that are to be found on the African continent. Mauretania may not be a large country, but we have recently seen how it managed to organise a transition, and also, from its example, what sort of support is needed in order to do that.

Another consideration, bearing in mind the prospect of the Africa Summit between the EU and the African Union being held in November, is the need for it to be made clear for which values the European Union stands, and to what it is committed, in its dealings with its African partners. We must also, at the same time, make clear where we stand in our dialogue with China, for it is not acceptable that China should have only a very limited economic interest in the continent of Africa, whilst the European Union is left to do much else in such areas as responsible action by the state and the development of civil society.

I was struck, a few weeks ago, when I attended a joint meeting between the EU and ECOWAS, to hear the participating countries say that, for many small shoots that had sprouted in them and which they hoped would grow still further, this amounted to a retrograde step. There are also many countries in Africa that are enjoying economic growth and that are well governed. I am glad to see that many of the public media are currently, in preparation for the Africa summit, taking note of that as they take a look at Africa, and that was another reason why it was important that the European Union and some of its Member States should show their colours while securing the elections in Congo, for there are, quite apart from Congo, a number of countries where development is progressing well. So, then, I want to say thank you again for that. I hope that we will, together with the Commission, and with your House’s support, find ways of coming to terms with what has happened in Nigeria; I hope that there will be changes, and that we will be able to give our continued support to those in Nigeria who want that land to change and become a democratic country.

  Benita Ferrero-Waldner, Member of the Commission. Madam President, we all agree that, unfortunately, these elections were a real disappointment, but I hope that democracy in Nigeria will become a force in the future, and not a farce. We have a lot of work to do. I agree that it is not possible or advisable to continue with business as usual, and certainly we will not do that.

As has been said by, I believe, a majority here, we have to engage with members of civil society in Nigeria who are willing to change the situation and the election process. This must be part of the dialogue that we have to follow up, based especially on the recommendations of the EOM.

On the other hand, political engagement and dialogue with the Government are also needed. Such a dialogue has to be regular; it has to be structured; it has to be held at troika, or local or even higher level, and must be extended to national and regional organisations, as was done between the EU and ECOWAS, as was just mentioned, as well as to representatives of civil society.

As regards the Electoral Commission, according to the observers, there were irregularities and fraud, but INEC in particular failed to act independently as it is required to do. It is clear, therefore, that INEC, tarnished as it is by serious doubts over its impartiality, cannot continue to be a beneficiary of EDF support. Issues concerning INEC’s independence, mandate, structure and leadership must therefore be addressed before any decision about the continuation of our support can be taken.

As regards the Niger Delta, which has already been mentioned by some of you, the Human Rights Watch report entitled ‘Chop Fine’ on Rivers State is emblematic of a situation widespread in the Niger Delta, where large financial resources are made available, but very little reaches the people and even less the communities in remote areas of the Delta. People there have been deprived of their voices and land resources, and they are not given anything in return by the Government.

The threats and challenges presented by this area are left unaddressed and will, sooner or later, have serious repercussions at national and regional level. The ambassadors of the EU Member States have twice submitted clear and simple recommendations. Before the financial resources allocated to the Niger Delta are increased, total transparency should be ensured and dialogue between all the stakeholders established.

Articles 8 and 9 of the Cotonou Partnership Agreement have also been mentioned. They contain all the ingredients needed to ensure the most effective dialogue not only with the Government but also with civil society and the regional African organisations, as has been said. I consider it absolutely paramount that more coherent, more regular and more systematic action by the EU as a group vis-à-vis Nigeria is the only possible way of addressing the questions highlighted by these elections. This should be a very strong thrust of our policy.

On the other hand, we have to be careful not to push Nigeria into the hands of religious extremists, including Muslim extremists.

China has been mentioned. When I was in China in January, I made it clear that we want to have a dialogue on Africa with China. It is not so easy to do, but it is very important and, therefore, it is important that Nigeria is being invited to the G8 Summit in order to give them these messages directly, because we have to tell Nigeria that we want our values and interests to be respected and it cannot only be a question of pure economic matters.

I shall just repeat that the EIDHR provides an opportunity to work with civil society. It can work without the approval of the Government, but we normally have contact with the Government.

Finally, it is also important to see what our financial funding means there. It is a mere 0.2% of the oil revenue and the total international aid to Nigeria. Therefore this makes the consequences of aid suspension negligible from a financial viewpoint and potentially counterproductive, as it would further impair political dialogue with the Government. But, on the whole, 25% of funding is promoting good governance. Therefore, we should use this part in particular in order to work with civil society, as I think we would all agree.

  President. To wind up the debate, a motion for resolution⁽¹⁾ signed by seven groups has been tabled under Rule 103(2) of the Rules of Procedure.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Thursday at 12.00 noon.

(1) See Minutes.

11. International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) (debate)

  President. The next item is a debate on

- the oral question (O-0018/2007) by Miroslav Ouzký, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, to the Council: Key objectives for the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) to be held in The Hague on 3-15 June 2007 (B6-0020/2007) and

- the oral question (O-0019/2007) by Miroslav Ouzký, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, to the Council: Key objectives for the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) to be held in The Hague on 3-15 June 2007 (B6-0121/2007).

  Marie Anne Isler Béguin (Verts/ALE), substitute author. – (FR) Madam President, Minister, Commissioner, the reports follow each other but are not alike, since we are at present going to deal with biodiversity.

Minister, this week will have been marked by the desire shown by the European Parliament to fight against the loss of biodiversity. On Monday, the report by our fellow Member, Mr Amadou, and the report on Life+ were debated and, today, we are examining two oral questions tabled ahead of the next meeting of the Conference of the parties to the Convention on international trade in endangered species of wild flora and fauna, the CITES. Our Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, whose chairman I excuse for not being able to be here with us, questions the Member States’ negotiating method and asks the European Council what key objectives the Union will uphold during the fourteenth meeting of the Conference of the parties to the CITES Convention, which will be held, as you said, Madam President, in the Hague on 14 and 15 June 2007.

The CITES Convention is one of the oldest multilateral environmental protection instruments. It was adopted in 1973, in Washington, by States that were already anxious to go beyond the national regulatory frameworks. The aim was to preserve wild plants and animals from commercial overexploitation. The significance of this Convention compared with the other multilateral agreements on the environment is its great power of adaptation. It directly influences trade through supply, which it restricts. In very practical terms, it influences around 500 000 transactions – that is no small amount, 500 000 commercial transactions! – thereby restricting the overexploitation of biodiversity. With the coming on board of the various institutional partners, nearly 170 States, including our 27 Member States, of scientists and NGOs, the CITES Convention will have made it possible to prevent the removal of particularly endangered species and to save species such as the Siberian tiger, the blue whale and African elephants.

Of course, the challenges facing the Convention are many. On the one hand, they are structural. The Convention struggles, in fact, to find funding to match its ambitions. It has to deal with the over-consumption of natural species, some of which are not always listed. On the other hand, the Convention must take account of new data, including, of course, climate change. It must incorporate the ineffectiveness of certain instruments, such as the action plan for forest law enforcement, governance and trade, or FLEGT, with which everyone in this House is familiar. It must review also the decisions that have had a negative impact on certain species: for example, during the twelfth Conference of the parties, the permits for the sale of ivory originating from Botswana, Namibia and South Africa resulted in almost 20 000 elephants being decimated, according to estimates.

As part of the fight against the loss of species, the European Union must at all costs speak with one voice during the conferences of the parties to the Convention. In this connection, I should like to point out, Minister, that the European Union often abstains when decisions are taken because our Member States do not manage to come to an agreement, with the result that 27 votes are lost, and 27 votes is not a negligible amount; it is even often a large amount.

Therefore, Minister, we ask that the Council take account of Parliament’s resolution, which reflects the interests of the European people and conveys that which our citizens want us to defend within the context of this CITES Convention. Firstly, because the resolution points out certain requirements to the negotiators. Thus, the precautionary principle must be applied with the same rigour as that imposed by the European Union in other international negotiations on the environment.

Equally, the Union must demand transparency in the voting process and reject secret ballots, a practice that really exists, especially when it comes to listing species in annexes. In fact, the point is to modernise this slightly antiquated procedure, which no longer in any way meets the requirements of the citizens, who must be able to exercise their right to inspect the decisions that are taken on their behalf. We know that the NGOs criticise the EU Member States at every turn for not disclosing their votes and for voting in secret ballots on certain species. We consider this to be totally unacceptable and we call for transparency, because this Convention is special and because the Member States, as we know, have specific interests where some subjects are concerned.

The questions included in the agenda of the Conference must be submitted to the European Parliament. We do not expect anything less. Each time a Conference of the parties to the CITES Convention is announced, we put the same questions to the Council: we do not understand why we have not been consulted earlier, so that we know what positions the Council plans to uphold during the Conference.

I should also like to ask the Commission and the Council to involve our parliamentary delegation in the work of the Conferences so that we are not forced, as we usually are, to skulk around the corridors in the hope of gleaning some information from them, and that is when the Council and the Commission see fit to invite us! I therefore thank you for involving the European Parliament delegation in the work done on the Convention.

IN THE CHAIR: MRS WALLIS
Vice-President

  Günter Gloser, President-in-Office of the Council. (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, honourable Members, including those who have spoken on behalf of your colleague Mr Ouzký, I would like to make a statement on behalf of the presidency.

As at previous meetings of the conference of the contracting parties to the Washington convention on the protection of species, the EU Member States will, together, put forward the position agreed by the Community. The Council will shortly set down this position on the basis of the latest proposal from the Commission, and will, of course, inform Parliament of the position thus arrived at.

The Community’s position will incorporate three overarching goals:

One is that the Convention shall become as efficient as possible, and the first thing to be done with this end in mind will be to reduce unnecessary administrative burdens; practicable and working solutions to problems of implementation need to be found, and it needs to be ensured that the contracting parties’ resources are targeted where there is a real need for preservation.

Greater synergies must be established between the Convention on the Protection of Species and other instruments and processes relating to biological diversity; in particular, the resolutions of the fourteenth conference should help to bring about, by 2010, a marked deceleration of the worldwide loss of biological diversity, and to achieve the Millennium Development Goals.

Furthermore, the European Union also wants to ensure at the conference that the planned amendments to the annexes to the Washington Convention actually do improve the preservation of the species in question, and it will, in this respect, be particularly important to ensure that monitoring is carried out, for it is only in this way that poaching and illegal trading can be curbed and the sustainability of the international trade in species guaranteed.

Elephants and whales are again the individual species on which this conference focuses. To summarise, the Community is not prepared to give its consent to a resumption of commercial trading in ivory until such time as appropriate mechanisms are in place to prevent the more widespread illegal killing of elephants, and it thus calls on all range states of elephants to engage in constructive dialogue and to cooperate in maintaining stocks of elephants and in their sustainable management.

Since it is the International Whaling Commission that is primarily responsible for whale issues, no new resolutions should be framed in the course of our negotiations that would alter the current preservation status of whales under the Convention, and it follows that a review of whale stocks with a view to the possible downgrading of their preservation status under CITES should be considered only after mechanisms for checks on their management have been introduced and considered suitable by the International Whaling Commission.

I would like to conclude by expressing my thanks to the author of the question and to the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety for their interest in this important issue.

  Benita Ferrero-Waldner, Member of the Commission. Madam President, the 14th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora in the Hague is indeed the first CITES conference to be held in the European Union since CITES was put in place in 1973. Therefore I think it will provide a very good opportunity to highlight our strong commitment to the implementation of this Convention and to raise political and public awareness.

I believe it will be the first time that a ministerial conference will address key issues regarding the future of the Convention. Therefore the following key strategic objectives for the Conference of the Parties known as COP 14 have been defined. The COP should reconfirm the important contribution that CITES made, or can make, to reaching the 2010 target of significantly reducing the rate of biodiversity loss. The Community fully supports the contribution of CITES to this global target by regulating international trade in wildlife and wildlife products in order to ensure that this is sustainable. The new strategic vision for CITES for 2008 to 2013 will determine how CITES can ensure that conservation, sustainable use and poverty reduction can also be mutually supportive and are therefore crucial for the continued importance and relevance of CITES.

The draft strategic vision also advocates that CITES should pay greater attention to the international trade in commercially exploited timber and fish species. Given the strain on natural resources and continued over-exploitation, the Community believes that CITES could focus more on ensuring sustainable trade in such species. We the Community have submitted proposals for listing several marine and timber species on CITES, so I think this will be a very important discussion.

Finally, a key issue for CITES COP 14 will of course be elephant ivory. Diverging proposals are on the table from Elephant Range States in Africa. We continue to hold the view that commercial trade in government-owned ivory stocks should not be resumed until we are satisfied that all mechanisms are in place to ensure that trade will not result in the increased illegal killing of elephants. These mechanisms are currently being put in place and should hopefully be operational before we take a final position on this matter.

  John Bowis, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – Madam President, yesterday the newspapers had some good news. It was about the hatching of some rare Egyptian tortoise eggs. The problem was, they were hatched in Rome. They should not have been in Rome. They should not have been smuggled from Libya to Rome along with 275 other rare tortoises, because they are in the highest protection category under the CITES Convention. Even worse, this is happening inside our European Union.

We know that the European Union is one of the world’s largest and most diverse importers and markets for wildlife products, with demands for pets, for fashion products, ornaments and medicines. That is why Europe has a particular responsibility to do something about it. In my country, some 570 illegal wildlife items are seized every day by Her Majesty’s Customs. One wonders how many are not detected.

We know that the illegal trade in wildlife is the second biggest direct threat to species after habitat destruction. We know that a quarter of the trade is illegal. We know that billions of euros annually are made out of this, third only to the trafficking in drugs and arms.

We know, of course, that we have to take account of the local populations and their traditions and needs, and that is in this resolution. We know there are differences of views between NGOs and between scientists, but this motion for a resolution, I believe, is a balanced one.

Lastly, I very much welcome what the Minister and the Commissioner said about the elephant, so will you please support the resolution from Kenya and Mali for a 20-year moratorium on the ivory trade.

  Dorette Corbey, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (NL) Madam President, President of the Council, Commissioner, as has already been stated, this CITES Conference will be the first to be held in Europe, and this offers an opportunity to bring the protection of wild animals and plants to the attention of the public at large, more so than before.

Even though CITES is one of the most effective and concrete instruments to protect the international environment, the decline in biodiversity is alarming. For example, a large number of fish species are in a bad way due to overexploitation, among other causes. Demand for fish is enormous and still rising. This has the depressing consequence that even at this stage, many deep-sea fish species are critically endangered, and that in many developing countries, the sea has also been emptied by Europe, or by European boats at any rate.

Unfortunately, the same is true to some extent of tropical forests. Demand for tropical wood, despite all campaigns, remains high. Added to that is the fact that demand for agricultural land is also rising due to the need for food and increasing demand for biofuels, and it is age-old forests that pay the price for this.

Europe’s initiative to include a large number of fish species on the list of protected species deserves our unqualified support, as does the initiative to include a number of tree species on the list. We should, however, ask ourselves how we can improve on things. Pressure on nature is rising worldwide. Increased prosperity goes some way to explaining this, while in a number of developing countries, it is poverty that is the motive.

We should, therefore, take a different course and realise that the protection of nature also creates prosperity and jobs. We must take steps to guarantee that trade is truly sustainable and that the illegal trade is actually tackled and discontinued.

  Mojca Drčar Murko, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Madam President, there is a strong case for supporting the proposal for a 20-year moratorium on the ivory trade. Contrary to what some southern African range States say – that they have too many elephants – estimates by the African Elephant Status Report put the population at between 10 and 20 % of what it was in the 1930s and 1940s.

The major cause of the decline is the ivory trade. Ivory prices increased more than seven times over in China and Japan in the late 1990s. A 20-year moratorium will send a clear signal that international trade is banned, it would suppress demand, lower prices and remove incentives for buying and stockpiling ivory.

Commissioner, could you be more precise as regards to what extent the Commission intends to take into consideration the pro-moratorium position expressed by the delegation of Western and Central African States who visited us at the European Parliament?

  Marie Anne Isler Béguin, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (FR) Madam President, I should like first of all to thank Mr Gloser and Mrs Ferrero-Waldner for what I was almost tempted to call their reassuring words. However, I received no answer regarding the transparency of votes: I believe that it is crucial for us to know who votes for what within the European Union during this CITES conference.

I should like to begin by also expressing my satisfaction with the proposal made by Germany to include two species of shark – the dogfish and the mackeral shark – in Annex II to the CITES, a proposal that has also been endorsed by many associations working to protect these species. In our view, this is a proposal that must gain full support because these two species, which are included in the IUCN Red Book of endangered species, require special attention.

However, above and beyond the specific case of these species, we should also give greater consideration to the status of the other species of shark in the waters bordering the countries of the EU, in the Mediterranean, for example, so that, on this issue, the European Union is affected as much as the neighbourhood policy.

In general, it must be recognised that the Mediterranean is an endangered sea: the indiscriminate withdrawal of fishery stocks over the last few decades, with the use of drift nets in particular, has resulted in a significant depletion of species.

The case of bluefin tuna is one such example, which has been highly publicised recently by Greenpeace. Yet, what do we know, for example, about the sharks in the Mediterranean? What we know overall about sharks is that, throughout the world, they are totally endangered, overfished and that they are suffering from the deteriorating marine balance.

That being said, does the European Union have any information or studies enabling it to assess the situation of the sharks in the Mediterranean? That is the question. If it does not have these, can it envisage serious studies being carried out so that, in the long term, it will be in a position to make concrete proposals, on the CITES in particular?

Furthermore, we also think it crucial that red coral, which is also overfished in the Mediterranean, be included in Annex II to the CITES.

  Johannes Blokland, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – (NL) Madam President, the CITES Conference that is to be held in The Hague next month is of huge importance if we want to take measures against the international trade in endangered animal and plant species. It is for that reason that I wholeheartedly support the resolution.

There is, however, one issue that I should like to single out and that came up several times this afternoon, namely that of the elephants in Botswana and Namibia. Three quarters of the 400 000 elephants in Africa live in this region, thus resulting in inevitable risks for the people and the environment, and being detrimental to biodiversity. This is why these countries have tabled their own proposals in order to maintain the elephant population and to reduce the risks.

The resolution, unfortunately, rejects these proposals. Whilst it is understandable that people are keen to stop the trade in elephant products, a view which I share, it is equally important to face up to the situation in Botswana and Namibia, that boasts such an enormous expansion in the number of elephants. We must give this matter some more thought. After all, we cannot afford to reject solutions without replacing them with alternatives.

  Karin Scheele (PSE). – (DE) Madam President, Mrs Isler Béguin has, in fact, already presented the substance of this oral question, which has particularly to do with what the Council is aiming to achieve through the negotiations, but also with the methods of negotiation and the way in which this House’s delegation is involved in the work on the ground.

Like many other Members, I would like to return to the subject of the trade in ivory, which the Convention has prohibited since 1989, while allowing since 1997 the sale of individual items of stock. Understandable though it is that the countries in which the trade goes on have an interest in this, the problem is that it has not so far been possible to distinguish between legal and illegal ivory, and hence there is a great danger that the legal trade will contribute to a revival of poaching.

A greater incidence of poaching putting those engaged in the protection of wildlife and the natural protection authorities under increasing pressure, and effective protection of pachyderms, which are important in terms of many countries’ incomes from tourism, makes increasing demands on resources that are generally scarce; the only long-term protection for ivory is an absolute ban on the trade in it, for it is estimated that some 20 000 elephants a year are killed in Africa for their tusks.

Our resolution, then, endorses the proposal made by Kenya and Mali, and their demand for a 20-year moratorium on any kind of trade in ivory. We hope that the Commission and the Member States will, in the course of the negotiations, give this demand their backing.

  Alfonso Andria (ALDE). – (IT) Madam President, Mrs Ferrero-Waldner, Mr Gloser, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to summarise very quickly the sense of my amendment, which is backed by the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

I have called for the deletion of the seventh indent of Article 10 in the proposal for a resolution on the CITES Convention. There is no scientific justification for transferring coral to Appendix II, since a panel of highly-respected experts working for the FAO has stated that the requirements for including the species in the genus corallium in the CITES Appendix II are not met – and this is a direct quote.

Coral can be properly preserved through a system of rotating the protected areas between producer countries. Maintaining the current wording would strike a severe blow to the jewellery and craft sectors, as well as to the local economy and employment in various EU countries – Italy, Spain, France, Greece and Malta – and countries outside Europe such as China and Japan.

I therefore call on you to support my amendment, which is acceptable from a political viewpoint and backed up by scientific thinking.

  Benita Ferrero-Waldner, Member of the Commission. Madam President, on the subject of elephants we are currently sceptical of supporting any of the proposals on the table, because the African Elephant Range States will be meeting directly before the conference. We encourage them – and I think this would be the best solution – to engage in a real dialogue and thus seek an agreement on a common approach.

  President. I have received a motion for a resolution to wind up the debate tabled under Rule 108(5)⁽¹⁾.

The vote will be held on Thursday at 12.00.

(1) See Minutes .

12. Council Question Time

  President. The next item is Question Time (B6-0018/2007).

The following questions are addressed to the Council.

Question No 1 by Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (H-0339/07)

Subject: Political crisis in Turkey and prospects of accession

In the last few days, in connection with the appointment of the President of the Republic, Turkey has fallen into a deep political crisis which gives rise to serious doubts about the functioning of its democratic institutions. The country's Constitutional Court has annulled the first round of the elections, a decision vigorously contested by the government. The Prime Minister has stated that the parliamentary system has been brought to a halt and he is calling for early elections, while the General Army Staff has issued a warning that it will intervene to prevent the election of the Islamist, Abdullah Gül, to the office of President.

What are the Council's views on this situation in a candidate country for accession to the EU? Does it share the opinion of the Commissioner responsible for enlargement, Mr Olli Rehn, that the armed forces should respect the independent role of the democratic process, that the EU is based on the principles of freedom, democracy, the rule of law and the sovereignty of political forces vis-à-vis the military, and his insistence that any country seeking accession to the EU must respect those principles, which are the key elements of the Copenhagen criteria? What impact does it believe such interventions by the military could have on the country's accession procedure? Does the Council have direct contacts with leading political figures in Turkey and what is their reaction?

  Günter Gloser, President-in-Office of the Council. (DE) Madam President, we are following developments in Turkey with close attention, and I would also like to remind the House of the Presidency’s statement on 28 April of this year, in which we emphasised the need for the presidential elections to be conducted in line with the principles of democracy and the rule of law laid down in the constitution.

Generally speaking, it is worthy of note that negotiations were commenced with Turkey in 2005 on the basis that Turkey would meet sufficiently the political criteria laid down by the 1993 European Council in Copenhagen, on which membership of the EU is conditional, and one of which is that a country should demonstrate institutional stability as a guarantee for democratic order and the rule of law, for the safeguarding of human rights and for respect for, and the protection of, minorities. Over and above these, and in accordance with the framework for negotiations adopted by the Council in October 2005, the European Union expects Turkey to press on with its reform process and work towards making further improvements as regards respect for the principles of freedom, democracy and the rule of law, together with that for human rights and fundamental freedoms, including European court rulings on the subject.

The Council noted on 11 September 2006 that further considerable efforts would be needed in order to develop free expression of opinion, freedom of religion, the rights of women, minorities and trades unions, together with civilian control over the armed forces. These issues are discussed on a regular basis as part of the political dialogue with Turkey, and, since the Council expects the principles I have mentioned of the rule of law and the civilian control of the armed forces to be fully complied with in the current situation, the presidency will continue to keep a watchful eye on the progress of the Turkish elections.

  Rodi Kratsa-Τsagaropoulou (PPE-DE). – (EL) Thank you very much, Minister, for setting out the preconditions laid down by the European Union for the integration of Turkey. However, I referred to the recent crisis, which could not have happened either in the countries of the European Union or in the candidate countries.

We are not accustomed to such crises in the candidate countries and I think that for us to simply – as you said – ‘monitor’ the situation is not enough. We too must account to the citizens of Europe for what we do in order to address the situation and we need to rattle Turkey’s cage so that it finally follows the preconditions imposed in order for it to progress towards the European Union.

We are calling for a bit more than simple ‘monitoring’, Minister. Are you doing more?

  Günter Gloser, President-in-Office of the Council. (DE) In its talks with Turkey, the European Union has, I do believe, always acted with reference to the list of criteria to which I have just referred, and it also, on earlier occasions, highlighted ways in which the country might be given support and in which developments to that end might be set in motion within it.

I do believe that the European Union must be able to expect compliance with the framework requisite for accession and that, ultimately, the actors in Turkey become aware that decisions on such matters rest primarily with politicians rather than with the armed forces.

One important point – and one of which you will be aware – is that, in the course of this dispute, an appeal has been lodged with the Turkish constitutional court, and this – as the European Union has indeed stated – is the way down which the country must go. I do not believe that more can be done at the present time.

  Reinhard Rack (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President-in-Office of the Council, while your statements imply that a whole array of positions have been put on record by the Council and by the European Union, the reality is, however, that Cyprus, as a candidate for accession, failed to comply with these criteria in at least an equal number of instances.

While I am on the subject of Cyprus, would it not be possible for the European Union or the Council to become involved in ways more active than those you have announced. We are keeping a close eye on what is going on there.

  Andreas Mölzer (ITS). – (DE) While the AKP does describe itself as being in favour of the separation of religion and state set down in the Turkish constitution, it is nonetheless known to have taken initiatives that give cause to doubt the truth of that claim; for example, it has campaigned for the abolition of the ban on the headscarf and for more extensive Islamic instruction. To what degree does the Council share the concern expressed by critics of the creeping Islamicisation threatened by this party, and in what ways is this threat being considered in the course of the accession negotiations?

  Günter Gloser, President-in-Office of the Council. (DE) If I may begin with the last question, I can only reiterate that Turkey is perfectly well aware of what it has to do in the course of the negotiations on its accession, although that does not exclude the possibility of our not only observing critical developments, but also commenting on them in the course of dialogue. The Turks are quite well aware of that, and the Presidency does not at the present time have occasion to cancel the forthcoming talks or accession conferences with them.

In response to the second comment, I would like to say that we are not just observing; how, after all, is the European Union, having laid down the framework, supposed to remind Turkey of the undertakings it has made and of the criteria with which it must comply if not in dialogue? While the present government does indeed bear ultimate responsibility for the country, it has not changed the criteria; it is rather the case that other groups in the country have threatened to intervene if the result that emerges is not to their liking. One has to distinguish precisely who is responsible for the country, and, as we see it, that is still its democratically elected government.

  President. Question No 2 by Manuel Medina Ortega (H-0278/07)

Subject: Frontex activity on the Union's maritime borders

Given how effective the Frontex mechanism’s activities in protecting the EU's Atlantic waters are proving, can the Council guarantee that Frontext activity along the Union's maritime borders will be ongoing?

  Günter Gloser, President-in-Office of the Council. (DE) I would refer the honourable Member to the explanations given to him in response to an oral question in the April question session, and would like to reiterate that the Presidency attaches great importance to the constant improvement of integrated border control at the external borders of the European Union and, in particular, to the reinforcement of the maritime external borders to the south.

Further to this, the Council has already stressed, in its conclusions on the reinforcement of the southern sea frontier on 5 and 6 October 2006, that Frontex has to be built up by means of additional personnel and increased budgetary resources. In order to improve Frontex’ immediate response capability in emergency situations, the Commission put forward, in 2006, a proposal for the formation of rapid reaction border intervention teams.

The Council has had fruitful discussions with your House on this proposal, and your House voted on the text of the proposal on 26 April this year, so that the Council can adopt it at first reading. The Presidency’s ambition is that the text should be able to be adopted by the Council over the next few weeks, so that the instrument can be applied over the coming summer period.

In accordance with its working programme for 2007, Frontex will, as well as completing the European Patrol Network, be carrying out a number of joint operations on the maritime borders, the number and location of which will be determined by its management board.

Finally, the Council wishes to stress that the Commission, in accordance with the Hague Programme, which the European Council adopted on 4 November 2004, will, before the end of this year, be submitting an evaluation report on the agency.

  Manuel Medina Ortega (PSE). – (ES) The President mentioned my question of last April. The FRONTEX system is effective, but the big problem is the interruption. A quick interruption of a couple of weeks has led to the arrival over recent weeks of over a thousand immigrants in the Canary Islands, with the whole dramatic situation that that implies.

Our concern is that that system should be permanent and I hope that, by means of the measures announced by the President-in-Office of the Council, that system will really be permanent, since each day or week without it may mean the deaths of hundreds of people in the waters of the Atlantic.

  Günter Gloser, President-in-Office of the Council. (DE) I can assure Mr Medina Ortega that I am well aware of the problem, for we too get to see these things in the media, and the people on the ground, too, are aware of what this means for the refugees and for those who have to look after them. I said back in April, in response to a question, that the protection of the external border is in the first instance a task for the Member State in question, while assistance may be sought from Frontex in a particular situation, in which case immediate response teams can also be formed. This all depends on the interaction between the relevant Member States and the Frontex agency itself.

  Simon Busuttil (PPE-DE). – The question was about the Atlantic, but I would like to bring to your attention the human tragedy, which is taking place as we speak, in the Mediterranean, where last weekend just one person survived from a boat carrying 29 people 75 nautical miles to the south of Malta. Yesterday 24 people were saved at sea and one person remained unaccounted for after a boat capsized. Also yesterday, another boat with 53 people on board went missing. It simply disappeared and could not be traced.

My question is: why have the Frontex patrols not started already in the Mediterranean? When will they be started? And what is the Presidency doing about this?

  Marie Anne Isler Béguin (Verts/ALE). – (FR) Minister, I was head of the election observation mission in Mauritania. I can tell you that not a week goes by without a boat arriving, running aground, and requesting assistance, during its voyage to the Canaries. These poor souls must be accommodated, and, as may sometimes be the case, they must be accommodated in the Mediterranean waters.

I should therefore like to know what resources the European Union – this European Union that uses up so many resources on protecting its borders – is making available to neighbouring countries, that is to say, to Mauritania, which is a transit country – these countries are not migrant countries, but merely transit countries and host countries – and what resources the European Union is putting in place to help these countries to manage this issue.

  Günter Gloser, President-in-Office of the Council. (DE) We will not be doing enough if we consider the problem of refugees only in terms of how we can best secure our external borders.

Since I have also mentioned the numerous initiatives taken by the European Union, including the African Union/European Union Summit in Tripoli, it would be misguided to consider only Frontex and its role in combating the problem. The issue is, after all, just how we can pursue our strategy together with the African countries. We have already discussed with Nigeria how good governance can help keep people in their own countries, while at the same time beginning to enjoy prospects in such areas as education, training, schools, health and job creation where they live. That is the most important thing. I hope that this issue will be taken up at the European Union/African Union summit meeting.

Terrible things often happen at sea, but, in the past, where it was aware that people-smugglers were operating, the European Union has helped to supply the boat people, at short notice, with lunch parcels, and, while it has to be said that these were not enough to ensure their safe arrival, they did receive support.

We can agree, then, that it is the Member States that are responsible for the defence of the external borders, while Frontex can be called on to act in a supporting role by – for example – monitoring a stretch of the sea or of a land frontier.

  President. Question No 3 by Marie Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou (H-0280/07)

Subject: Security or freedom for European citizens at airports

Has the Council assessed the measures prohibiting the transport of liquids during flights in terms of their effectiveness in thwarting terrorism and in terms of the undesirable consequences for the economy, health and justice, freedom and security for members of the public at large, who are having their personal items confiscated unjustifiably, being deprived of or having to pay dearly for drinking water, and being badly treated by the security services at European airports, with no control over the quality of those services which they provide to the public?

  Günter Gloser, President-in-Office of the Council. (DE) I am sure that Mrs Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou is aware that we would all like to have the opportunity or the freedom to travel in ways other than we are, but, measures have been taken in the European Union in the form of the Regulation that the Commission adopted in October 2006, in order that a certain standard of safety should be guaranteed. The adoption of this regulation is a matter for the Commission, which has been supported in this by the Civil Aviation Safety Committee, which is composed of representatives from the Member States and was acting in accordance with its own rules.

Since the Commission has undertaken to have these measures reviewed six months following their adoption, questions pertaining to this regulation should be addressed directly to the Commission, which is responsible for such a review.

I would remind the honourable Member and the House that the Council’s functions as regards air safety is limited to the examination of legislative proposals on the framework conditions for the relevant safety measures, further to which the Council and your House are currently discussing the Commission’s proposal for a Regulation of the Council and Parliament to lay down common rules for safety in civil aviation, which it is intended should replace the Regulation currently in force.

  Marie Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou (PPE-DE). – (EL) Thank you, Minister, for your reply. My question was whether citizens have any facility for filing complaints which could then be taken into account by the Commission and, if you, as the Council, could not propose the free distribution of water, even if just for short trips, and if you are seeing to an environmental evaluation of waste from this measure.

  Günter Gloser, President-in-Office of the Council. (DE) Mrs Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou, I do believe that it is in everyone’s interests, particularly of the travellers themselves, that they should be able to fly with the maximum of safety. None of this was done on the spur of the moment, and there were concrete reasons why security under these conditions had to be guaranteed.

It is certainly important that the persons involved be asked just what all this achieved. It is unfortunate that there are at present no other mechanisms for examining things in a more transparent manner and perhaps as simply as was formerly the case, but none of the members of the public who are happy to avail themselves of their freedom of movement and their freedom to travel would understand persons responsible for their safety and freedom not themselves guaranteeing the highest possible standard of security. If new technical developments make it possible to do this in new ways without such hindrances, then all parties will surely be happy to accept them.

Further to the points that you have made, despite all the information provided as to all the things that may no longer be taken through the checkpoints, there are still far too many members of the public taking their own bottles of mineral water and fruit juice or other items with them. If people were to take some responsibility for themselves, then, it might well help reduce the amount of rubbish.

  Robert Evans (PSE). – I can advise the honourable Member that there is a hearing on that tomorrow.

Picking up on what the President-in-Office has just said, does he feel that the sentiments expressed in this question are naive and include insinuations, cheap generalisations and, I would say, criticisms of valued security staff at our airports? Further, would the Council agree that perhaps, for example, paying a bit more for water and sacrificing some convenience at our airports is a small price to pay if it means increased security for passengers, lower risks of terrorist attacks and improved welfare for all people using the airports, whether departing, arriving or transiting through airports?

  Justas Vincas Paleckis (PSE). – (LT) Madam President, Minister, a month ago in this venue the same question was put to a European Commission representative, but we did not get a clear answer. Really, I agree, the most important priority is safety, but nonetheless it is probably time to review that decision and either ease off on that measure or get strict with it. What do you think?

  Marie Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou (PPE-DE). – (EL) Madam President, I am sorry but I can only assume two things: either that my supplementary question was not translated or that the President-in-Office of the Council did not reply at all to what I asked him.

I asked specific questions: if I, like any other European citizen, can voice my complaint following this control. I also asked about the waste …

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Günter Gloser, President-in-Office of the Council. (DE) Since these things happen on a local basis, I am not aware of any complaints, but I will say quite clearly – and this is where I agree with the honourable Member – that the issue here is not the protection of the environment and the possibility of someone’s freedom to travel being restricted, but rather security; to all those affected, I would like to say – and in doing so I am giving my backing to the security personnel who have to carry out checks – that, when competition produced increased numbers of passengers, what matters is their safety and not that they be restricted.

As we have learned from events in the United Kingdom, it may well be enough to exploit one, two or three of such loopholes. It is right and proper that, after a given time, measures be reviewed in order to ascertain whether or not they have achieved their purpose. Not everything needs to be regulated all the time, but certain measures must be brought in, and, when they are, it is necessary that the public accept a certain amount of responsibility for themselves.

The fact is that so much information has been made available that the waste that has to be collected – ranging from lighters to bottles larger than 100 ml – would not be there in the first place, if people had given the matter a little thought before embarking on a flight.

  President. Question No 6 by Sarah Ludford (H-0285/07)

Subject: Gay Pride marches

As a reaction to the opposition to and attacks on some Gay Pride marches both inside and outside the EU in 2006, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on 16 June 2006 on the increase in racist and homophobic violence in Europe. This resolution recalled that European States have a duty to allow such marches and to protect participants, and notably condemned the Russian authorities' decision to ban the first Gay Pride in Moscow on 27 May 2006.

With the season of Gay Pride marches now approaching, concerns arise regarding the effective protection of participants in EU Member States, while there is open opposition to the Moscow Gay Pride march taking place this year again.

What measures will the Council take to ensure that Member States' authorities effectively protect participants? How would any incident of intolerance of the LGBT community affect the Council's relationship with other governments?

  Günter Gloser, President-in-Office of the Council. (DE) The Presidency takes the view that discrimination on the grounds of race, ethnic origin, religion or outlook on life, disability, age or sexual orientation is incompatible with the foundational principles of the European Union, and the EU institutions have denounced such discrimination whenever it has appeared in any form whatever; I would also refer you to the debate held here in this House a few weeks ago.

The Presidency also promotes freedom of assembly and association and expresses opposition to discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, and I will take this opportunity to reiterate that any increase in racist and homophobic violence in Europe or elsewhere in the world is a matter of concern to it. By virtue of the powers conferred upon it by the Treaties, the European Union pursues with determination an explicit policy of combating the phenomena to which I have referred not only within its own borders but also through its external policy measures; in its foreign relations, the European Union actively endeavours within the United Nations to combat discrimination, including discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, and so it was that it, with others, in 2006, mounted a successful campaign for groups of homosexuals, lesbians, bisexuals and transsexuals to be unconditionally granted consultative status by the Committee for Non-Governmental Organisations of the United Nations Economic and Social Council.

  Sarah Ludford (ALDE). – Those are indeed fine sentiments, but what I am interested in is whether we are translating the sentiments into action. We have EU Member States not only banning Gay Pride marches in the case of Poland, getting a condemnation from the European Court of Human Rights; now we have the Vilnius authorities saying that the EU Equal Opportunities Bus cannot be received in the city. Surely this is a matter of breach of Article 6 of the EU Treaty on Human Rights and Article 13 of the EC Treaty on non-discrimination.

What is the Council and the Presidency saying to the Governments of Poland and Lithuania and other EU countries which are not respecting equality law? Is Vilnius the right place to locate the Gender Institute in the light of these very disturbing tendencies in that city?

  Günter Gloser, President-in-Office of the Council. (DE) Madam President, Baroness Ludford, I am aware of the debates that have been held in your House, in one of which, held recently, we participated, but what I can say is that there was a pro-tolerance demonstration in Poland, a few months ago now, at the end of last year, and that there were opportunities for demonstrations until quite recently. The presidency will always denounce the things to which you refer when they occur within the European Union.

As for those things over which the European Union has no influence, you may be assured that we will raise them in dialogues, certainly in the human rights dialogue between the European Union and Russia.

I do not at the present time have any information relating to the cases of possible bans to which you refer, in which the equality bus was not permitted to travel further or was not allowed to be received, but I will act on your suggestion and investigate them. Perhaps you could inform us, the Presidency, as to in which country that actually happened.

  President. Question No 7 by Bernd Posselt (H-0287/07)

Subject: Human rights in Chechnya

President Putin has appointed Mr Kadyrov as Chechen President, although the Chechens were unable to vote, and while aware of the fact that Kadyrov is described by independent human rights organisations as a commander of death squads.

How does the Council assess the situation in Chechnya, and what steps is it taking to restore democracy, the rule of law and human rights in that country?

  Günter Gloser, President-in-Office of the Council. (DE) Mr Posselt, we do share the concern evident in your question on the position concerning human rights and fundamental freedoms in the Northern Caucasus and Russia as a whole, and, for that reason too, we are keeping developments under continual observation.

The Council regularly brings this concern to Russia’s attention in the course of the EU/Russia dialogue, to which I have just made reference in another instance, and various levels have been established at which concerns may be raised with the Russians, not only in policy dialogue at summits and ministerial meetings, but also at the human rights consultations which were introduced in March 2005 under the presidency of Luxembourg and now take place twice a year.

At these consultations, the EU regularly expresses its particular concerns in relation to the situation in the Chechen Republic. The fifth human rights consultations are now a fixed component in relations between the EU and Russia, and the latest round took place on 3 May, with the situation in Chechnya on its agenda.

While we are on this subject, I should also like to mention that the TACIS action programme for social and economic reconstruction in the Northern Caucasus, which is funded by the EU to the tune of EUR 20 million, has now become operational, and it offers the prospect of positive developments being brought about.

  Bernd Posselt (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President-in-Office, just as the Federal Chancellor, at the weekend, demonstrated that it is possible to combine firmness of purpose and faithfulness to principle with diplomatic adroitness, you are doing the same here.

I would like to ask now – and this is a very practical question – just what can be done to improve access to Chechnya. Are you doing anything to this end? Secondly, elections in Chechnya are held under the supervision of the OSCE, and the Council of Europe has done a great deal too. All that has been brought to nothing. Would it not be possible for the EU, as a community within the Council of Europe and the OSCE, to press for new initiatives for direct action in Chechnya?

  Günter Gloser, President-in-Office of the Council. (DE) Mr Posselt, I do not believe that you need me to tell you what the security situation in Chechnya is like, or that it does indeed make access more difficult, but the Council of Europe’s commissioner for human rights recently ascertained, on a visit there, that a certain amount of progress had been achieved there in terms of economic development, although this must, as you say, be brought home to Russia in frank dialogue. Where programmes have become operational, the attempt should be made to implement them as fully as possible in order that they may actually have an impact on those whom they are meant to serve.

  President. Question No 8 by Philip Bushill-Matthews (H-0291/07)

Subject: Tariffs on light bulbs

Will the Presidency-in-Office be actively seeking agreement to reduce, or ideally remove, the import tariffs on energy-efficient light bulbs from China which come up for review this October? What is the Council's assessment of the cost-benefit implications for EU consumers if these tariffs were to be withdrawn? Specifically which Member States currently oppose such tariff withdrawal?

  Günter Gloser, President-in-Office of the Council. (DE) Mr Bushill-Matthews, the Council would refer you in the first instance to its answer of 5 March of this year to the written question on this subject, in which it explained why it was that, in 2001, anti-dumping tariffs were imposed on the import of integrated electronic compact fluorescent lamps originating from the People’s Republic of China, and in which it also stated that the Commission, on 17 July 2006, had begun a review further to the imminent cessation of these measures’ applicability in line with Article 11(2) of the Anti-Dumping Regulation and that it was expected that this review would be completed within at most 15 months, that is to say by October 2007.

Once the Commission has arrived at its conclusions, it will forward a proposal to the Council, which will then have a month in which to decide whether or not to agree to it. No such proposal has as yet been submitted to the Council, nor is it as yet aware of the final positions taken by the Member States.

I can assure you, however, that any decision will take the interests of all parties into account. I am sure that you will understand that the Commission and the Council, when enacting trade protection measures, constantly consider the facts and the various interests involved – for example those of producers, users, importers and consumers – and try to keep them in balance in order to make it possible for a suitable level of protection to be guaranteed to the branch of industry in question. What that means is that action will be taken only to such an extent as will make it possible for the Community sector in question to be protected against unfair practices in third countries, and only for such a length of time as is in the interests of the Community.

  Philip Bushill-Matthews (PPE-DE). – Well that was a most diplomatically crafted answer, but perhaps I could try again in a slightly different context. I see announced in the paper today that a certain food processing company is now asking for protection against imports of sweetcorn from Thailand. Is the Council – not the Commission – concerned at the growing tide of protectionism coming up from fellow Member States and is the Council under your Presidency going to provide any leadership to combat this?

  Günter Gloser, President-in-Office of the Council. (DE) I can assure you that my answer to you was not diplomatic in character, but had to do with various things that have to be considered not by the Presidency alone, but by the Member States together, since various interests – the interests of what are now 27 Member States – are affected.

I also made it clear that there are various users or consumers, together with importers, manufacturers and competitors, to consider. I do believe that it is right in principle that we have named October 2007 as the target date for reviewing whether the present protection, as it is laid down, is still appropriate in terms of time or whether there has to be a response on the part of the European Union.

I am not familiar with the case to which you refer, but I do believe that it is the Commission’s practice to consider the various areas before possibly suspending the protection mechanism. The question that arises for me and for the Presidency, not least from the discussions we have had is that, if all these things had not had an influence on our process of deliberation, it is to be expected that there would be anger directed at the European Union from certain Member States, because it would have been seen as not keeping the different interests in balance.

  President. Question No 9 by Marie Anne Isler Béguin (H-0294/07)

Subject: Agreement on facilitation of the visa system for nationals of the Russian Federation

The European Union recently facilitated the visa system for nationals of the Russian Federation on the basis of the agreement reached at the St. Petersburg summit in 2003.

This means that residents of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, two secessionist regions of Georgia not recognised by the international community, will be able to benefit from this new visa system since they all hold Russian passports.

No such agreement exists with Georgia, making Russian nationality appear more advantageous for people in those two separatist regions and further distancing them from the other parts of Georgia.

Given that the European Union is pursuing a peaceful settlement to the conflicts in Abkhazia and South Ossetia and working for their rapprochement with Georgia, what will it do to remedy this situation? Are there any plans to enter into negotiations in the near future on a similar agreement with Georgia in order to grant the peoples of the Southern Caucasus the same rights?

  Günter Gloser, President-in-Office of the Council. (DE) The intention is that the agreement between the European Community and the Russian Federation on the facilitation of the visa system should enter into force with effect from 1 June 2007, and this, too, was the subject of a debate here in this House a few weeks ago. The object of this agreement is to make it easier to issue visas for a planned stay of no more than 90 days in duration for nationals of the Russian Federation travelling to EU Member States, or for citizens of the European Union travelling to the Russian Federation.

According to this agreement, a national of the Russian Federation is a person possessing Russian Federation nationality or having acquired it in accordance with Russia’s own regulations. The consequence of that is that, in accordance with the law as it currently stands, the agreement is applicable to all Russian citizens irrespective of the country in which they live.

No initiatives have been taken to mandate the Commission to commence negotiations on a similar agreement with Georgia, for provision is already made in the EU-Georgia action plan and within the European Neighbourhood Policy for the initiation of a dialogue on the transit of persons, with specific reference to issues of return and the visa problem.

  Marie Anne Isler Béguin (Verts/ALE). – (FR) Minister, you have given me exactly the same answer that Mrs Ferrero-Waldner gave me three times, but you are not in fact answering the question.

The question concerns the facilitation of the visa system for persons residing on Georgian territory, in Abkhazia or South Ossetia, and to whom Russia has kindly offered nationality by issuing them with Russian passports – even though these people are Georgian – to the extent that the people of Georgia are subject to a system of double standards.

My question is this: did you weigh up the fact that, when the visa system was facilitated for Russian citizens, those persons, to whom Russia has granted nationality, with passports in support of this, and who, residing on Georgian territory, are Georgians from Abkhazia or South Ossetia, were going to benefit from the facilitation of the visa system, while the people of Georgia themselves would not benefit from it?

  Justas Vincas Paleckis (PSE). – (DE) Mr President-in-Office, what is the Council’s position as regards similar favourable visa arrangements for states such as Ukraine, Moldova and Belarus? I think it very important that we should not forget them.

  Günter Gloser, President-in-Office of the Council. (DE) I can tell Mrs Isler Béguin that, if the Commission and the Council have given the same answer three times over, that does not mean that they have given a wrong or incomplete one; that is the legal position. Listening to your question, though, I alighted on the political issue of how one can – in view of the frozen conflicts in these regions – make concessionary arrangements for the citizens in, for example, Georgia or – as Mr Paleckis has just pointed out – in other countries. These issues are the subjects of negotiations in the context of the specific relationships, and with Georgia, for example, within the framework of the neighbourhood policy. It is quite clear to me that the special relationship between the EU and Ukraine or Belarus makes it necessary for us, in these specific cases, to keep on trying to bring about such agreements in accordance with the provisions of the EU and with the Schengen regime.

  President. Thank you, President-in-Office and thank you all for helping us get through more questions than I anticipated.

Questions which had not been answered for lack of time would receive written answers (see Annex).

That concludes Question Time.

(The sitting was suspended at 19.05 and resumed at 21.00)

IN THE CHAIR: MR McMILLAN-SCOTT
Vice-President

13. Beniamino Donnici (debate)

  President. The next item is the report by Giuseppe Gargani, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs, on the verification of the credentials of Mr Beniamino Donnici (A6-0198/2007).

  Giuseppe Gargani (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to mention in this Chamber the work carried out in committee, which has thoroughly discussed the credentials of Mr Donnici, resulting in a large majority in favour of the report.

I defend the committee, of which I have the great honour to be chairman, and I would like to answer those making petty insinuations to the effect that the committee has not been calm or objective – insinuations that clearly do nothing to honour this Parliament, given that the committee contains many jurists. We have people and jurists such as Mr Lehne, Mr Medina, Mrs Wallis and Mrs Frassoni, to mention just the coordinators, and also very many other prominent figures throughout the committee. Our discussions were always at a high level, and were conducted exhaustively and with great sincerity. We always focused primarily on the role of this Parliament, which is a giant in terms of many things that it does and its role in Europe, but a dwarf on some occasions when you want to force it into a procedural corner.

The issue we were discussing comes within this major issue: the facts are known, the withdrawal by Mr Occhetto infringes the European Act, and we cannot give Mr Donnici a positive verdict.

The rules governing the European election procedure fall within the Community’s jurisdiction and therefore the reference to national provisions laid down in the 1976 European Act is of a solely supplementary character. The national provisions must, however, conform to the fundamental principals of the Community legal system, its primary rules and the spirit of the wording of the 1976 Act. For these reasons, the relevant legislative and administrative national authorities, as well as the jurisdictional authorities, may not omit to take account of the Community legal framework on election issues.

The admissibility of the withdrawal by Mr Occhetto must be assessed firstly on the basis of Article 4 of the 1976 Act, pursuant to which Members of Parliament may not be bound by instructions and may not receive a binding mandate, and the freedom and independence of parliamentary representatives constitutes a fundamental cornerstone of the freedom of citizens.

This is laid down in the 1976 Act, but the new Statute for Members of the European Parliament, which I now quote, even though it enters into force for the next parliamentary term, is, in the current state of the Community legal system, a legislative act of primary law, adopted by the European Parliament with the approval of the Council and published in the Official Journal. It is perfectly obvious that the withdrawal from election made by Mr Occhetto is the result of an expression of will that has been affected and vitiated by an agreement made prior to the proclamation of those elected in the 2004 European elections, that this agreement was entered into with the other member of the Società civile Di Pietro-Occhetto list, and that this withdrawal must be considered incompatible with the letter and spirit of the Act of 1976, and specifically with Article 6. It could not under any circumstances be validly revoked, as it was revoked. In the grounds for the judgment holding the opposite to be true, the Italian Council of State – I want to confirm this in this Chamber, as an Italian – did not mention or take into account in any way the aforementioned principles of Community law, thereby disregarding not only the spirit and the letter of the Act but also Article 4 and Article 6 of the text.

Pursuant to settled case law by the Court of Justice of the European Communities, the infringement of Community law by the authorities of a Member State, even when committed by a legal body of the highest level, through a final judgment, does not prevent the Court of Justice from holding that the supreme national court is in breach of Community law as mentioned above. This does not, however, constitute a waiver of the responsibility of the State – in this case, Italy – to which the said court belongs, as has been established. I believe that all this clearly demonstrates the situation in which we find ourselves.

I would like to quickly explain two things that are part of Italian law. The act of withdrawal may validly have existing rights as its object, and in such a case the withdrawal made by Mr Occhetto with regard to Mr Chiesa is, because of its explanation, fully valid and effective. The withdrawal also holds valid for future rights, but naturally the withdrawal may certainly be revoked before the event ends, before the withdrawing party finds himself in the actual circumstance of being able to withdraw.

The withdrawal expressed by Mr Occhetto following the proclamation of the electoral results did not alter the classification of the candidates on the Di Pietro-Occhetto list. The final argument, Mr President, is that we must recognise as a basic principle of law the fact that withdrawal can only take effect at the moment in which the necessary prerequisites exist for the right to be realised.

For this very reason, in the decision of 3 July 2006 that is alleged to contradict what we have done – in fact because of that decision by the Committee on Legal Affairs – we have confirmed the election of Mr Occhetto, because at the time the proclamation was in conformity with the European Act, in that we recognised his withdrawal to be invalid, improper and null and void. The exceptions with regard to Mr Donnici were then irrelevant. It is because of this that there is no contradiction.

We took this decision last year, and today we can confirm that decision because it is consistent, thoroughly reflected on by a Committee on Legal Affairs that naturally has no partisan interest, but has every interest in promoting and guaranteeing the autonomy of this Parliament.

  Manuel Medina Ortega, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (ES) Mr President, I believe that we are at an important moment in the history of this Parliament. The rapporteur, the Chairman of the Committee on Legal Affairs, Mr Gargani, has explained the legal reasoning, with which we agree. My group has tabled a series of amendments aimed at enhancing this kind of legal reasoning.

We should look at the issue from a rather broader perspective, however. The European Parliament – the Committee on Legal Affairs – has always recognised the decisions of the national authorities with regard to the appointment of an MEP, and has also recognised electoral dispute procedures.

What is not acceptable is for the Italian judiciary, practically three years after the last elections, a year after Mr Occhetto was accepted as a Member of this Parliament, to suddenly tell us that that appointment was not valid.

Mr Gargani has explained the reasons from a legal point of view, but there is a fundamental political aspect: Parliament is made up of Members appointed in accordance with national law, by means of decisions by national authorities: administrative, electoral or judicial.

Once we are in this Parliament, however, Parliament constitutes a body in its own right, with its own personality, with the right to defend itself. I believe that the Occhetto case is going to set a great parliamentary precedent. From this point onwards, the national administrative or judicial authorities will know that Parliament has the power, at a given moment, to declare that a national decision does not comply with the law, that it has been arbitrary.

Parliament has the right and the duty to protect its Members. If we do not do so, Mr President, we shall be exposed to a situation in which, as a result of an arbitrary decision by a national authority or national court, you or any other Member of this Parliament can have their status as MEP taken away. It is essential to our parliamentary work that Members of Parliament should feel secure when carrying out their work.

I believe that Mr Gargani has done a great job as chairman – we have discussed many issues over many years – and in this case we have an agreement that is accepted by all of the parties, which does not reflect any party-political interest, but which responds to the need to defend the very status of the European Parliament.

The European Parliament, the body that represents the people of Europe, is established as a body in its own right and makes its own decisions. It is not like the Council, which is subject to the vicissitudes of national politics. We MEPs have a mandate, a fixed-term mandate that cannot be interrupted by means of an arbitrary national decision.

I shall therefore say once again that the Occhetto decision will be an historic decision in the history of Parliament, in the history of the affirmation of the personality of Parliament and of the rights of MEPs.

  Luigi Cocilovo, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, if there is one thing with which I agree, it is that there is a risk that the decision by this Parliament may mark a genuinely historic step, in that it will compromise issues, problems, principles and rules that go far beyond this specific event. This Parliament has never cast doubt upon the principle and rule laid down by the provisions of the Treaty on the national jurisdiction to settle disputes relating to electoral procedure and, thus, to proclaim those elected, with regard to whom Parliament then proceeds to carry out the so-called ‘verification of credentials’ – in other words, verification of electoral offices.

To confirm what I am saying, instead of commenting on it I would like to quote word for word the content of Parliament’s decision, adopted on 14 December 2004 by this plenary, validating the mandate of all of us who were elected in those European elections. The mandate was declared valid, and I quote exactly ‘…subject to any decisions by the competent authorities of Member States in which the election results have been disputed’. This plenary confirmed a rule that is well-known to all!

I would like to add that in support of its decision the Committee on Legal Affairs refers to several articles both from the European Election Act and from the Rules of Procedure, referring to Parliament’s jurisdiction to intervene in the event of resignations. We are not talking about any resignations! The issue on which the Italian courts handed down a judgment relates to the dispute or the resolution of the dispute regarding the election, once Mr Di Pietro had resigned as a Member of this Parliament, his replacement being Mr Occhetto or Mr Donnici. The dispute was resolved by means of a provisional judgment, subject to appeal, which resulted in the proclamation of Mr Occhetto as the successful candidate; then came the judgment by the Italian Council of State – the Electoral Office, it is the same thing, Mr Gargani, it is not important – then came the judgment on the dispute, the final judgment by the Council of State, which proclaimed Mr Donnici as the successful candidate. Let us not discuss the resignations by Mr Occhetto, their compatibility with the wording, with the letter or with the mandate – let us simply discuss the prerogative and the jurisdiction of the national authorities to proclaim a Member, whose electoral credentials are then verified.

The consequences of the vote that we are about to make would involve a serious institutional conflict, breach of the provisions of the Treaty, and a possible empty seat, because in any case it would be for the national authorities to proclaim the person elected to replace the person whose mandate was not validated.

I will end by expressing my full appreciation for the members of the committee. Mr Gargani, nobody is casting doubt on the competence of the members; on the contrary, you have all my admiration, because the real skill of a jurist can be seen not when he is defending just causes, but when he is defending lost causes. I have every appreciation and respect for the way in which you have succeeded in obtaining this result.

  Salvatore Tatarella, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, with all respect to the multitude of authoritative jurists with which the Committee on Legal Affairs is swarming, more modestly, I believe that if this Chamber were to approve the Gargani report tomorrow, the European Parliament would be committing a very serious and unprecedented act. It would be an unheard-of abuse of a Member who would see himself illegitimately deprived of his parliamentary mandate, and an unprecedented and unique breach of the treaties which, on electoral matters, clearly recognise the pre-eminence of the laws, procedures and authority of the Member States. This would be a serious conflict with a Member State, which would be deprived of a Member recognised as such by the laws and the legal authority of that country.

Mr President, the Committee on Legal Affairs has usurped powers that do not belong to it. I do not side with either of the two contenders. I am politically indifferent because they are both from the centre left; I understand Mr Occhetto’s personal problem, for which I have empathy in purely human terms. What is at stake here, though, is the law, the correct composition of the European Parliament and the credibility of the highest Community institution. Justice, and only justice, must therefore be done, and any hint of politics and petty political party calculations must be left aside. What sort of trust can the citizens place in a European Parliament that distorts its own composition by excluding a Member who is eminently qualified to be a part of it?

Let us look at the facts: the legal authority proclaimed Mr Donnici as the successful candidate, in an unappealable judgment. The Italian State notified the European Parliament of his election. The committee was charged with verifying Mr Donnici’s credentials. It was supposed to verify the offices he held and any incompatibility in them. It is of course true that it could examine appeals by third parties and therefore it legitimately examined the challenges put forward by Mr Occhetto. What it could not do was to declare null and void an act delivered before a public official of a Member State. This is a legal act that may be carried out solely by the legal authority of the Member State that has dealt with the matter and that has handed down an irrevocable and unappealable judgment.

  Nicola Zingaretti (PSE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like first of all to thank Mr Gargani, because the issue has been very complex and difficult, and the work has been completed with great wisdom and with a sense of responsibility, in accordance with just one criterion: safeguarding, above all, the rights and prerogatives of this Parliament.

The main or crucial point of the decisions taken is right and, above all, it avoids a precedent being set, namely the recognition of acts or initiatives that restrict the choices of candidates or of those who are about to become MEPs.

It is true that this is a first, and probably also sets a precedent, but this precedent and this first are fair and guarantee the prerogatives of the European Parliament. The decisions that we are taking are linked to a function and to a prerogative that is granted to us, giving us the right to express ourselves, to accept, to assess or to reject credentials and acts that are put before us. So this is not a case of going beyond our territory, but just the right to express an opinion that is given to us by this Parliament itself.

  President. It is necessary firstly to protect the rights of our colleagues and secondly the rights of the European Parliament.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Thursday at 12 noon.

Written statements (Rule 142)

  Carlo Casini (PPE-DE) , in writing. – (IT) I will vote against the proposal for a decision, for the following reasons which, I am certain, will be accepted by the Court of Justice. The proposal is misguided because:

1) in general, the appointment of those elected is the province of national bodies, as provided by Articles 7 and 11 of the Act of 20 September 1976;

2) in letter C: Mr Occhetto did not withdraw from the mandate at all, but from nomination by the Italian central electoral office and his position in the list of the candidates voted for; the withdrawal referred to in Rule 3(5) of the Rules of Procedure is that of a Member who has already been appointed and does not refer to acts preceding appointment;

3) in letter D: the prohibition on a binding mandate relates to the exercise of a mandate already received, and not to events preceding the appointment;

4) in letters E, F and G: the reference to the Statute for Members that has not yet entered into force is irrelevant, and so is the reference to Members subsequent to appointment;

5) in letters J, I, K and L: the Italian Council of State not only annulled but also amended the previous decision by the regional administrative tribunal, in a judgment not subject to appeal;

6) point 2: Parliament cannot replace the Italian office appointing a Member of Parliament.

14. Innovation Strategy (debate)

  President. The next item is the report by Adam Gierek, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, on putting knowledge into practice: A broad-based innovation strategy for Europe [2006/2274(INI)] (A6-0159/2007).

  Adam Gierek (PSE), rapporteur. – (PL) Mr President, The aim of this document is to implement the Lisbon Strategy in real terms and to lay the foundations for a European innovation policy. The aim is to apply to the implementation of innovation policy instruments which will rationalise research, the flow of knowledge into the economy and the implementation of innovative solutions in business and social practice.

First of all, let us ask ourselves the question: what is innovation? Defining the term is essential, as a great deal of funding is allocated to innovation in current regional development programmes. It should be understood as meaning any innovative solutions to existing problems that shape the human environment, in other words, the creation of material and intellectual products and their use, including in the field of service provision. The aim of innovation is to continually rationalise how products are made and used, and how services are provided. It is associated with the efficient use of energy and materials, as well as of working time and protecting the workplace and the environment. It therefore relates to anything that improves the quality of human life.

Of course, we need to make sure that any artificial innovations, such as known products re-introduced to the market under a different name, are excluded. This, unfortunately, is a common ploy which is more often than not preceded by deceptive advertising.

The broad formulation of the issues facing innovation, which we are dealing with here, will make it possible to transplant known innovative solutions from one area to another where they have not yet been implemented, in accordance with the above definition. In such cases, the criteria of local innovation should, it seems, be defined by local authorities with the help of experts. And these tasks need proper funding.

Innovation is stimulated above all by a properly functioning European market for goods and commercial services incorporating all four freedoms; an appropriate innovative approach and education, but above all a structure, as educational courses are currently turning out graduates with little innovative potential; better use in practice of the huge intellectual resources of research establishments, especially in the new EU Member States; more effective use of tax concessions allowing, for instance, the establishment of innovation funds, as well as credit guarantees, public procurement and public-private partnerships. Innovation also stimulates the synergy effect thanks to the creation of uniform Community norms and standards. And ultimately the proper regulation of intellectual property stimulates innovation.

In the broader sense of the term, innovation covers three groups of innovative solutions. The first group covers rationalisation in all areas, including administration, education, tourism, business and many other areas where processes can be simplified and streamlined, but in ways which would not be considered an invention. Such innovation tends to require a great deal of practical knowledge.

The second group relates to innovation based on inventions whose characteristic feature is the fact that they can be patented, or could constitute the basis for industrial or utility models. Innovation of this kind requires a large amount of theoretical and practical knowledge, much of which has been accumulated in patent offices and similar establishments.

The third group relates to innovative research into new, strategic designs, systems and technologies conducted on a broad scale at the level of European or national research programmes.

Fundamental innovative research, and particularly applied research, leads to the creation of pioneering markets and new patents. The proper development of the second and third category of innovation require a standard Community strategy for patents and licences, and the appointment of a centre of innovation in the form of the European Technology Institute.

The present systems of patents, of which there are as many in the European Union as there are Member States, are too costly, and the procedures are too slow. The lack of a functional, cost-effective and efficient European patenting system does not encourage innovation.

The current patent policy in the European Union benefits the large corporations, which impose conditions on competition benefiting themselves by using patent protection. It does not favour small and medium-sized enterprises, which could be the main drivers of innovation.

In summary, I would like to say that innovation in the economy and public life depends both on properly functioning pure market mechanisms, and EU and national regulation, and this depends on how projects are supported from budget funds.

Our task is to create a European innovation area by having a comprehensive and suitable education, fiscal, research, patenting and information policy.

To conclude, I would like to express my great thanks for the fruitful collaboration of my colleagues, the vice-rapporteur Mrs Toia and Messrs Kubaciek, Hammerstein, Randsorf and also Mr Janowski.

  Günter Verheugen, Vice-President of the Commission. (DE) Mr President, honourable Members, the creation of growth and employment was the urgent task undertaken by the Commission when it took office. I believe we are making excellent progress. The general economic situation in Europe is better than it has been for a long time, but we have not yet been able to reverse the trend. We must ensure that this growth is sustainable.

That is why we need the appropriate boundary conditions, which allow European businesses to further improve their competitiveness. A key factor in this is Europe’s innovative strength and its ability to find practical and commercial applications for our outstanding research results. We must compete on the basis of higher standards and better quality. We must be better than the others. We must apply the highest standards to the quality of our products. We must be technological leaders. New technologies, new processes, new products that give us the edge over others, these give us an opportunity.

I should like to mention two very recent examples of how innovative ideas can increase the competitiveness of companies. Take innovative sensors for airbags. These have turned airbags from an excellent but unaffordable idea into a value-for-money, surface-covering item of safety equipment in use all over the world. At present 50 million of these sensors are produced annually on this basis. They are no longer used exclusively in the motor industry, but are also found in, for example, mobile phones, laptops and DNA chips.

A quite different success story is the invention of a biodegradable plastic bag. A tiny group of scientists invented this environmentally friendly product and turned the patent to good account in the market. In the space of a few years this has grown into a successful medium-size business with a turnover of EUR 50 million and 60 patents – and the trend is upwards. These are only two examples from the hundreds, if not thousands of cases found every year in Europe, which we need to create employment and maintain it in the long term.

I am very grateful to the European Parliament and the rapporteur Mr Gierek for their support of our innovation strategy. That is particularly true of the areas also identified as a priority by the Council of Europe in December 2006. These are the topics to which we are devoting special efforts at present. They include, for example, our policy of strengthening clusters and the initiatives on creating and stimulating leading-edge markets, as part of which we shall be presenting before the end of the year after consultation with the interested groups a proposal for the establishment of several innovative leading-edge markets.

Something else we are using in support of innovation is standardisation – a term that covers a great deal, and a communication on this subject is planned for the autumn of this year.

The allocation of public funds also needs to be done more with a view to the more targeted support of innovation, and we have done this by drafting the guidelines for the use of the Structural Funds accordingly and by adapting the aid rules in such a way that innovation has to be capable of being more strongly promoted than formerly.

I regard the improved protection of intellectual property as most especially important, for it is crucial not only at the European level but also in the global context. As the rapporteur rightly said, small and medium-sized enterprises find it difficult to secure what is rightfully theirs where intellectual property rights are concerned, and the Commission is working on a strategy for helping them do this.

I would also like to point out that such rights have to be affordable and of high quality, and it is for that reason that the advancement of the Community patent is crucial in terms of the competitiveness of our economy, for the present state of affairs in patent policy is a serious hindrance to its ability to compete.

I am very grateful to you for attaching such significance to small businesses in particular, for it is indeed here that the greatest potential for innovation is to be found, and it is important that access to financial resources be made easier for them – which is precisely what we are doing by means of the competitiveness and innovation programme, which is specifically aimed at small and medium-sized innovative enterprises.

We also agree on the outstanding significance of eco-innovation, which will be a very major issue in the years ahead of us, for both it and energy efficiency are areas in which innovative European solutions can make headway on the global market, making us more competitive internationally and thereby also capable of bringing about growth and creating new jobs.

I get the impression that there is, to a large degree, agreement between this House, the Council and the Commission that the continued improvement and promotion of innovation is indispensable if we are to keep Europe on course for success; we all know what is needed, so what matters now is that we should all actually do it.

  Sharon Bowles (ALDE), Draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. – Mr President, this report contains a long list of ways in which to encourage innovation, many of which are valuable. But I cannot reiterate too strongly that easy access – and I do not just mean simpler or less complicated access – to innovation programmes and ventures for smaller businesses is imperative and a lot of work remains to be done in that sphere.

I am pleased that the report includes several of the suggestions from the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, in particular the one emphasising that the 3% of GDP target for R&D expenditure should be a minimum. I am also pleased that it welcomes the proposal for a Risk-Sharing Finance Facility and recognises the problems associated with protecting innovation in services, most notably smaller businesses’ difficulties with trade secrets and confidentiality agreements, which can hinder their ability to raise finance.

It is clearly true that intellectual property is intimately related to innovation. However, I am sorry to see statements in the report that are pre-emptive of the work that is going on within the Commission under the auspices of Commissioner McCreevy on various ways to improve the patent system.

The approach of that work is pragmatic and constructive and may offer better solutions, for example, than trying to integrate the European Patent Office into the Community, which is by no means a simple solution, nor most likely to resolve most of the outstanding problems. It is certainly not something that could be achieved rapidly.

Innovation, intellectual property and competitiveness are part of globalisation, where international norms are important. This means an outward-looking international approach is essential, and I welcome recognition of that with regard to standards. I caution against being too introspective with regard to patents. The victim is eventually competitiveness.

  Barbara Weiler (PSE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this subject is naturally very seductive for politicians, as it is so broad-based – which is the way the Commission wanted it. Therefore, I should like to confine myself to a few of the most important points on which the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection decided – with relatively little controversy.

We believe that a well-functioning internal market creates a favourable environment for innovation. Our understanding of a well-functioning internal market is one that has no unnecessary barriers or detrimental effects on society. We advocate better management of the transfer of academic results, particularly to SMEs, than has previously been the case, since SMEs – as the Commissioner has already said – have been a driver of innovation and creativity. SMEs are also the enterprises who, in Germany and throughout Europe, have been devoting particular attention to training young people. I predict disaster if fewer young people are trained and thus qualified to work on our issues.

We believe that better regulation can give rise to unnecessary burdens on SMEs, but that it will raise consumer trust and confidence. We advocate the swifter introduction of European standards and supra-EU international standards, and we believe that sound, flexible rules in the field of public procurement could also help improve the innovation strategy. We believe that the provision of information to SMEs and other institutions must be improved, and – to reiterate – I welcome the fact that the Committee on Regional Development intends to introduce a technology adviser.

I should like to conclude by mentioning two more aspects that we consider particularly important: the promotion of innovations with social applications, as we believe this has prospects, and the need for this Commission initiative to also give citizens a better quality of life.

  Christa Prets (PSE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Development. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, the fact that the most recent Innovation Scoreboard shows Europe to be increasingly well placed in an international context is a welcome development. It is now the fourth year in a row that the innovation gap between the USA and the European Union has been narrowing. Nevertheless, at a time of constant change and rapid developments, we are repeatedly called upon to tackle new innovations. In a long-term perspective, innovation is a necessary response to future global problems. Throughout the EU, it is much rarer for innovative enterprises to work together with universities and other higher education establishments than with customers and suppliers. Interaction between universities and educational establishments, on the one hand, and enterprises, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, on the other, is a further prerequisite for economic innovativeness.

In this connection, I should like to mention the European Institute of Technology, and would ask the Council and the Commission to provide a financial basis for this. Funds should not be taken from current programmes to allocate to this Institute, however – to do so would be counterproductive and would interfere with the other projects. The innovation potential of SMEs is particularly great at local and regional level. Throughout the EU, this innovative potential must be better recognised, fostered, and cultivated through specific political measures, including improving access for the regions. Taking the example of Austria, according to 2004 statistics, more new or significantly improved products were placed on the market by small than by medium-sized enterprises. I should also like to mention the promotion of clusters, and to say by way of conclusion that innovation policy should also be discussed in relation to women, and that women must be given better access.

  Jaroslav Zvěřina (PPE-DE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs. – (CS) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I welcome the fact that, on this issue, no unrealistic goals have been proposed for catching up with and overtaking the rest of the world. In Europe we must attempt to ensure, from an entirely realistic perspective, that our science, research and development do not lose contact with the rest of the world. When it comes to technology and innovation, I doubt there is a magic wand that politicians can wave.

My worldwide experience on various political programmes in this area makes me somewhat sceptical. The EU has recently had a less than positive experience in the form of the so-called Lisbon Strategy. Our responsibility as politicians should be above all to define a reasonable and stable legal framework and of course the greatest possible financial support for research and technological innovation. In my view, science and technological development requires transparency, sufficient freedom to carry out innovation and, last but not least, funding.

I am pleased that the report includes calls to enhance the prestige of research and development. After all, it should be one of the main tasks of politicians to influence people’s values. In the Committee on Legal Affairs, we once again discussed regulatory and legislative aspects of the European innovation environment. As regards protecting intellectual property, the EU is bound by the relevant international agreements and it should be capable of harmonising its own economic and cultural environment.

We can see some typical shortcomings in the area of patent policy, where there has been no significant improvement, in spite of repeated efforts. Once again, we note with dismay that the EU’s patent environment is inconsistent and lacking transparency. In Europe, scientists and inventors, as well as our technological centres, have to spend considerably more on patents than is usually the case elsewhere. This report is, I feel, markedly lacking in controversy, because we all clearly recognise the importance of innovation for the future of the EU.

  Ján Hudacký, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (SK) First I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Gierek, for a balanced and thorough report.

Notwithstanding the fact that the report deals with the subject of fostering innovation in the European Union from every conceivable angle, I would like to highlight an important factor that cuts across our entire innovation strategy. I have in mind the advancement of a competitive environment and flexible initiatives, which should be the driving force for innovation in companies, clusters, technological and development centres, and similar institutions. Levelling the playing field for activities that rely on an adequate supply of expertise, experience and know-how, and which are directed at meeting market requirements as efficiently as possible, is key to ensuring the smooth development of all initiatives in this area.

Hence, we need to make arrangements at local, regional, national or international levels in order to allow the formation of information-based groups which will apply knowledge through an R&D and business environment that is flexibly structured and that will encourage both cooperation and competition between them.

In practice this would mean that a university, research and development centre or innovative enterprise may form an ad hoc cluster and work together on an innovative project, and then fiercely compete with each other as part of a different cluster working on another innovative project. In formulating a new strategy we should keep clear of inflexible long-term arrangements, which tend to close in on themselves, becoming institutionalised and entrenched in a loosely-justified long-term system often based on senseless requirements, such as the principles of excellence or critical mass, which typically exclude small entities from innovation.

Such complicated arrangements use up enormous resources in an inefficient manner and after a while lose the ability to respond flexibly to the rapidly changing requirements of a globalised world.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău, în numele grupului PSE. – La Lisabona, Uniunea Europeană şi-a propus să devină cea mai dinamică şi competitivă economie bazată pe cunoaştere. Pentru a încuraja cercetarea, au fost dezvoltate programele-cadru de cercetare şi instrumente precum JEREMIE, care sprijină dezvoltarea întreprinderilor mici şi mijlocii la nivel regional. Aceste instrumente financiare ar trebui să existe şi la nivel naţional, cu sprijinul sistemului bancar. Din păcate, există încă multe regiuni ale Uniunii Europene care nu investesc 3% din produsul intern brut în cercetare şi dezvoltare. Există însă şi state membre care au decis să-şi dezvolte economia prin investiţii masive în resurse umane, în noile tehnologii şi în cercetare şi inovare. Aceste state au acordat inclusiv facilităţi fiscale companiilor care au investit în cercetare. Ele nu trebuie să rămână însă cazuri izolate şi solicităm Comisiei Europene să faciliteze cunoaşterea bunelor practici şi să recomande statelor membre acordarea de facilităţi fiscale pentru investiţiile realizate în cercetare.

O economie bazată pe cunoaştere se bazează pe triunghiul cunoaşterii format din universităţi, centre de cercetare, parcuri ştiinţifice şi tehnologice şi companii, iar toate acestea trebuie să fie sprijinite. În acelaşi timp, Uniunea Europeană trebuie să asigure un echilibru corespunzător între accesul la informaţii, la rezultatele cercetării, şi protecţia proprietăţii intelectuale. Pentru a încuraja cercetătorii şi, mai ales, companiile să investească mai mult în cercetare şi în cercetarea aplicată, trebuie să protejăm munca intelectuală a acestora. În acelaşi timp, roata nu trebuie reinventată, iar rezultatele cercetării trebuie să fie disponibile celor interesaţi. Pentru aceasta, reţelele de comunicaţii de mare viteză, accesibile în şcoli, universităţi, parcuri tehnologice, institute de cercetare şi companii, trebuie să fie infrastructura minimă existentă.

  Patrizia Toia, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the growth of Europe’s economy depends increasingly on the capacity for innovation and the technological advancement of Europe’s production system, so that it can maintain competitiveness in an increasingly tough international system. Unfortunately, the innovation gap between Europe and the other large world economies, particularly the United States, is still significant and is detrimental to Europe. We can say, however, that in our Europe, in the European States, there is a considerable research capacity in the universities, in the centres of excellence and in the laboratories; this excellence is widespread, and there is a high level of specialist and scientific knowledge.

What is tragically missing in Europe is the opportunity and the capacity to transfer this research and its results into productive processes. What is missing is, in fact, the capacity for technological transfer of the know-how provided by research, to reinvigorate the production system, businesses and service companies in all spheres, in terms of innovation of products, processes and organisational innovation. Commissioner, the efforts you and the Commission have made to move forward on the innovation issue are very positive: the measures in the Seventh Framework Programme, the CIPs, the financial instruments that have today been relaunched, all these elements need promotion, and this is needed even more to sustain the projects for training to support small and medium-sized enterprises, with adequate financial resources and with appropriate organisational and procedural instruments.

There is a need for similar initiatives, and there is still a need for different initiatives. More accessible organisational instruments and procedural routes need to be defined to ensure that these efforts of ours really produce concrete results within Europe’s industries and services. To increase innovation in Europe, I believe that it is also necessary, as stated in the report by our colleague Mr Gierek, to start with a cultural concept that is in favour of innovation, even at school, which may seem far removed from the processes of production, but is not, in fact. Today’s students are tomorrow’s workers and businessmen.

It is necessary to labour this point in order to create in Europe an attitude, a mentality, an openness to change, to research, to experimentation, and, finally, also a readiness to undertake training. At a time when we are talking a great deal about training in Europe, I believe that this is important. As you point out in the Commission’s report and as is also stated in our resolution, the public sector is important. I have a great belief in the contribution that the public sector can make to innovation, directly through improvements that produce better quality and a more adequate range of services offered by public administrations; if public administrations reinvigorate themselves and adopt better production processes, this can also help with the growth of the economy and the cost reduction.

The last point relates to ‘clusters’. The Commissioner spoke of these, as did my fellow Members; it is very important to link regional policy with innovation.

  Mieczysław Edmund Janowski, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (PL) Mr President, I would congratulate the rapporteur on behalf of the Union for Europe of the Nations Group. Two weeks ago I presented a report on innovation in the context of regional policy, and I would like to thank the author for incorporating this aspect in his report.

I believe that Mr Gierek’s report can bring about more effective and practical results from research, patents, inventions and rationalisation in the broader economy. Without it we are threatened with failure. This is not because of innovation per se, but because of artificial, or false, innovation. There is a glaring need for us to use the results of the work done by scientists, inventors and engineers who create the real added value for Europe and our civilisation.

We must find out where the sticking-points for implementing innovations are, and whether there is not too much red tape. EU institutions, along with the governments of Member States and the regional authorities, can also play a role in encouraging positive action in this respect, because it is often the regions that have first-rate universities, research establishments or clusters. We have already discussed the clear role to be played by small and medium-sized enterprises. However, we cannot forget the financial instruments, including tax instruments, and the proper use of the structural funds.

Innovation naturally relates to specific problems of design technology, and particularly today digital technologies, nanotechnologies, materials engineering, biotechnology, medicine and so forth. Hence the huge opportunities facing the European Institute of Technology and the proper implementation of the Seventh framework programmes. We should also underline that innovation is needed in education, management, administration, services, agriculture, utilities, etc.

To conclude, I would like to say that real innovations always have a humane aspect to them, both on the part of their creators, and on the part of their users, as they serve humankind.

  David Hammerstein, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (ES) Mr President, firstly, please accept my sympathies following the result in the football. We see Liverpool as our team to a certain extent, given that so many Spaniards play for them.

Turning to innovation, I would like to thank Mr Gierek for his work, since innovation is a great challenge for the European Union, for the economy, for people, for communities and for territorial cohesion. I would like to point out the importance of the emphasis placed on programmes such as Eureka, which benefits small businesses.

Also the promotion of initiatives such as the Eurostar initiative is important for small businesses and the whole notion of creating clusters of small businesses, which are promoted, for sharing information, for receiving public support, can be a shared objective for the whole of the European Union.

We are seeing a change of thinking in the Community: from the creation of tarmac motorways to the creation of information highways; rather than directing almost all of our European funds towards concrete, directing it towards knowledge. That is important when we are considering what to spend the funds or the majority of the Structural and regional funds on.

I was recently in Poland and I wished to share the experience of trying to divert increasing amounts of funds towards research, innovation and infrastructures, not just heavy infrastructures, but also intelligence infrastructures.

Because, at the same time, the issue of intellectual property is extremely important. If we create insurmountable obstacles to scientific and technical information, we may also thwart the necessary requirement of creating a closely woven economic and cultural network. We may deny access to the information necessary for innovation.

We must not confuse the accumulation of patents with innovation. Because in Europe, despite what some people say, we are currently attracting considerable amounts of risk capital drawn in by a less strict intellectual property system.

We should not make the mistake of copying the United States’ system of intellectual property patents at a time when that country is entirely rethinking their system of patents because it is too costly and because it promotes the creation of patents for their own sake, creating lists of patents more in order to protect what one has than in order to conquer new innovations.

We are entirely in favour of integrating the European Patent Office into the European Institutions and keeping it under democratic control.

Furthermore, we believe that, in the case of real, physical, patents, which could promote innovation, there must be patenting. However, we must not accept the mistaken notion that intellectual property is an end in itself. No. Intellectual property must serve the imagination.

The priority must be sharing. The priority must be to create fields of lively creative activity in which information can be shared, in order to create a better world and a better social fabric.

  President. I now call Mr van Nistelrooij. Are you, by any chance, related to the footballer?

  Lambert van Nistelrooij (PPE-DE). – Yes I am, but not tonight because I have to be here at this time. I am very sorry. Mr President, I would just like to say that Adam Gierek’s report comes just in time.

(NL) … in view of the new and very hefty challenge we are facing at world level. Globalisation is pricing us out of the market, while some sectors of our traditional manufacturing industry are leaving it, and Mr Aho’s much-discussed report calls for more clustering, a more critical stance among the public, more specialisation and for harnessing creativity.

In the Union, we spend about 43% of the Budget on reinforcing our competitiveness in the form of structural funds, money for research and money for the small and medium-sized enterprises. My question remains whether we, with these instruments, are taking due account of competitive relations. What do we do if it eventually transpires that we have an insufficient number of technically trained people to carry out various jobs?

Globally, it appears that we do not focus enough, while in Europe, we do not dare bring certain things into profile via knowledge regions of all kinds. As I see it, open innovation for large and small companies, together with knowledge institutions and governments are the answer to this.

In the final analysis, we need top regions. This is about a top sport, as Mr Verheugen also pointed out. This is about wanting to be a leader in technology. Without a leader, there is no following. In this case, there is insufficient scope for cohesion policy to be deployed across Europe, including the less developed areas.

I think we need to be bold enough to re-calibrate our policy in the next few years. We need more focus. This is where Mr Gierek’s report sounds the right note, and for that I am very grateful to him.

  Gábor Harangozó (PSE). – (HU) The economy of the European Union is facing ever increasing global challenges. In order to meet these challenges, it needs specialised companies which engage in innovative activities with high added value, and which collaborate effectively with each other.

At present, small and medium-sized enterprises are faced with numerous problems. Prominent among these are their low visibility at the European level on account of their size, and the difficulty they encounter in accessing services that are essential for competitiveness on an international scale. This market disadvantage resulting from their size can be overcome through networking and clustering.

Clustering and creating growth poles are therefore important and effective tools of economic development. Although there is no doubt that the developmental poles fulfil a key role in increasing European competitiveness, the implementation of the European Union’s innovative strategy should not emphasise only such research and development centres, but we must keep in mind that the European Union is a unified entity that combines both developed and less-developed areas. It must play a role both in increasing innovative opportunities and in reducing regional disparities.

There needs to be better cooperation among the various organisations, economic actors, universities, research centres and the public sector. We must ensure that the knowledge obtained through these channels is put into practice in companies’ operations. We need to simplify the administrative processes, facilitate financing and design a tax system that provides incentives to encourage the growth of enterprises’ innovative capacity.

Moreover, by injecting fresh blood into Europe’s business life, innovative strategies should increase the attractiveness and competitiveness of the Union’s economy. It would be a unique opportunity if, through the European Development Centre, we could make such developments accessible to everyone, and could create opportunities for the ongoing exchange of information. Innovation belongs to everyone, and the goal is that it should improve living conditions and the quality of life for all citizens throughout the European Union.

  Šarūnas Birutis (ALDE). – (LT) Mr President, Commissioner, colleagues, I would like to thank Mr Adam Gierek and all contributing Members of Parliament for this comprehensive report. For my part, I would like to briefly focus my attention on certain important aspects.

First of all, I suggest that it be stressed even more clearly that regional partnership is precisely the key to implementing the European innovation policy that we are creating. Enterprise 'networking' is very important, as it provides enterprises, especially small and medium-size firms, with the opportunity to feel more secure and to react dynamically to the challenges of the new globalisation. Europe and the Member States must encourage the formation of such a system!

Secondly, the priority areas in scientific research and innovation propagation need to be chosen very responsibly. Lithuania has just completed a thorough review of the development of its economy according to regional and global tendencies, and it showed that the economy grows not so much because of the creation of new economic sectors and the allocation of national funds to those sectors, but because of economic sector transformations already in progress. Therefore, to guarantee stable economic growth it is essential to encourage innovation in enterprises in every sector of the economy, not forgetting that the vitality of high-technology enterprises depends very much on the vitality of local traditional industries and on the application of new ideas.

Colleagues, in the long run the future of Europe's industries depends not on which sectors of industry we choose to develop, but on whether we manage to create a new society in which implementing new ideas is a way of life!

The third thing to which I wish to draw attention is each country's handling and evaluation of innovation. New methodology is required for assessing innovation! Studies show that the way Lithuania and other European Union countries assess innovation in various economic sectors, based on the accepted evaluation methodology (‘European Scoreboard’), may be quite erroneous, and the established statement about a direct link between scientific research activity and the economic innovation of a national economy raises some serious doubts.

  Zbigniew Krzysztof Kuźmiuk (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, in taking the floor in this debate I would like to draw attention to the question of research and development in the European Union, which receives a mere 2% or so of GDP, when the most developed countries outside the EU, including the United States, allocate at least 3% of their GDP for this. In this situation, we are not only failing to close the gap between the United States and Europe, but letting it grow larger.

Secondly, it is very important that the cash for research and development from the EU budget is supplemented by funds from national budgets, local government, and in particular the private sector. It is anticipated that in 2010 the costs of R&D in the European Union will be 2.6% of GDP, of which as much as two-thirds will come from the private sector.

And thirdly, I must express my hope that the research and development funding allocated from the EU budget will not just go to established academies and research centres, but also to universities and research establishments from the new as well as the old Member States.

IN THE CHAIR: MRS KRATSA-TSAGAROPOULOU
Vice-President

  Zita Pleštinská (PPE-DE). – (SK) First I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Gierek, and Mr Hudacký, my colleague and shadow rapporteur in the lead Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, for including several amendments in this report proposed in the opinions of the Committee on Development and the Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection. I have participated in drawing up these amendments as a shadow rapporteur for my political group.

The European Union is facing new challenges in a globalising world, and therefore competitiveness should be strengthened by promoting the commercial exploitation of the findings that emerge from research and development efforts. The European Union has numerous instruments that could be used more effectively to promote innovation. In particular I am referring to internal market instruments, such as the public procurement of innovative products and services, the establishment of public-private partnerships in innovative areas, and the application of technical standards. I firmly believe that the fast and effective introduction of technical innovations can be achieved through standardisation. Therefore I am very glad that the rapporteur took this idea on board and incorporated into his report my amendments concerning the rapid development of technical standards in new areas, especially in the area of innovative technologies and telecommunications technologies.

In my amendments I emphasised the importance of the timely identification and promotion of leading markets. Examples of markets where the European Union may potentially become a global leader include the smart textile industry, environmental technologies or electronic health cards. Now that very little time is left until the 2010 deadline set in the Lisbon Strategy, we must focus on European regions. More than ever before, a competitive Europe needs the dynamism, inventiveness and enthusiasm for innovation of its regions.

A consistent transparent framework of state support serving as an incentive could be instrumental in launching regional partnerships based on the cooperation of small and medium-sized enterprises, universities, research institutes, local authorities and financial institutions.

I urge Member States not to underestimate the promotion of innovation strategies, which must become a priority within the operational programmes. I believe that if we use the EU offer of adequate allocations from structural funds for investment into research, innovation and continued education, we will manage to create new jobs and prevent the brain drain and depopulation that has been seen particularly in less attractive European regions.

  Jorgo Chatzimarkakis (ALDE). – (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, I should like to start by congratulating Mr Gierek, who has presented a truly excellent report. It is good that we are discussing innovation, and it is good that we have used the broad concept of innovation – something that has been neglected for years. For much too long, we have concentrated solely on research itself rather than on implementing its results – but here, at long last, we have a report that does concentrate on this.

The broad concept of innovation also represents an opportunity for us to achieve dominance in new fields. One example is the discussion on climate change, in which Europe is indeed creating new innovation areas, particularly by focusing on CO2 reduction. I think this is a very good thing, and it is also mentioned frequently in the report. I should like to illustrate what this means using the example of the motor-vehicle market, where we have a strong position, where we are even leaders in the premium sector at international level. It means that we can indeed set ourselves ambitious objectives – that is not the problem. After all, we are talking about reducing the CO2 from exhaust fumes.

What we also have to do, however, is to follow up these objectives with research projects, and focus on them. This is still something of a weak point for us. We can set ourselves ambitious objectives; but, if we are to create model markets, we really have to follow them up.

I could also mention the EIT, the new European Institute of Technology. This is a good thing. I should like to offer my personal congratulations to the Commissioner for taking the initiative in the form of the CIP, the framework programme for competitiveness and innovation, which is now to be followed by its own innovation agency. This is an excellent initiative! Parliament – and I, in particular, as a former rapporteur – will support you on this.

One final word on the Lisbon process. Let us replace the phrase ‘Lisbon process’ with ‘Liverpool process’. Tonight, Liverpool are playing Milan. Two years ago, they came back from 3-0 down. That is how far behind Europe is at the moment. We have fallen behind, so we have to catch up. This is possible, as Liverpool proved. Therefore I hereby proclaim the Liverpool process!

  Jerzy Buzek (PPE-DE). – (PL) Thank you, Mr Chatzimarkakis, for giving us the latest soccer results! Madam President, first of all congratulations to the rapporteur, Adam Gierek, and Commissioner Verheugen, for all their innovation initiatives.

Innovation is undoubtedly the paramount issue in the Lisbon Strategy, as it means competitiveness. The innovation strategy set out by Mr Gierek in his report deserves respect, as it contains sixty-one detailed points.

The new definition of innovation is important: it covers not only technology, but also marketing, management, services and non-technological innovations. An important point is a cohesive innovation strategy; in particular a knowledge triangle, which is represented here by the European Technology Institute. Also important are protecting intellectual property and stimulating the market or the macro-economy. The report brings together previous developments, such as the Competition and Innovation Programme, the EU educational programmes, and, of course, the Seventh Framework Programme, very well.

One question that arises, however, is why do we have problems in the European Union? The answer is the weakness of the market. Firstly, we have overblown public assistance. Secondly, we protect leading national companies. Thirdly, we are slow to respond to monopolistic practices. And fourthly, we do not have a complete, uniform market for services, labour and the movement of capital. Instead of opening up, we withdraw. We rarely listen to the market or to consumers, with the exception of today’s vote on the Roaming Directive.

It is clear that the Commission’s proposals are better for the Lisbon Strategy and for the European market than the proposals of the Member States. I would like to congratulate the Commission, and congratulate the rapporteur once again.

  President. – The Commission has informed us that it will not intervene at this stage. It has already received a great many congratulations.

That debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow, Thursday, at 12 noon.

Written statements (Rule 142)

  Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE), in writing. – Innovation in Europe is hampered by the absence of an adequate regime for protecting intellectual property rights. This much is clear. The report rightly stresses this point and calls for a number of improvements.

However, I believe we should go further in identifying the flaws in the current system, and be more ambitious about our proposed solutions. The report proposes incorporating the European Patent Office, presently an intergovernmental body outside the EU, into Community structures.

This is a welcome idea, albeit one that will take years to bring about. Bureaucracies do not merge easily, especially ones such as the EPO which have developed a questionable profit-making and unaccountable orientation. It grants patents too easily from the point of view of achieving broad-based innovation across the economy, which too often only serves the interests of the patent holders.

Therefore, in anticipation of a Community patent run, eventually, by an EU patent office, let me reiterate my support for the efforts of the Commission to enact medium-term pragmatic solutions, e.g. the European Patent Litigation Agreement. It is only a first step, but one that is badly needed for common rules to develop, and innovation to flourish.

15. Tackling organised crime (debate)

  President. – The next item is the report by Bill Newton Dunn, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, with a proposal for a European Parliament recommendation to the Council on developing a strategic concept on tackling organised crime [2006/2094(INI)] (A6-0152/2007).

  Bill Newton Dunn (ALDE), rapporteur. – Madam President, I am sorry to tell you this is going to be a tale of woe, of unhappiness and of problems for Europe, because organised crime is growing in every field, it is hidden and we do not have a full picture. It is based in states outside the EU, mostly, where government is weak and therefore there is very little action to stop the gangs and the criminals who are working in an organised way.

I am referring to drugs like heroin and cocaine, which are brought in from different parts of the world; to ecstasy, which is exported from Europe to different parts of the world; to illegal immigrants, who are brought in from Asia and Africa without proper controls; to counterfeit goods of every imaginable kind, some just simple toys or music CDs but also some things like medicines, which are deeply serious and life-threatening; and to crime on the internet – the theft of money and identity. In every area, crime is growing and in every area we each have, maybe, some small experience.

Every industry is aware of the problems in its own sector, but it keeps the statistics hidden because it does not want to damage public confidence. If a bag manufacturer says, ‘Be careful about buying my beautiful leather bag because it may be a fake from the Far East or elsewhere,’ they damage their prospects. So, nobody tells the public what is really going on.

Some organised gangs are ethnic families working very well in a tightly-knit way; some are now organised like very efficient, very big multinational corporations – this week I was even given an organisational chart for an organised criminal gang! They cross the borders inside our Union with total ease and without any difficulty at all. Here is the problem: our police cannot cross any borders. So, the criminals are going wherever they like, doing whatever they do, but our police are restricted to their own regions or their own Member States and therefore are deeply handicapped and cannot fight the criminals on equal terms. What do individual police officers do if there is a problem across the border? Do they go to a central point and get contact details from the telephone directory? There is no directory. There is no facility for a police officer in any one country to find a telephone number or an e-mail address for an appropriate contact in another Member State. It is unbelievable – a total lack of cooperation.

The reason for this is the lack of mutual trust and understanding, meaning that, traditionally, we do not want to give foreigners our information or reveal the source of our information, because that would give away too many secrets. We do not trust each other inside Europe. The gangs trust each other beautifully and so they are winning hands down.

It is not all woe. The Americans, with their open borders between states, found exactly the same problem in the 1930s. You probably saw the film Bonnie and Clyde. They robbed banks, took the money across a state border and the police could not follow them. The Americans invented the FBI with powers to cross borders, and I suspect that is the stage we have now reached in Europe. We need a law enforcement agency that can pursue criminals across frontiers. The public will be very sceptical; the national leaders say nothing about it, but I think we have reached that point and we have to do something about it.

Today, however, on this side of the Atlantic, in the European Union, there are no statistics to tell the public the scale of the problem. Each of the 27 Member States collects statistics in its own different way. There are no comparative EU statistics, so we hope that the Commission is working in that direction to start that happening in a few years’ time. We have no idea, no clear picture, no information for the public, no democratic control, because this comes under the third pillar and is therefore controlled by the national governments, who do very little because they do not feel any pressure from the public to take any action.

The only way that we will get a change, I fear, is if there is a dramatic shock, something like 9/11 in Europe. Something so bad that the public says, ‘How was this allowed to happen? How did the criminal gangs get away with this for so long when there was so much inactivity in 27 national capitals?’ But, if the criminals are smart – and they are very smart – they will never come up above the horizon. They will never commit a 9/11 and they will just go on eating into our society, feeding off us, weakening us, taking away jobs and, basically, weakening the whole Union. We really need action, and I hope Parliament will support this report and push the ministers into taking some decisions.

  Franco Frattini, Vice-President of the Commission. (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Newton Dunn, on this report. I think that it is clear to everyone how important it is to develop all means at our disposal to combat organised crime, and nobody, I believe, can have any doubts on the matter. I will restrict myself to giving some brief information on some recent progress made by the European Union in this field and some initiatives that the European Commission will launch very soon.

First of all, on the subject of improving knowledge of the phenomenon of organised crime, I am in especial agreement with the rapporteur. We do not have a precise framework of knowledge on the dimensions of this criminal phenomenon and the movements of organised crime. In this sphere, the development of Europol’s activities is particularly valuable. As you know, starting this year, 2007, Europol will publish and has proposed to supplement its traditional informative report on the state of crime in Europe with an annual threat assessment. The Europol report will thus be a proactive report, not just an informative one; that is, it will indicate, year by year, the sectors in which the threat of organised crime has grown and, as we hope, also those in which the threat has diminished. Unfortunately, we are seeing a growing increase in all the main spheres of organised crime.

Another important result, which the rapporteur referred to just now, is European activity in the field of crime statistics. Up until now we have not had a statistical framework. You will remember that in a communication adopted last year I proposed a Europe-wide system of crime statistics. We have already put together a group of experts, and I can say with satisfaction that Eurostat has already brought out the first publication of statistical data on offences across Europe. We are beginning to produce concrete results.

In the field of prevention, which is extremely important, we have decided to concentrate, for example, on the fight against corruption, which is often linked to organised crime networks. We have decided to set up a European network of national experts permanently linked together, precisely with a view to preventing corruption. I have decided to include in next year’s programme the 2008 programme an initiative that will explore the links between corruption, money-laundering and thus organised crime networks. This is a sector on which Europe must work harder.

Next, there is a major action with regard to trafficking in human beings; there is an action plan, which has already been adopted and which is in the process of being developed and implemented in practice. Besides, as you probably know, one of the measures we have promoted is an annual European day against trafficking in human beings, which will be a concrete signal of development, a realisation on a European scale that until now was inadequate.

We have also decided to concentrate on witness protection, which is a vital element when it comes to combating organised crime. I will make available to this Parliament a working document with some concrete proposals by the end of July this year, that is, within the next two months. This working document will be the outcome of an analysis that we carried out with the police and the legal authorities of the Member States on how witnesses should be protected in the fight against organised crime, because, if witnesses are not protected, a fundamental element for combating organised crime fails.

On police cooperation and judicial cooperation, coordination should be stepped up, above all between Europol and Eurojust. Admittedly, a multidisciplinary approach is vital, and we have done a lot for Europol. I have proposed new rules of procedure for Europol so as to increase its powers, extend its mandate and give it more flexibility; organised crime is unfortunately very adaptable, and thus Europol must also be much more flexible. I hope that, in the case of Europol, the Council will accept our proposal for Community funding. This would have an immediate advantage, that of the European Parliament’s having democratic control of the use of Europol’s budget, which will thus be subject in what I would call a more transparent manner to a democratic parliamentary control authority.

As you know, the Council still has some reservations about accepting this proposal of mine. On the operational front, Europol is getting stronger. Where is the weak point? The weak point is that the Member States are not forwarding to Europol the necessary amount of operational information that Europol needs in order to coordinate its activities. You probably know that 70% of the data in Europol’s central computer system comes from only five Member States, and the remaining 30% from all the others. This demonstrates what Europol’s potential could be if all the Member States contributed better. This is something that they will now have to do because all three Europol protocols have entered into force and thus cooperation will be improved.

For Eurojust too, we need to do more. I will certainly put forward a proposal on Eurojust this autumn, I believe in October or November, and this will be a proposal to strengthen Eurojust’s powers of initiative. The point that will be at the heart of my initiative will be the involvement of Eurojust – I would say involvement on a normal and systematic basis – with joint investigation teams. These joint investigation teams are a basic tool for combating crime, and Eurojust is being called on to participate in the joint investigation teams in a way that is insufficient, non-systematic and sometimes incidental. This is no good. Eurojust must be a regular participant in the joint investigation teams, in order to increase their capabilities.

Of course, all this activity that we are carrying out must always achieve a balance between security requirements, which are, as I am personally convinced, a fundamental right of citizens. Citizens have a right to security, but alongside security there are other rights, which are also fundamental rights, and therefore I believe that the issue of data protection in the field of police cooperation – an issue which has not yet received a positive response from the Council, despite my proposal of a year and a half ago – should finally receive a systematic response, namely a European legislative initiative on data protection in the so-called third pillar. This will also act to give citizens a tangible sign that, alongside taking strong action against organised crime, we strongly respect other fundamental rights such as the right to handling of personal data.

In all these spheres, I hope that the Council will decide in June to incorporate the provisions of the Prüm Treaty into European legislation, that is, I hope that instead of being, as it is today, mere enhanced cooperation between a few Member States, it will become a provision that is an integral part of Community legislation. If the Council, as I hope it will, lets this proposal pass, we will have taken a step forward.

Finally, I would like to point out two issues. Firstly, the implementation in practice of the new Agency for Fundamental Rights, which was set up in March. The Agency will be an important tool in ensuring that fundamental rights are respected, including at the request of Parliament or the Commission, with regard to cooperation and investigative police activities.

There is also the major issue of combating organised cybercrime. As you know, yesterday I presented a communication on cyber crime, which deals with various sectors of organised computer crime, from paedophilia to computerised attacks on banking systems. I believe that computer crime is one of the new frontiers on which this Parliament will clearly be able to work.

  Giuseppe Castiglione, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (IT) Madam President, Mr Frattini, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I would like to thank the rapporteur for the excellent work he has done and also Mr Frattini for the concrete progress made and for the information that he has given Parliament this evening.

This report is certainly an important sign of the political will to energetically combat the phenomenon of organised crime, which is unfortunately increasingly widespread. This form of crime has been able, despite our efforts, to develop a criminal network across national borders. Currently we have not been successful in providing police services equipped with the necessary tools to combat it.

We must therefore give a strong, authoritative and credible response, by strengthening all the cooperation instruments, as the Commissioner was saying, from awareness of the criminal phenomenon to the collection of statistical data, from the improvement and simplification of information exchange to the honing of investigation methods and the increased coordination of investigative and punitive operations.

I personally believe that the creation of more rigorous, Europe-wide collaboration and contact instruments, such as Europol will be able to be, is the key to enhancing trust between the Member States, creating the necessary synergies between national police authorities and launching a true European policy in this field. In recent years, associations of a criminal type have increasingly assumed the actual form of companies, and they find on the economic and financial markets a perfect place for laundering illicit proceeds; the damage that ensues for national economies and the Community economy can be easily imagined. We must also combat organised crime on the economic front and systematically attack financial resources, fixed and movable assets that have been legitimately acquired. For one thing, depriving crime of its resources means damaging the relations and links between them and terrorist organisations.

I also hope – and I note the Commissioner’s communication – that the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime and the two protocols on trafficking in persons and immigrant trafficking will be ratified swiftly and, above all, applied.

I am sure that, on the basis of this information, concrete proposals will soon arrive from the Commission, and I take note of this with great pleasure this evening. I wish Mr Frattini the best in his work; he has shown that he is not only aware of these issues but that he has implemented in practice some initiatives that he has outlined this evening.

  Magda Kósáné Kovács, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (HU) The excellent Dunn report is a high quality contribution to the committee’s communication. As a co-rapporteur, I too consider it extremely important for the Union to be able to contribute to improving the day-to-day security of its citizens, and that it strengthen its efforts to prevent corruption in politics and public administration.

We, the socialist members of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs are urging progress and implementation primarily by raising a few issues in connection with the report. We need to strengthen the cooperation between the police and judicial bodies of the Member States, in particular because in a Europe with no internal borders, crime, especially organised crime, can only grow in the absence of effective cooperation among these bodies.

Moreover, we need step by step to strengthen the independence and scope of EUROPOL and EUROJUST, in order to provide a European-level law enforcement and judicial body that can deal with crime with a comprehensive approach above the Member States, thereby providing incentives to domestic bodies to perform careful and corruption-free work. Member States must be urged to support and finance the competent authorities as well as training and cooperative programmes for the sake of better and more effective cooperation on cases involving organised crime.

We think that the witness protection programme can only be developed further at the European level, since the majority of countries in themselves are not able to hide citizens testifying against organised crime within their own territory, and must ensure that they receive the protection due them. One of the most important tasks is for us suitably to inform concerned European citizens of the steps being taken at the European level, and of the successes of our cooperation, and in this way to emphasise the usefulness of European cooperation in the area of communications as well.

And now for a few thorns that remain in my flesh. In my proposals for amendment submitted to the committee, I tried to draw attention to the fact that Member States have extremely diverse histories, and their citizens have experienced very different types of socialisation. In some Member States, certain concepts in criminal law have an entirely different significance than in others. For it can happen that in one Member State something falls under serious moral condemnation, while in another it is a matter of civil virtue. A Hungarian political scientist has said that a country is corrupt where it does not even occur to a citizen to purchase a train ticket when he gets on a train. And we do not ask ourselves where they purchase train tickets.

It is also my conviction that there will be certain policies in the geopolitical and economic area which will become the targets of organised crime, and if we do not pay careful attention and do not take steps on behalf of national security, we will find ourselves in danger.

I hope that our disagreement was not based on principles, but only on linguistic misunderstandings, and that support for this report will be based on an agreement on the principles.

  Marios Matsakis, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Madam President, I congratulate Mr Newton Dunn on his excellent report. In order to make this report and the level of debate associated with it even more practically useful and perhaps more controversial, I would like to take the opportunity, to address one issue which, although dealt with in the report and referred to by the Commissioner, in my view needs to be further elaborated upon.

I refer to the issue of money laundering. Money laundering constitutes the oxygen supply to organised crime. Legitimising crime profits is essential for crime barons to survive and expand their illegal activities. I question whether the EU, despite its frequent criticism of money laundering, is in fact doing very much to combat it.

My thesis is demonstrated by the following example. A vast amount of money laundering is taking place through institutions based and functioning in areas such as the Channel Islands, in particular Guernsey and Jersey. These islands have a rather peculiar status as regards their relation to the EU. The British Government, although fully aware of the money laundering problem associated with these islands, conveniently turns a blind eye to such activities under the pretext that these areas enjoy a certain degree of autonomy from British sovereignty. The same applies to institutions based on other British overseas territories or British Crown dependencies. Such territories are the Isle of Man and the British Virgin Islands. I note that in 2000 KPMG reported that the British Virgin Islands had 41% of the world’s tax-haven-seeking offshore companies.

I call upon the Commission to make a statement in relation to the aforementioned money laundering activities in British-related territories and to declare before us what action it intends to take, in particular with regard to the British Government, in order to halt the money laundering legitimacy cover-up currently afforded to the areas I have mentioned.

  Giusto Catania, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (IT) Madam President, Mr Frattini, ladies and gentlemen, as fate would have it, today, 23 May, we are discussing in this Chamber the fight against organised crime.

It was on this very day, 15 years ago, that an extremely serious event took place in the history of Italy, and the history of Europe: Giovanni Falcone, the high-level judge, was assassinated by the mafia in a horrific manner, when they blew up the section of the motorway between the airport and the city of Palermo. His wife and three other agents in the escort died together with him. That year, 1992, was a terrible year, because after Falcone, another judge – Paolo Borsellino – was assassinated by organised crime, specifically the mafia.

Both of them had realised how important it was to conduct legal and police cooperation at international level and thus they had gathered how necessary it was to combat criminal organisations at a higher level – at an international level – focusing above all on intercepting the capital of criminal and mafia organisations. Falcone and Borsellino were the umpteenth victims in a series of slaughters in the Italian Republic that began with the massacre at Portella della Ginestra on 1 May 1947.

So many things have changed over the years; criminal organisations have become transnational, and this change had already occurred by the end of the 1980s, when the liberalist dogma was confirmed in the policy of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. The globalisation of the economy and of finance has occurred through the deregulation of the financial and trade markets, the privatisation of services and the reinforcement of tax havens.

We have seen confirmation of what an authoritative research body, the Transnational Institute of Amsterdam, has called ‘the Global Fix’, that is, a global compromise between the theoretically legal economy and the criminal economy. This is international trafficking in arms and drugs and money-laundering. In certain ways there has been confirmation of the tendency of liberalist globalisation to encourage crime.

If we analyse the studies by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, we can see that, since the 1980s, the underground economy has quadrupled. In 2001 black-market transactions ranged between USD 6 500 and 9 000 billion a year, that is, between 20% and 25% of the world’s gross domestic product. We are talking about a horrifying figure that could help to overcome poverty on a worldwide scale.

In this context some important phenomena have arisen. Most important of all is the fall of the Soviet Union, which resulted in the transfer of many State assets into cash and directly to cartels and criminal organisations. It is no coincidence that, today, the Russian mafia is very strong, in both economic and political terms. Much of this money transited via numerous accounts in Switzerland, the Cayman Isles, the islands to which Mr Matsakis referred, and Gibraltar.

The other major trend that was confirmed in the 1990s was the push by the US and the UK to deregulate the financial and international markets. The globalisation of the financial markets itself contains the seeds of the reorganisation of criminal forces.

The other great event that increased the income of organised crime was the return of war. The war and the way in which it is intertwined with liberalist globalisation has led to a frightening increase in revenue for international mafia groups, including in particular an increase in profits from drugs.

In the Andes region in Colombia, the ‘War on Drugs’ philosophy has given rise to an exponential growth in the production of coca and the processing of coca plants into cocaine. The war in the Balkans has turned that region into an off-limits area where money is laundered and heroin is refined for the European market. Think about what happened in Afghanistan! In 2001, before the military occupation, opium production was 74 tonnes per year. In 2006 – and my source is the US Department of State – opium production had risen above 6 000 tonnes, and this growth is closely linked to the military occupation. Today Afghanistan produces 93% of the total world output of opium.

How much is drug production worth today on the global market? The UN, which is unfortunately not very credible on this subject, says that 1% of the world’s GDP is derived from drug trafficking; the US Department of State says that it is 2.5%, and the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs says that between 2% and 5% of the world’s GDP is based on international trafficking in narcotics. This is just one piece of information, because to this should be added trafficking in human beings, arms, waste, counterfeiting of products, and all these profits are immediately laundered and injected into the legal market.

We need to take action on capital, assets and financial transactions, and that is why we believe that the confiscation of the assets of the mafia and of transnational organised crime is a key factor in the war that we must wage on the mafia. Pio La Torre understood this, and proposed a law to the Italian Parliament stating that there was an overriding need to take action on capital. For this reason I endorse the report by Mr Newton Dunn, because it tackles this point by stating that there is a need to intervene by chipping away at the funds of criminal and mafia organisations.

A section of my group will not support this report, perhaps for reasons that can be understood, because it considers that it does not offer enough guarantees, particularly with regard to the handling of personal data. This section is led by Mr Adamou, the shadow rapporteur for our group, who will abstain and will not endorse this report. I, on the other hand, think that combating organised crime is a priority, but it is not only a matter for the police.

We need to take action in the cultural sphere, we need to build a real social structure against the mafia, one that will take on the great burdens of social unrest and unemployment, and we also need to take action in the political sphere. In recent years the mafia and transnational criminal organisations have infiltrated the public administration and politics. This is no coincidence, and I would like to conclude by mentioning the fact that, for example, the president of my region is under investigation for relations with organised crime and the mafia.

I would like to conclude by endorsing the paragraph in the Newton Dunn report that calls for monitoring of the activities of those administrations that have been infiltrated by organised crime and the mafia.

  Petre Popeangă, în numele grupului ITS. – Demersul deputatului Newton Dunn privind recomandarea pe care Parlamentul European urmează să o adreseze Consiliului în legătură cu elaborarea unui concept strategic privind lupta împotriva criminalităţii organizate este unul deosebit prin necesitatea şi utilitatea unui astfel de instrument în această perioadă în care criminalitatea organizată, în special criminalitatea economico-financiară, a căpătat valenţe noi, din ce în ce mai rafinate. Pornind de la această stare de fapt, în prezent lupta împotriva criminalităţii organizate nu mai poate fi continuată utilizând instrumente clasice, fiind necesară, aşa cum se remarca şi în motivaţia raportului, citez, „o schimbare radicală de perspectivă, care să permită soluţionarea constrângerilor interne din ce în ce mai complexe şi, în acelaşi timp, rezolvarea dificultăţilor aferente constrângerilor externe aflate în creştere exponenţială.” La aceste obiective consider, însă, că trebuie adăugat şi faptul că numai o schimbare de optică sau de program, oricât de judicios ar fi elaborată, nu va da rezultate dacă nu se asigură un mediu de stabilitate care să confere voinţa politică necesară realizării practice a acestora. Aceasta, voinţa, ar trebui canalizată în primul rând spre asigurarea funcţionalităţii independente şi eficiente a structurilor statului, desemnate să realizeze controlul modului de derulare a activităţilor susceptibile de a face obiectul operaţiunilor care intră sub incidenţa legilor criminalităţii organizate. În sfârşit, consider că un capitol separat din conceptul strategic ar trebui să fie consacrat acelor state, membre mai noi sau mai vechi ale Uniunii Europene, în care stabilitatea politică este deseori perturbată de acţiuni mai mult sau mai puţin democratice, stare de care structurile crimei organizate nu ezită să profite din plin. În ceea ce mă priveşte, voi vota propunerea de rezoluţie cu toată convingerea.

  Jim Allister (NI), – Madam President, I want to focus on something we might all take for granted, namely that in the EU one would expect every member of any form of government in the EU to wholeheartedly support the Europe-wide fight against organised crime and terrorism. Considering the antecedents of some of those recently admitted into the new government in my country, Northern Ireland, the irony of the welcome call in this report for the Council of Ministers to monitor the governmental activities of institutions at regional level whose members include political figures with links to criminal organisations is not lost upon me, especially in a week in which the Deputy First Minister in my country, Martin McGuinness, protested at the use of the European arrest warrant to seek the extradition to Germany of a person wanted in connection with an IRA bombing charge, and during a week in which his policing spokesman condemned arrests in Northern Ireland in an organised crime investigation in which a leading Irish Republican figure has now been charged.

If you genuinely support the rule of law, then you do not attack and protest against the means of securing international justice and you do not protest against operations attacking organised crime. But if shamefully, as in Northern Ireland, you are a Sinn Féin minister, then your first loyalty is still not to the rule of law, but to protecting the interests of the republican movement. Little wonder some of us still regard Sinn Féin as unfit for government.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE-DE). – (PT) Madam Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to begin by congratulating Mr Newton Dunn on his outstanding report. I am not as sharply critical of the situation as he is. I feel that there have been some positive contributions in the last 30 years in the area of police and judicial cooperation in Europe.

I do agree with him, though, when he highlights the significant difference between the mobility of criminal networks, which are taking advantage of border-free Europe, and the level of intervention of the law enforcement authorities, which fall under the jurisdiction of the Member State in question.

This is a contradiction that cannot be resolved. There are some who, wrongly, advocate restricting freedom and movement and who seek to reinstate national borders. This conundrum, however, can only be resolved with more and better collaboration, and more and better cooperation on the basis of shared procedures and basic harmonisation of legal standards.

What we need, as Mr Frattini correctly said, is to increase knowledge of the phenomenon of organised crime, which is becoming more and more sophisticated. We need to strengthen the policy of prevention in order to reduce the level of threat to our societies from organised crime. We need to derive benefit from existing legislation and to make better use of joint investigation teams, of special investigation techniques, of systematically targeting illegally acquired economic and financial resources and of the effective use of the European Arrest Warrant and the European Evidence Warrant. We must make better use of the various instruments already at our disposal, such as Europol and Eurojust, as Mr Frattini mentioned.

Madam President, I should like to finish by adding my voice to those calling on the Member States that have yet to ratify the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime, and attached protocols on the fight against the trafficking in human beings and the trafficking of immigrants, to do so at the earliest opportunity.

  Adina-Ioana Vălean (ALDE). – Madam President, we have committed ourselves to creating in Europe an area of freedom, security and justice with no internal borders. However, we are often reminded that criminals and terrorists do not recognise borders. They take advantage of the lack of borders and are fully in command of the new means of travel and communications.

On the other hand, our law enforcement agencies still have to face enormous administrative burdens that hinder their efficiency. It is now our responsibility to take all the necessary steps to adapt means and methods to the new realities. We must overcome the lack of mutual trust among law enforcement agencies, increase cross-border cooperation, intensify joint training and work together.

I believe, however, that the Union must pay greater attention to its external borders and its neighbourhood policy. Since the recent enlargements, enforcing strong external borders has become a wider challenge. Some of the new EU border countries do not have the appropriate resources to tackle the phenomenon of organised crime. Corruption must be tackled with as much energy as we bring to the fight against organised crime and terrorism.

The EU must recognise the situation and provide additional human resources and financial means, as well as sharing its know-how. We must adopt a comprehensive and specific approach built on transparency and anti-corruption measures. Our citizens need a safer world and more security, but this should not be at the expense of our civil liberties. We need more safeguards to ensure the balance of rights in our democracies, which means more parliamentary oversight of security activities and a high level of protection of privacy. This is why, once again, I urge the Council to adopt the framework decision on data protection under the third pillar as soon as possible. We have all waited too long.

  President. – Commissioner Frattini has informed us that he will not intervene again.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow, Thursday, at 12 noon.

Written statements (Rule 142)

  Marianne Mikko (PSE), in writing. – (ET) Ladies and gentlemen, Europol’s latest danger analysis speaks of criminal markets. Indeed, the criminal world is no less dynamic, complex or adaptable than any other sector of the market economy. Resources go where their productivity is greatest. There is an international competition for markets, in which foreign gangs have in some cases displaced local gangs.

The newest technologies, the growth in the transport and finance sectors and the elimination of internal borders are being used against us. Our own sluggishness is also being used against the lawful order.

Less and less crime remains solely within the boundaries of one country, yet the European Union’s internal security cooperation is still limited to the framework set by the third pillar.

Freedom of movement within Europe is a genuine gift to criminals. Physical boundaries have disappeared, but administrative barriers remain.

Europol and Eurojust need autonomy and respectable budgets. These things should not be bargained over any longer, and the same applies to Parliament’s right of supervision.

I concur with the rapporteur and Europol concerning the need considerably to strengthen research and analytical activity and to refocus. In addition to traditional surveillance, we need more analysis ‘from above’ which would make it possible to discover illegal activities in such vulnerable sectors as finance, taxation and government business.

Our greatest unused resource, however, is cooperation among citizens. Only indifference makes forced prostitution and the drug trade possible. Only democratic fatigue permits corrupt politicians to return to power.

Citizens’ faith in the effectiveness of police and the fairness of the courts can only be based on real achievements, which are only amplified by communication. I would like to thank the rapporteur and call for us to move from words to deeds.

  Sebastiano (Nello) Musumeci (UEN), in writing. – (IT) The phenomenon of organised crime in Europe, along the lines of the mafia or similar groups, is taking root and spreading rapidly in the ‘Old Continent’.

This is a worrying phenomenon where criminals profit from the free movement of persons and economic and financial movements within the European Union in order to expand their own illegal activities more and more, including in countries outside the EU.

These activities include arms and waste smuggling (including radioactive waste), drugs trafficking, the sexual exploitation of women and children, trafficking in human tissues (the cases discovered and reported a few days ago in Ukraine are tragic examples of what is currently taking place) and illicit operations involving animals and artworks.

The Newton Dunn report points out, among many other things, the role played to date by Europol and Eurojust – the only available Community instruments – in the fight against organised crime, underlining some results that have been achieved but deploring their lack of genuine autonomy.

On this point, I would like to advance once again my proposal, which was addressed to the Commission and the Council back in February 2004, to create a European monitoring centre on organised crime with the aim of reducing the discrepancies in the sanctions existing in the various legal systems of the individual Member States, discrepancies that Mr Newton Dunn has taken the timely step of pointing out.

16. Common organisation of agricultural markets (debate)

  President. – The next item is the report by Niels Busk, on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, on the proposal for a Council regulation establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products [COM(2006)0822 – C6-0045/2007 – 2006/0269(CNS)] (A6-0171/2007).

  Benita Ferrero-Waldner, Member of the Commission. Madam President, I want to start by thanking Parliament, the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, and the rapporteur, Mr Busk, for the swift and constructive way the proposal was dealt with.

Secondly, on behalf of Mrs Fischer-Boel, I am grateful for the political support you are giving to the proposal. I also greatly appreciate the positive thrust of the Committee on Agriculture’s report. We are discussing a very specific subject: the European Parliament’s opinion on the single common market organisation, or CMO.

Simplification in the field of agriculture is one of the flagships of the Commission. This text is different from most Commission proposals in the area of the CAP. Why? With the single CMO we want to make an important step towards simplifying and improving the legislative framework of the common agricultural policy. I know that it has become popular to talk about simplification and better regulation. This proposal shows very clearly what these terms can mean in practice. The single CMO will merge all 21 CMOs into one text. It will replace more than 40 Council regulations and almost 620 articles and it will reduce the number of articles and pages in the Official Journal by more than two thirds.

Apart from such merely quantitative parameters, the single CMO will make our market legislation more homogenous and consistent, in other words more easily accessed and read and thus better understood and applied. According to the Presidency’s planning, this proposal will be discussed at the meeting of the Special Committee for Agriculture on 29 May and 4 June and probably on 11 June in the Council. Let me also at this stage thank Parliament for helping make this early decision possible.

From time to time the Commission is told that the single CMO is not enough to make our farmers’ lives easier. I fully agree. It takes more than one legislative text to achieve real simplification. That is why the single CMO is only one element, even though a very important one, of several components of simplification strategy in agriculture. Other components, as you will recall, include the Commission’s cross-compliance report, which will have a real impact on farmers’ lives once its proposals are implemented, the simplification action plan, currently with 37 practical measures, which agriculture is busy implementing, and the health check, which will also be targeted at further simplifying the CAP.

But back to the CMO. As I have already said, on behalf of the Commission, I appreciate the positive tone of the report and I will therefore be able to accept a number of amendments set out in the Committee on Agriculture report. But you will not be surprised that I have some serious difficulties with some of the proposed amendments because I believe they would unnecessarily reduce the proposal’s impact. I would like to mention two points of particular importance.

First there is the request to keep two areas entirely out of the single CMO until they are reformed: fruit and vegetables and wine. I do not share this view but I could accept incorporation of their substantive parts only after the reform processes are over.

The second point concerns the set-up of the management committee. The Committee on Agriculture report recommends four subsections. This would in our view be in contradiction with the single CMO and make the new committee unnecessarily inflexible. But I can assure you that the Commission is determined to organise the meetings of the single committee in such a way as to include the necessary expertise and take account of the specificities of the sectors concerned.

Thank you for your attention at this late hour. I am looking forward to the discussion.