Verbatim report of proceedings

Wednesday, 26 September 2007 - Strasbourg

1. Opening of the sitting

IN THE CHAIR: RODI KRATSA-TSAGAROPOULOU
Vice-President

(The sitting was opened at 9 a.m.)

  President. – Honourable Members, good morning! Today, 26 September, is the European Day of Languages. We have a duty to remind people here at the European Parliament, the temple of languages, of the importance of this day for the philosophy and the substance of the European Union, and the work we carry out to achieve a multicultural Europe, where distinctive features, cultures and the spirit of our peoples are respected.

  Josu Ortuondo Larrea (ALDE). – (ES) Madam President, many thanks for allowing me to speak. Today we are celebrating the European Day of Languages, and I wish to echo the feelings of many citizens of the Spanish state who fail to comprehend why they are discriminated against by the European Parliament’s Bureau, since Catalans, Galicians and Basques like myself, citizens’ representatives, are not permitted to use our languages in Parliament.

Unlike the Commission, the Council and the Committee of the Regions, where the people’s representatives may express themselves in these coofficial languages, the Bureau refuses to accept Basque, Catalan or Gallego, which are coofficial languages in the Spanish state.

Madam President …

(The speaker spoke in Basque)

  President. – Mr Ortuondo, the Presidency will seek information on this matter, even though it is something that we have discussed many times and the answers are well known.

2. Immigration - Legal migration - Policy priorities in the fight against illegal immigration of third-country nationals (debate)

  President. – The next item is the joint debate on

- the statements by the Council and the Commission on immigration,

- the report by Mrs Lilli Gruber, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, on the policy plan on legal migration [2006/2251(INI)] (A6-0322/2007) and

- the report by Mr Javier Moreno Sánchez, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, on policy priorities in the fight against illegal immigration of third-country nationals [2006/2250(INI)] (A6-0323/2007).

  Manuel Lobo Antunes, President-in-Office of the Council. − (PT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union is still facing considerable challenges in terms of its response to the changing migration situation.

The Global Approach to Migration, which was adopted by the European Council in December 2005, still forms the basic framework for defining the response to these challenges. On adopting the Global Approach, the European Council underlined the need for a balanced, global and coherent approach, covering policies to combat illegal immigration and, in cooperation with third countries, harness the benefits of legal migration. Implementing the Global Approach has been an essential priority for successive presidencies.

The Global Approach to Migration has not remained static but has been refined and developed by the European Council in light of events and progress made in its implementation. It is now integrated within the comprehensive migration policy of the European Union.

At its meeting of 21 and 22 June this year, the European Council adopted conclusions on the expansion and reinforcement of the Global Approach. These conclusions in particular provide for the application of the Global Approach to neighbouring regions to the east and south-east of the EU and for the development of partnerships between the European Union and third countries in terms of circular migration and mobility.

The importance of implementing the Global Approach was highlighted by events in the summer and in particular by those events which occurred on the EU’s southern maritime borders. As we continue to apply the Global Approach, the measures to be taken must include both measures to fight illegal immigration and measures to develop opportunities for legal migration.

The Council has tried to make headway with these two inseparable objectives. At its meeting in June it discussed the situation at the southern Mediterranean borders. It reaffirmed the importance of the role that Frontex must play and decided to carry out new work in light of suggestions made by Malta. This work was carried out and resulted in the adoption, at the Council meeting of 18 September, of conclusions on reinforcing the management of the EU’s southern maritime borders. Some of these conclusions call for urgent action to strengthen current measures and existing arrangements. The Member States are encouraged to give bilateral support to those Member States facing exceptional pressure in terms of illegal immigration due to their geographical situation and the level of cooperation with neighbouring third countries. This cooperation will cover, for example, return measures, reception conditions, responsibilities for asylum seekers, refugees and minors.

The conclusions also highlight the need to strengthen cooperation in this area with third countries of origin and transit, particularly in terms of managing their own borders, assuming their responsibility for search and rescue operations, fighting human trafficking and smuggling, and building an effective framework for returning illegal immigrants.

Emphasis has been put on the need for close cooperation with international organisations such as the UNHCR (Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees) and the IOM (International Organisation for Migration). Another essential element is the attempt to reinforce the activities of Frontex, notably by setting up long-term joint operations and expanding activities within the European Coastal Patrol Network.

As regards long-term measures, the Council has invited the Commission to present a report on possible additional measures together with an in-depth analysis of certain proposals made by Malta, a study of the relevant parts of maritime law and a commitment, within the ongoing debate on the Commission’s Green Paper on the Common European Asylum System, to the creation of specialist asylum teams.

Frontex’s role in ensuring the effective control by Member States of the EU’s external borders is becoming increasingly important. As you know, Frontex only began operating in October 2005, but in the relatively short time since then it has developed its operational capacity and taken important steps aimed at reinforcing the security of the European Union’s external borders by focusing on the fight against illegal immigration. Various joint operations coordinated by Frontex have been conducted and others are ongoing in the Atlantic and Mediterranean. A particularly important moment was the launch, in May this year, of the European Coastal Patrol Network, which in the long term will integrate the future European monitoring system.

Another significant event was the adoption by the Council in July of this year and the entry into force on 20 August of the Regulation establishing a mechanism for the creation of Rapid Border Intervention Teams, known as RABITs. The Regulation establishes a mechanism for the provision of rapid operational assistance for a limited period of time to a requesting Member State facing a situation of exceptional and urgent pressure, especially due to the arrival at external border points of large numbers of third-country nationals trying to enter the European Union illegally.

Frontex is currently in the process of implementing this Regulation. However, for the operations coordinated by Frontex to be effective, it is crucial that appropriate equipment be available. In accordance with the Frontex Regulation, Frontex has set up a centralised record of available technical equipment, known as CRATE. This record already contains an extensive list of helicopters, aircraft, vessels and other equipment which the Member States are ready to make available for operations coordinated by Frontex.

In terms of legislative measures aimed at illegal immigration, the competent Council bodies have already begun analysing the proposal of for a directive of this Parliament and the Council laying down sanctions against employers of third-country nationals in an irregular situation. This proposal, aimed at fighting illegal employment as a factor for attracting illegal immigration, was presented by the Commission in May 2007.

Using the codecision procedure in order to rapidly reach agreement, the Council has also given high priority to the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and Council on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals. This is currently being analysed by the competent Council bodies.

In terms of the readmission policy, it should be mentioned that, following the entry into force in June of the readmission agreement with Russia, a decision to sign the readmission agreement with Ukraine has already been made and a series of readmission agreements with the Western Balkan countries and Moldova have been signed. All these agreements will be finalised once the European Parliament delivers its opinion.

I should now like to say a few words on the policy plan on legal migration. As you know, the Council and the Portuguese Presidency are also prioritising the promotion of legal migration. A high-level conference dedicated to the issue of legal migration was organised in Lisbon by the Presidency on 13 and 14 September. This brought together ministers, senior officials and renowned academics as well as representatives of this Parliament and the Commission. This conference tackled the issues of legal migration, such as legal migration channels and the management of migration flows, integration and the Lisbon Agenda, and migration and development. The results of this conference will be very important in steering our work over the next few months.

The Council will also shortly start work on proposals for a framework directive on the rights of migrants legally residing in a Member State in order to work and creating a single residence permit, and for a directive on the conditions of entry and residence of highly qualified workers, which we hope the Commission will present in the next few weeks. These two proposals, together with others which will be presented over the next few years, constitute the next steps in the policy plan on legal migration presented by the Commission in January 2006.

The Council has already started analysing the proposed Council directive amending Directive 2003/109/EC in order to extend its scope to beneficiaries of international protection. The aim of this proposal is to extend to beneficiaries of international protection the possibility of obtaining long-term resident status. The Council is just waiting for Parliament’s opinion so that this draft instrument can be quickly adopted.

On external relations in the area of migration, I must inform you that the Council has actively pursued the implementation of the Global Approach to Migration, as defined by the European Council in its conclusions of December 2005 and 2006. Your attention is also drawn to the conclusions on the expansion and reinforcement of the Global Approach to Migration, adopted by the Council in June. In December 2006 the European Council invited the Commission: to make proposals on how to apply the Global Approach to the eastern and south-eastern regions neighbouring the European Union; to propose ways of integrating opportunities for legal migration into the EU’s external policies in order to develop a balanced partnership with third countries suited to the specific needs of the labour market in the Member States; to suggest ways and means of facilitating temporary circular migration; and to present detailed proposals on how to better organise and provide information about the various forms of legal movement between the European Union and third countries.

The Commission presented two communications in response to these invitations and, following the adoption of these Commission communications, the Presidency presented draft conclusions to the Council aimed at initiating work on the actions identified by the Commission.

The Euromed Ministerial Conference on Migration will be held in November. The aim of this Conference is to develop initiatives and actions for implementing migration-related issues. In addition, special attention has also been paid to Africa by pursuing and intensifying the dialogue on migration-related issues that began in 2005 with the African countries. Priority has also been given to monitoring the Ministerial Conferences on Migration and Development held in Rabat in July 2006 and in Tripoli in November 2006. These Ministerial Conferences, the first being regional and the second continental, identified a series of areas in which cooperation may be reinforced between migrants’ countries of origin, transit and destination.

The Council is actively working in this area in order to translate the joint programmes agreed at Rabat and Tripoli into concrete measures.

  Franco Frattini, Vice-President of the Commission. − (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I am most grateful to the representative of the Council for his description of the broad outlines of our joint action, and I should particularly like to thank the two rapporteurs, Mrs Gruber and Mr Moreno Sánchez, for the two reports we are discussing and commenting on today.

One initial observation is of course how far Europe has come in so little time, in other words a note of optimism. We all remember that, until the Hampton Court summit of October 2005, there were even doubts that Europe could have a common strategy on immigration. Today, not only is this a watchword for all of us, but we are already implementing certain initiatives that have been decided on and have begun to bear real fruit.

This demonstrates that Europe has a role to play in managing the global, unstoppable phenomenon of migration; national action by the Member States is no longer sufficient. It also shows that European action is advantageous for Europe itself, for the Member States and for all of our partners, both those to the south – mainly the African countries – and also our eastern neighbours, because, as we have been reminded, the Commission proposed extending the global approach eastwards, that is, to migration flows coming from the east. The Council was in full agreement.

We regularly speak about a global approach. We all now agree that this means creating an absolutely inextricable link between the external dimension and internal immigration policies. We cannot confine ourselves to governing immigration solely within our territory; we must deal with the underlying causes of immigration, which, even today, is overwhelmingly made up of desperate people fleeing persecution, poverty or war, who have no choice whether to leave their own country or stay there. They have to abandon their homeland in order to survive.

It is therefore clear that the underlying causes of immigration cannot be tackled purely through an approach based on security, for all that patrolling the Mediterranean has been, and will continue to be, essential to protect the area around the Canary Islands. This cannot be our only strategy, and we must certainly take up a demand being made by the EU Member States: to govern legal migration. That is one of the best ways to combat illegal immigration.

The greater our capacity to govern economic migration, which we must do, the more we shall minimise that grey, nebulous layer of illegal immigration. That is why I wish to begin by speaking about legal migration, which we discussed at an important meeting in Lisbon a few days ago. We talked about prospects for the future, and I gained the impression – which I hope this House will confirm – that there is positive political momentum for looking at economic migration in a non-ideological manner.

Quite frankly, we must do this in the knowledge that we need non-Community workers, and in the knowledge that we must not scaremonger by bandying about huge figures that could give the wrong kind of impression. Some observers and even some major newspaper articles have said: ‘we are prepared to take in 20 million regular migrants’. Such figures are frankly dangerous. It is one thing to point out an obvious demographic trend: Europe is ageing and the number of European workers will fall as a result of demographic decline; it is another thing to dream up as of now figures that might be the right answer in 50 years’ time.

Let us therefore govern all the facets of this phenomenon, beginning with demographic decline in Europe. The second facet, however, is to implement the objectives of the Lisbon Strategy in terms of the European economy’s competitiveness and attractiveness. To do this, we need manpower in all those sectors which, one might say, seem to have been somewhat abandoned by many of our fellow citizens of Europe. The third factor is that immigration cannot be the only means of tackling demographic decline.

We must not forget, for example, that while speaking about immigration from non-Community countries, we still maintain barriers to the free movement of Community workers. Some of our fellow European citizens do not have full freedom to work in all other EU countries. This is known in technical jargon as ‘Community preference’, but it must be explained through political action and not with a bureaucratic term. It means that Europe will enjoy real mobility of labour only once the barriers have been torn down for our fellow European workers, and I am of course referring to those from the new Member States. This, then, is another element to be taken into account.

The fourth facet entails refusing to consider demographic decline as something to which we must surrender, saying ‘never mind, workers are coming from Africa’. Our demographic decline, like our future, must be a cause for concern. That is why, for instance, measures to assist families and the birth rate among Europeans are just as important in this context as governing the phenomenon of immigration from outside Europe.

Naturally we are adopting initiatives to achieve all of this, and some have already been adopted in the field of immigration. I can tell you that we are launching the call for tenders for the European Immigration Portal. I hope the call for tenders will be complete within a few months, red tape permitting, and that it will enable us to have Europe's first unified Immigration Portal. The portal will provide access to job opportunities, offers, searches, sectors where there is a demand for labour, and so on and so forth. It will greatly enhance Europe's capability in this area.

The European Integration Fund is a reality at last. We have discussed this on other occasions, and you have expressed your support for it. I have to say that the Council has slightly cut back the financial envelope I originally proposed, but it is at least up and running. We have almost €1 billion to tackle this major component of our migration strategy. There can be no immigration without integration. The European Fund now exists. We are financing language and vocational training courses in countries of origin. This is another of the preconditions for governing economic migration: if those who arrive here do not have the vocational training that we require in this sector or that, or do not speak the languages of the countries where they work, they are condemned to social isolation and we do not want that. The European Union is already funding initiatives in this area.

As you probably know, the Commission will be adopting two legislative initiatives at my proposal within the next few days. The Council representative has referred to these. They will both be directives, rather innovative ones, the first of them relating to highly skilled workers. It will certainly not be devoted to the numbers game: how many engineers are needed in Italy or how many doctors are needed in Belgium. Such matters will be decided jointly by the governments and labour markets of the countries concerned. What interests us is making Europe more attractive than competitors such as the United States, Canada and Australia, which attract 95% of highly skilled non-European workers – those from African and Asian countries – when Europe as a whole is only capable of attracting 5%. That is too few!

The idea of a European ‘Blue Card’ work permit is this: a highly skilled worker needed in a certain country obtains, after a certain period of time, the right to move to another European Union country – where he has a job, of course – without any complicated formalities or procedures. That person is entitled to return to his own country if he so wishes, and then to come back to Europe again after another period of time, if he so wishes. This kind of circular migration can also prevent a permanent brain drain from countries of origin.

The second directive, on common rights for economic migrants, will naturally be equally important, since we shall have work permits and residence permits in a single document for the first time. The person enters Europe to work. I am obviously not talking about asylum seekers or family reunification; I am talking about people who enter Europe to work: economic migrants. There should in principle be no split between residence and work, and this type of document must be transparent.

Clearly, this will bring about a harmonisation of rights. In some Member States the right to medical care is not comprehensively guaranteed, while in others it is. The proposal to be put by the Commission to the Council and Parliament will of course leave it up to Member States to go beyond the existing level if, for example, some national systems are already more favourable. We obviously do not expect a more virtuous country to reduce its level of rights, but we are saying that less virtuous ones must raise the level of their entitlements to social, educational, medical and other services.

In 2008 I shall put forward proposals regarding other categories of migrant workers: seasonal workers, those who attend paid training courses, and so-called ‘intracorporate’ transfers. If for example a firm has offices in various European cities, the idea is to facilitate movement within that same firm without starting the procedures from scratch in every country. It will then, of course, be the turn of unskilled workers: the largest category, for which a good deal of exploratory work is still needed. Rather than formulating a legislative proposal as of now, I prefer to put forward options, or open-ended proposals – which I will do early next year – with a view to gathering comments and suggestions before formulating the best possible proposal. We are talking not about limited groups here, but about the overwhelming majority of those who come to Europe without any vocational training. Many aspects need to be addressed in this respect.

One key aspect – and I am citing Mrs Gruber's report – is of course cooperation with countries of origin to prevent a brain drain. I am particularly concerned about this aspect. As I have already said, the idea of circular migration is intended precisely for this purpose: to avoid sapping energy on a permanent basis. Cooperation with certain countries in sub-Saharan Africa has already begun, for example, specifically in order to assess how best to handle the most highly skilled workers who work in Europe for a while and then go back home, where they can be employed and deployed for the benefit of their country of origin.

This is an open dialogue that I plan to conduct vigorously over the next few months, partly thanks to the strong support that I am receiving from the current Portuguese Presidency, as I did from previous presidencies. We have a great opportunity in this regard. We have two ministerial summits coming up: the Euro-Mediterranean summit already referred to, and the summit of EU and African leaders. I hope and believe that this summit will enable us to make progress, because I naturally expect the heads of government at the Europe-Africa summit to adopt a genuine declaration of partnership between Europe and Africa on immigration, mobility and employment.

If this happens, I believe that we will have taken a major step forward, partly because, as agreed with the Portuguese Presidency, the proposal that we discussed under the German Presidency, with the Federal Republic’s Employment Minister and Minister of the Interior, will now go forward to the first joint Council of Interior and Employment Ministers. At the beginning of December, for the first time, tangible political action will be taken to bring together the various elements of our migration strategy: no longer just security, but also the economic and employment element which is so very important for all the reasons I have given.

Cooperation agreements with countries of origin are another issue. The Commission has started to take action with certain countries on an experimental basis in this area. Briefly, we have drawn up country profiles. Every country is different from the next one, and we cannot govern the flow of migration from Mali in the same way as that from Senegal. Each country has its own profile and must be regarded as distinct.

Having done that, we offer partnership opportunities as part of an overall agreement. We have simply called these ‘cooperation platforms’. They are agreements with a platform of topics to be agreed upon: jointly combating human trafficking, because human trafficking begins in the country of origin; thus, stamping out the corruption that protects this trafficking in human beings, as well as managing job opportunities by providing information and offering vocational and language training. We have opened the first job centre in Bamako, the capital of Mali, with European funding. We have also said that we will provide information about European laws, job opportunities and training courses in that centre. Indeed, we are already doing so. Mali is the first country to have expressed interest, and we have already mounted this initiative with it. We want to do the same thing with other countries as and when they approach us.

As far as integration in concerned, let me state very briefly that integration is a vital part of migration policy, and obviously the Fund will be used for all policies geared to the social inclusion of those who respect our rules. Finally, illegal immigration also forms part of our political strategy. I know, and am pleased, that the LIBE Committee has approved Mr Weber's report on the European repatriation policy. We shall discuss this in the future, but it is important too.

Combating illegal immigration means not encouraging undeclared employment, which attracts illegal labour. As you know, a growing percentage of immigrants in Europe are losing their jobs. This is a major cause for concern. Initially there was work for many people – seasonal work, farming, tourism, public works – whereas now there is a regrettable surge in unemployment. What are we to do with these people who lose their jobs?

Therefore, let us not encourage illegal employment: let us punish employers who profit from illegal immigrants; let us guarantee a repatriation policy that is respectful of fundamental human rights but is also very clear and very firm as to our goals. We cannot tolerate unlawfulness and repeated instances of unlawful conduct.

The European agency Frontex has helped to halt thousands of illegal immigrants. This summer alone it saved more than 1 200 people who would otherwise have perished, as have so many others, and we owe a debt of gratitude to the crews of the vessels, aircraft and helicopters engaged in Frontex missions. However, Frontex has also been able to reduce the flow of illegal immigrants in the areas it patrols. It has been, is, and will remain a key tool in this global approach.

I shall conclude, Madam President, by saying that immigration will be part of our workload for the next few decades, not for the next few months. It is therefore a good thing that Europe realises it has an excellent opportunity to be a player on the world stage in this sphere as in others.

  Lilli Gruber, rapporteur. – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, immigration is neither an emergency nor a passing phenomenon. There were 18 and a half million migrants in the EU27 in 2006. There are many reasons, as you know: wars, poverty, environmental disasters and ruthless dictatorships in many regions of the world. The European Union is one of the world’s major players, so it must stop procrastinating and draw up structural policies to meet this challenge that involves us all. We will get nowhere alone!

Much has been done in the battle against illegal immigration, but it is not enough. The principal way to combat illegal immigration is to open up legal channels for entry into the European Union. These are two sides of the same coin, and that is why Javier Moreno Sánchez and I have decided to present our reports together.

Our economies could no longer function without migrant workers, and without their social security contributions our welfare system would be paralysed, threatened as it is by the plummeting birth rate. Eurostat’s figures are perfectly plain: in 2050 a third of the 490 million Europeans will be aged over 65. The Commission’s 2005 action plan was an important step forward because it set out practical proposals for opening up legal migration channels in a uniform manner at EU level. Obviously the individual Member States are responsible for laying down entry quotas.

Of the five directives that you are to propose in the forthcoming months, Commissioner Frattini, our priority is the one guaranteeing a common framework of rights for migrants. I wish you all the best, because we all know that the negotiations in the Council will certainly not be straightforward, but Parliament will be right behind you. That is one reason why we need to switch to codecision and abolish the right of veto in the Council.

My report was adopted unanimously in the LIBE Committee, apart from one vote against, and I am extremely grateful to my colleagues from other groups for their staunch support. In the report we ask for consistent and reliable statistics to be made available at EU level. One cannot legislate on immigration without knowing its true scope; without hard figures it can easily become a propaganda tool.

This phenomenon needs to be addressed without demagogy, without populism and without taboos. I therefore believe that it is crucial for politicians and journalists to show a greater sense of responsibility when dealing with such a sensitive topic. Both groups, as you know, play a key part in the integration process.

Integration is a two-way process of rights and duties for both parties, and active participation by immigrants in the economic, social and political life of the host country is of the essence. I agree with you, Mr Frattini, when you refer to the principle of equal treatment as concerns socio-economic rights, because fundamental rights include equal pay and safety at work, but also the recognition of qualifications, transferability of pension rights, family reunification and guaranteeing women a legal status independent of their spouse.

Concerning the directive on highly skilled workers, the so-called Blue Card may well be an excellent means of attracting professionals whom Europe very much needs. We should in any event like to know a little more about this Blue Card, Commissioner, given that today – as you have recalled – only 5% of immigrant workers are highly skilled, as opposed to 95% who are unskilled.

The directive on seasonal workers should make up for shortcomings in the rights of this last group of workers, and I believe that the seasonal workers who obey the rules should be offered the possibility of priority access to other forms of temporary and permanent immigration. However, Mr Frattini, open-ended proposals or options, as you called them, on low-skilled and unskilled migrants are all very well, but how long must we wait before we get a directive in this area? My question is directed primarily towards the Council.

My time has run out, ladies and gentlemen. We would call on the governments and the Council to be more realistic and more courageous. A responsible policy is needed to counter the fears and uncertainties of our increasingly uneasy societies. There are no sealed borders and we are not being invaded by immigrants! Immigration is a necessity, and if handled judiciously it can be an asset for a civil society that is respectful of difference.

(Applause)

  Javier Moreno Sánchez, rapporteur. – (ES) Madam President, Mr Vice-President of the Commission, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mrs Gruber, ladies and gentlemen, imagining the future of Europe and of our societies with no immigration in the age of globalisation is a departure from reality. Immigration is necessary and positive for the EU’s demographic stability, economic growth and cultural diversity.

What we need are legal immigrant workers with rights and obligations, not slaves. The development and success of a legal immigration policy largely depend on a constant fight against the other side of the coin: illegal immigration.

Managing and controlling these illegal migratory flows surpass the capacity for individual action by the Member States, and there can be no doubt that this is the most delicate aspect of the common general immigration policy that must be developed by the European Union.

Recent social and economic imbalances, international conflicts and climate change will increase illegal flows to the EU. The flows move faster than our political response, and they will not stop of their own accord. We have to take action now.

We welcome and support the Commission’s approach. It is essential for the development of a more coherent and effective policy by the Member States based on full respect for human dignity and fundamental rights, in a spirit of solidarity, shared responsibility, transparency and mutual trust.

First, we must have secure land, air and sea borders through integrated surveillance and monitoring, and here Frontex and RABIT are the path we must take: the path towards shared responsibility and solidarity.

Ladies and gentlemen, Frontex works. Where operations have been carried out, lives have been saved and illegal immigration substantially reduced. Illegal immigrants have had to seek out other routes, as has been observed recently in Spain and Italy.

However, Frontex is a new-born infant, a child of the EU that can only grow up and carry out its function with support from its parents, the Member States, whom we would ask to make good their undertakings by supplying the human and logistics resources required.

Furthermore, it is essential to establish, as a deterrent, a European return policy with full respect for human rights and to work on drawing up readmission agreements with third countries. We wish to see a return directive adopted during the Portuguese Presidency.

Ladies and gentlemen, we need political courage and desire to tackle the greatest attraction of illegal immigration: illegal employment. We must win the battle against the mafias and unscrupulous entrepreneurs who exploit illegal immigrants. It is a business that involves enormous amounts of hidden interests and money, and this requires a firm and energetic response.

We must, as you said, Mr Vice-President, apply zero tolerance to illegal employment in order to reduce the underground economy that creates the ‘call effect’. The psychological dimension is obvious. If there is no chance of working illegally in the EU, there are fewer incentives for emigrating to it.

We also wish to ask the Member States to take decisive action with adequate financial resources to combat the trafficking of human beings through judicial and police cooperation, paying particular attention to the most vulnerable – women and children – and ensuring that they have access to health care and education.

External action requires dialogue and close cooperation with the countries of origin and transit. We must continue along the path initiated at the Ministerial Conferences held in Rabat and Tripoli and the Brussels World Forum, placing the emphasis on the link between immigration and development.

We must make immigration a factor of development in the countries of origin and the host countries, and ensure that we use codevelopment to jointly tackle the deeper causes of illegal immigration.

We must also maximise the positive impact of funds sent back by immigrants as regards development in their respective countries and explore the potential of micro-credit.

Moreover, we must have a coherent external policy to ensure the compatibility of trade objectives and development aid so that less-developed countries can export their products and do not have to export their own nationals.

Ladies and gentlemen, I would not wish to end my speech without extending my thanks to all the rapporteurs, with whom I enjoyed close positive cooperation, as reflected in the broad consensus achieved in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs.

Let us make no mistake, ladies and gentlemen, we must fight illegal immigration and tackle its causes and channels, but we do not have to fight illegal immigrants, for they are not criminals: emigrating is not a crime. We must put an end to the populist xenophobic discourse that associates immigration with insecurity, crime, terrorism or unemployment. No one emigrates on a whim: it is always out of necessity. Let us act to eliminate this necessity and transform it into a personal choice.

(Applause)

  Manolis Mavrommatis (PPE-DE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Development. – (EL) Madam President, first of all I would like to congratulate Lilli Gruber and Javier Moreno Sánchez on the excellent work that they have done and the cooperation we have enjoyed together in drawing up the two reports.

The settled position of the EU Commission is for a genuine common immigration policy to be adopted by the 27 Member States. Immigration is indissolubly linked with development and, given the demographic problem faced by the EU today, legal immigration is now a part of the solution to many of Europe’s problems, instead of being just one more problem.

The opportunity of issuing an opinion allowed us at the Committee on Development, in the role of the European Parliament, to safeguard equal rights for both genders, to protect the most vulnerable groups such as female and child immigrants, as well as to provide information and language teaching to newly-arrived immigrants.

Furthermore, account was taken of the brain drain from regions of the world such as Africa where there is an acute demand for human resources in the health sector. These areas suffer each time a doctor leaves his country to seek a better future in the EU.

To this end, we welcome the Commission’s proposal to strengthen circular migration. Immigrants will thus have the possibility of returning to their home country after a period of one year and to take back to their country the knowledge and experience they have acquired in the EU Member States.

It is also vital for the Commission to provide more information on the legal framework that will cover the term ‘circular migration’. On this point I would like to thank Commissioner Franco Frattini for the sensitivity that he has shown on the subject of immigration over the last two years and for his continuing efforts to get the 27 Member States to agree on a common immigration policy.

(Applause)

  Maria Badia i Cutchet, draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Culture and Education. – (ES) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as the draftsman of the Committee on Culture and Education I have underlined the importance of considering the social, educational and cultural aspects in relation to immigration. These factors make a vital contribution to economic growth, social cohesion. It is also important to facilitate the integration of these people in the host countries, thereby reducing mutual distrust.

With regard to education, I have proposed the introduction of policies for immigrants’ access to, and integration in, the education system, with recognition of academic and professional qualifications obtained in third countries.

With a view to preventing the brain drain, we have focused on the Commission’s proposal to encourage the hiring of ethnic labour in countries where the emigration of qualified professionals could destabilise the social and economic situation.

Finally, I wish to draw attention to the importance and responsibility of the media when broadcasting information in both the countries of origin and the host countries, in order to prevent a biased view of the migration phenomenon.

  Maria Panayotopoulou-Kassiotou (PPE-DE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality. – (EL) Madam President, the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality regrets the fact that both in the communication on the draft strategy for legal migration and in the text which we are asked to vote on today very little reference has been made to the problem of the equality of women.

We therefore call on the Commission, the Member States and the various groupings of the Council with responsibilities in this area to step up their efforts. The coordination of policies for legal migration must provide for special protection to be given to the right of female migrants who suffer from double discrimination. Illegal immigration must be opposed; it promotes networks of various forms of exploitation of vulnerable men, women and children.

We stress the importance of a global approach to legal migration policies. Two-way action integration measures must be included to strengthen both acceptance by host societies and the readiness of male and female immigrants to integrate.

Women and their families contribute significantly to this, and family reunification should be facilitated by means of an independent status. We need to combat discrimination, amputations, forced marriage, polygamy, honour crimes and violence of any kind in the society of origin, and to strengthen the legal development of women’s skills.

  Joseph Daul, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (FR) Madam President, Commissioner Frattini, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, the question of immigration is a political issue of special significance because it often involves human drama. The Group of the European People’s Party and European Democrats is aware of the serious nature of this debate and our thoughts turn to the hundreds of lives lost because the victims dreamt of living in Europe. Respect for human life has to be at the forefront when we are drafting our immigration policy.

I would like to congratulate the rapporteurs for their work and Commissioner Frattini for the willingness and political determination he has shown. It is our duty to do everything we can to control the influx of migrants. The cohesion of our society, our capacity to receive immigrants and our determination to combat racism, intolerance and xenophobia are all at stake. In order to manage immigration it is vital to adopt an approach that is based on respect for human dignity, realism and a solid legal framework.

Ladies and gentlemen, when discussing the subject of immigration it is important to draw a distinction between asylum-seekers, temporary refugees and economic migrants, with the latter being by far the most numerous. Within this latter category we also have to distinguish between illegal immigration, which is the European Union’s responsibility, and legal immigration, which falls within the jurisdiction of the Member States.

We are in favour of strict measures where illegal immigration is concerned. Europe has to face up to its responsibilities and take on the scourge of the mafia gangs that are trading in human misery. We recognise that some progress has been made, such as the setting-up of the Frontex agency, the European External Borders Fund, and the creation of Rapid Border Intervention Teams to police border areas. However, this is all too little, for the manpower, material and financial resources deployed are still insufficient. We are now about to provide these instruments with the additional resources that are needed. Nevertheless, if we are to be more effective those Member States that act as guardians of our external borders have to operate using common standards. It is vital that we draw up a real Community protocol for the protection of our external borders, complete with a system of monitoring.

Our Member States are not all faced with the same problems when it comes to migratory flows. We need to be careful to distinguish between those states that act as guardians of our borders and the others. The task facing those to the south and east of the Union is enormous. Solidarity has to come into play here to maximum effect and technical, logistical and financial means have to be used to provide support to those front-line Member States that are faced with massive illegal immigration. While the fight against illegal immigration requires measures to be put in place at our external borders it also requires efforts to be mobilised within the European Union itself. Between 10 and 15 million people are currently residing illegally in our territory.

If the main guiding principle of our democracies is equality before the law, it is imperative that we adopt a policy that provides for persons who have entered the EU illegally to be systematically returned to their country of origin. The European Union must organise the return of illegal immigrants in a way that maintains the strictest respect for human rights and human dignity. We want Europe to remain a refuge for those who are fleeing persecution and for that reason we are opposed to the mass regularisation of illegal immigrants. Far from being a solution this will only give illegal migrants and those seeking to enter the EU the illusion that they will be given legal status sooner or later. Such amnesties would only perpetuate the activities of the criminal gangs that are engaged in illegal immigration and human trafficking. We very much welcome the Commission’s proposal to penalise employers who hire illegal migrants.

As regards the current situation with legal immigration, our Group believes that the commitment displayed by the country of origin to control illegal immigration should be made a condition for our negotiations with third countries. Of course the regulation of legal immigration is the responsibility of Member States, not the European Union. Nevertheless, if we are to improve efficiency and coherence in this area we need to coordinate our efforts more effectively at EU-27 level. We also need to explore the possibilities of introducing a common reception process that would enable highly qualified workers and those with certain specific skills to enter the European labour market. The proposal for a European ‘Blue Card’ should be developed and discussed further, along with the idea of a circular immigration project for unskilled workers.

Ladies and gentlemen, immigration is dependent on maintaining the right balance between a cohesive society that is strong and open to others, on the one hand, and respect for the rule of law, on the other. Far from closing our doors we want to ensure that prospective immigrants are welcomed and incorporated properly into our society, as happens in other regions of the world.

  Claudio Fava, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, please allow me to thank both of the rapporteurs for their work, which has been valuable and absolutely to the point.

I should like to begin with a picture that has been in all of our minds for some months: the photograph of 40 shipwreck survivors clinging to a tuna net in the middle of the Mediterranean for two days and two nights. In that instance, saving the fish seems to have been more important than saving the lives of those desperate people: they were not taken on board the fishing vessel that came across them. I am saying this because, as the Commissioner reminded us, we need a global but differentiated approach to the subject of immigration. It must be an approach combining balance, solidarity and – as recalled by Mrs Gruber – an absence of taboos.

Immigration cannot be regarded merely as a security issue. It is a necessary challenge for Europe; it is an aspect of integration and social development that we have to confront. Commissioner Frattini said that Europe has a part to play; we agree. Europe has a part to play, provided that it can deal with all the complexities of the issue.

In the few seconds remaining to me I should like to highlight the three fundamental principles contained in these two reports. The most effective way of stemming illegal immigration is to open up legal migration channels, as long as the migrants and the countries receiving them have reciprocal rights and obligations.

On illegal immigration, I would like to say that a principle of solidarity must be established among Member States, provided that it applies to all Member States and not just those bordering the Mediterranean. At the same time, as many of my fellow Members have already said, we must combat illegal immigration by creating conditions in the countries of origin that alleviate the causes of the deep despair from which these people are fleeing: the underlying causes mentioned by Mr Frattini.

Finally, Madam President, respect for human rights remains a necessary point of reference for our policies. The process of European integration will be strong and meaningful only if we can prevent Europe from closing its doors to immigrants.

IN THE CHAIR: MR ONESTA
Vice-President

  Graham Watson, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, what could better illustrate the need for a common European immigration policy than the case of the Tunisian fishermen? Everything about that tragic event – from the migrants on a rubber boat on the high seas, to the people smugglers who put them there and the authorities who jailed their rescuers – is testament to the failure of Europe’s approach to migration.

With every human tragedy, during a desperate do-nothing decade, Liberals and Democrats have asked one simple question: how many people must perish before governments see that lifting the drawbridge of Fortress Europe serves nobody’s interests? Managing migration is as much in our interests as in the interests of those seeking our shores or prepared to die trying. While populism has propelled a policy forged in the furnace of fear, let us face the facts.

Fact number one: over the next 20 years, Europe will lose 20 million workers – workers who staff our service industries and whose taxes fund services for our citizens.

Fact number two: national governments are deterring the people Europe needs if we are to compete – indeed, to survive – in a cut-throat global market. Eighty-five per cent of the best brains go to America and Australia, put off by our bureaucracy, our bloody-mindedness and our barriers to free movement.

Fact number three: of those migrants who reach Europe, only 3 in 20 are skilled; most are unskilled, desperate and dispossessed. Commissioner Frattini’s proposals address one half of this problem, building on Ms Hennis-Plasschaert’s ideas for a European Green Card to fill the skills gaps. But his ‘Blue Card’ plan has its own gaps: no mention, for example, of the workers that we need in the catering, healthcare or tourism sectors. It could address economic and demographic challenges if accompanied by free movement of workers from the new EU Member States, but it does little to counter the challenge of illegal migrants along our southern borders.

Let us make no mistake: the Commission’s cosy calculation that we can take the best and leave the rest will not work. Pushed by poverty, hunger, squalor and war, people will keep crossing the Mediterranean whether they fit our criteria or not. Why? Because our agricultural and fisheries policies are out-pricing their products and raiding their natural resources.

Of course we must patrol Europe’s borders. The Moreno Sánchez report is right to demand that Frontex be given the budget, the staff and the equipment needed to do its job – although suspending Gibraltar from Frontex, equivalent to leaving a hole in the fence, frankly beggars belief. Longer term, however, only a comprehensive EU policy that punishes the people smugglers, provides legal routes in and creates hope where there is despair can counter prevailing trends.

The truth is we have only one choice in dealing with developing countries: we take their goods or we take their people. If we want to let fewer in, then we must help more at home, as Ms Gruber’s report rightly says. That is why the Portuguese Presidency must redouble its efforts to bring down Europe’s farm tariffs and bring Doha to a successful conclusion and why the Commission must develop a generous agenda for Africa, linking money and market opening to respect for human rights and the rule of law, to give people hope of a better life at home.

Mr Lobo Antunes, Mr Frattini, hold your next Council meeting in the immigration hall on New York’s Ellis Island. Learn from our history of wandering westwards as you plan for the EU-Africa Summit in December. Migration will not go away: it is driven by the heady cocktail of despair and hope, it follows the law of supply and demand, but it has the capacity, if properly managed, to enrich and energise Europe.

(Applause)

  Cristiana Muscardini, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there are already various Directives on legal migration and others are to be proposed, but the real unresolved problem is still that of preventing illegal and uncontrolled immigration, as well as unambiguously defining and ensuring respect for the laws and rules in effect in EU countries: this is a vital pre-requisite for civil coexistence.

I am grateful to Commissioner Frattini for the proposals he has put to us. However, the problem still remains serious, in that there are rulings by magistrates – I am referring to cases in Germany and Italy – stipulating that the parents of a girl confined to the home cannot be prosecuted, or that the application for a divorce by a woman repeatedly beaten by her husband cannot be heard since, according to these magistrates, such conduct conforms to custom and practice in the immigrants' countries of origin. All of this is also serious in the light of the draft Reform Treaty: it does make provision for a common immigration policy but it will be a long time coming, whereas in order to stem illegal immigration we need a common policy immediately.

In February 2004 I was draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Foreign Affairs on Frontex, which came into being in 2004 and has been operational since 2005 but still lacks sufficient resources. On many occasions it does not have the wherewithal to monitor not only the official frontiers but also our borders, since it is our countries' borders that need more monitoring. In order to build a fair society, without overt or covert conflicts, whose risks are obvious – including that of distorting our own and other people's identities – we need a strong policy to combat unlawful conduct. We call on the Commission and the Council not only to step up EU border controls, but also to introduce harmonised legislation to punish human traffickers speedily and resolutely, and to promote better agreements with immigrants' countries of origin.

Safeguarding human rights and individual dignity is completely at odds with weak policies that encourage the threat of terrorism and social malaise. This is one reason why we would point out that the lack of a common rule on the right of asylum exacerbates the situation, but we do not see much activity on the part of the political groups.

  Jean Lambert, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, I would like to thank the Commission, the Council and our two rapporteurs for recognising the complexity of the issues at long last and the need for a coherent approach. We know that migration is a fact of life, we know it is a force for development and we know that many EU nationals also follow a path where they want to earn, learn or yearn for something better, just as those coming from sub-Saharan Africa do.

We welcome the move for equal rights for all groups of migrants here because we have been concerned that looking at this in a sectoral approach can lead to even greater complexity in terms of different rights for different workers.

But we are also concerned that we find a status for those who currently cannot return to their countries of origin because of conflict and are therefore left destitute, often on our streets.

We also welcome the call for greater honesty from Member States about the need for migrant workers in our current economies. Globalisation has speeded up migration, and I would thoroughly agree with those Members who have talked about the need to change our trade rules. As we were told, if you take our fish, you take our fishermen too. In which case, I would urge those Members not to shed crocodile tears about the plight of certain migrants – and not to vote for fisheries agreements in this House and not to vote for the trade rules that devastate economies elsewhere.

We are also right to look at employment in this debate in terms of equal rights, equal pay, good inspection, which is good for all workers who need to know their rights. If we are concerned about the brain drain, we also need to look at retention measures for our own skilled workers. We need to use and develop the skills of those migrant workers coming to us, and EQUAL has given us some fantastic examples there which we must not lose.

And if we are going to attract the highly skilled, it is not just a question of free movement; it is also a question of tackling racism and xenophobia, which also deter many highly skilled people from coming to the European Union.

(Applause)

  Giusto Catania, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner Frattini has spoken to us today first about legal migration and then about irregular immigration. If European Union policies followed the logic of his words I could agree with him, but unfortunately that is not the case.

In recent years EU policies have first and foremost used language such as refusal of entry, migrant criminality, repression, the spectre of invasion; now, at last, we are beginning to speak of entry policies. Therefore, we can all agree that a policy on legal migration is crucial in order to combat irregular immigration, to prevent human trafficking, to avoid sea crossings by the hopeful, and to stop the Mediterranean increasingly becoming an open-air graveyard. We should also be logical, however. Consequently, before proposing policies on refusal of entry we should discuss how to broaden legal entry channels and how to tackle the demographic challenge.

I did not really understand what Mr Frattini was referring to today, whether he was talking about press leaks. In actual fact, the forecast of 20 million immigrants by 2030 has been made by the European Commission itself in its Green Paper, which explained that the demographic crisis in the European Union is such that we will need 20 million immigrants by 2030. However, 20 million immigrants does not mean 20 million skilled immigrants. We are proceeding from back to front: first implementing policies on refusal of entry, then deciding how to bring in skilled immigrants and, finally, tackling the major problem of what to do about all the others.

I believe that we should take a closer look at the policies implemented in recent years and analyse them. We also need to assess what kind of policy we want on refusal of entry. To consider 18 months of administrative detention is in itself, I believe, an offence and a systematic violation of human rights.

We should also examine what Frontex is doing. This year we have spent €45 million; Frontex has 90 staff and carried out four missions at sea this summer. I do not think we can be satisfied with the policy pursued by Frontex. Its policy has given refusal of entry precedence over saving life.

I would conclude on this point: saving life must be a priority. At the request of our Group’s Chairman and others, the Commission was to report to us today on the affair of the seven Tunisian fishermen who are in prison in Italy for having rescued 44 migrants. I hope Commissioner Frattini will be able to enlighten us on this affair, which is in keeping with the logic of criminalising immigration.

  Roger Knapman, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – Mr President, poor Mr Frattini is still lost in the Hampton Court maze as we see the EU moving ever further from democracy. Let us contrast our position – and not for the first time – with Switzerland.

Switzerland knows that local knowledge is the key to immigration policy. The EU seeks to centralise immigration control above the level of national governments. The Swiss, in contrast, devolve it downwards, wherever possible, to the level of their cantons. In Switzerland the annual quota for immigrants is partly decided by the Federal Government and partly by the cantons. Proposals for a federal migration agency have been rejected there.

The Swiss cantons and their long tradition of direct democracy have been the historic drivers of an immigration policy which works to the benefit of the national economy and ensures that immigrants are well integrated into Swiss society. As Professor Windisch of the University of Geneva told the French Foundation for Political Innovation in its April 2006 newsletter, Swiss direct democracy had to – openly and very early on – confront issues involving immigration and integration by means – perish the thought! – of referendums and popular initiatives. He continued: ‘Unlike an extremely centralist country such as France, the debate was led both at the federal level and on a canton and commune scale, calling for community-based responses, and involved initiatives such as setting up an integration office in every canton and the geographic dispersion of new arrivals.’

The lesson for those of us who, unlike the Swiss, have not had the good fortune to stay outside the EU is this: immigration policy works in Switzerland because it is decided according to local needs as well as national ones and because local communities, not faceless, centralised bureaucracy, are responsible for the integration of migrants on the basis of those needs. In the UK, subject as it is temporarily to EU membership, immigration policy moves ever further away from that fount of local knowledge, and we in the UK Independence Party have been quick to point out the shortcomings of that approach.

  Alessandro Battilocchio (NI). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to begin by thanking both rapporteurs for their excellent work. Promoting and regulating legal migration is the only feasible solution, not only to combat the criminal behaviour connected with migration flows but also to protect and guarantee human rights. Like all other European citizens, immigrants must be integrated and included within the respective communities and must comply with all the attendant rights and duties.

A year ago I was draftsman for the Committee on Development on the report about the crossing of external borders. I would stress now, as I did then, the need for Europe to make sufficient resources available to provide decent reception centres, training for our staff, access for foreign citizens to information about their rights and duties, severe penalties for anyone who exploits illegal immigration and, above all, full cooperation among Member States.

Now that Frontex has been launched, it must receive adequate resources and involve other neighbouring countries affected by migration flows as actively as possible.

  Mikel Irujo Amezaga (Verts/ALE). – (ES) Yes, Mr President. Sorry, I was having some problems with the interpreting, and also, if you will allow me a few seconds, I merely wish to say that ...

(The speaker spoke in Basque)

I apologise: I merely wished to add a few words in Euskera on the European Day of Languages since, as has already been mentioned in this debate, we are not criminals; we only wish to speak our own language.

  Alfredo Antoniozzi (PPE-DE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I have to pay tribute to Vice-President Frattini and thank him for having presented an action plan that at last provides us with a significant basis on which to debate and address legal migration in the future.

As concerns the report, I think it is a balanced text, the fruit of useful negotiations and important compromise amendments between the various political groups, enabling us to offer broad support for this text and therefore, as a Parliament, to support the European Commission’s future work on this topic. I would stress that the PPE-DE Group's position added much-needed balance and substance in the drafting of this report.

The key points of the position our Group has always taken on the phenomenon of immigration have been confirmed. Among these specific points I would recall our commitment to firm, decisive measures to combat illegal immigration, support for a stronger link between legal and illegal immigration, and the search for more mechanisms for dialogue and integration for immigrants.

This report can without doubt be described as a European report, and not just for rhetorical effect, in that it views the phenomenon of immigration as something to be tackled jointly, in both its positive and negative aspects, by all European partners. Everyone must show solidarity and thus confront problems with the same degree of attention and determination, even if they have a greater impact on certain countries than others. Whether a vessel carrying illegal immigrants is shipwrecked off Sicily or the Canary Islands or elsewhere, it must be considered a shared problem.

A European-level policy to coordinate the phenomenon of immigration is necessary, to say the least. This report takes us in the right direction to confirm this conviction, while clearly expressing full respect for national competence over the quantitative aspects and flows of migrants.

  Bárbara Dührkop Dührkop (PSE). – (ES) Mr President, like everyone else I first wish to congratulate the rapporteurs on some excellent work.

Immigration is not a new phenomenon, as we are all aware, but what is new is its enormous increase in recent years, and this is due to rising levels of poverty and the fact that increasing numbers of countries are stricken by poverty.

Thus I feel that the main challenge now is to control migratory flows, structure them in accordance with real needs, and ensure higher levels of integration of these people in the host countries, as well as stepping up surveillance of our borders, with policies that provide for repatriation to the countries of origin.

Above all, we must deal with the mafias trafficking in human beings. It is essential to find a response and put an end to the human tragedies relating to illegal immigration: we are in agreement on this point.

Border controls, however, ought to be common to Member States. Shared responsibility and solidarity should go hand in hand.

Now I would like to say a few words on Frontex, which has done some fine work, and I am directing this at the Council, which has just read us out a long list of vessels and helicopters. What I am wondering now is: where are they? It is not good enough for them simply to be on the list. I also feel that the Council is acting in a schizophrenic manner when it requests more assistance for Frontex and cuts back the budget by 2.5% at the same time, against a backdrop of credits already exhausted for the year 2007.

In spite of Frontex, however, we are aware that the influx of immigration will continue regardless of whether we are completely willing to control it: it is our willingness and not legislation that we require, because the Commission and the Council have decided against a single directive on legal conditions for entry to the EU.

It is as though everything we hoped for in Tampere, everything our Socialist Group defended so vigorously, has simply gone up in smoke.

  Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert (ALDE). – (NL) Mr President, in a world in which we are facing more and more regional conflicts, where there are huge disparities of wealth and where there is growing mobility, the control of migration flows will become increasingly important and will, at the same time, be difficult. Is the Union in a position to take up its responsibilities with a comprehensive package when it comes to migration, legal and illegal? We have been talking about this for some time now: the push factors that drive people to go, the pull factors that tempt people to leave, the importance of relief in the region, the often inhumane conditions in which people find themselves, the intended burden sharing between the Member States, the return of illegal migrants, the lack of opportunities for legal migration, the risk of brain drain not to mention the demographic changes facing us in the Union. All of these aspects have been addressed after a fashion or will be in the near future through directives, action plans and other instruments. In this respect, I would like to thank Commissioner Frattini. Last Thursday you set out your objectives once again with great enthusiasm at the Shaping Migration Strategies conference that I organised with colleagues.

Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I admire the statements of Minister Socrates. The countries of the European Union do indeed bear a historical responsibility towards those who are now travelling in the opposite direction. You as President-in-Office of the Council have demonstrated far-reaching ambitions, and yet reality shows us that the EU still has a long way to go when it comes to taking global responsibility. The migration debate is completely polarised in many Member States. No distinction is made between asylum seekers and economic migrants, the latter often being illegal. The debate is dominated by integration problems. Social security systems are said to be at stake and if we are not careful the average immigrant will be equated with a terrorist. Open, fair and transparent debate is far too often almost impossible. Unfortunately, this is echoed in the exasperatingly slow decision-making procedures in the Council, when the Council decides to go for harmonisation, but ends up with the lowest conceivable minimum standards. When concrete measures are decided upon, this is always on the basis of the lowest common denominator. Yes, I am an impatient person by nature, but I just thought I would mention that.

The reality is, however, that many Member States lack ambition. The lack of solidarity is shocking and I name Frontex, but there are many examples. When are the Member States going to show that they support a long-term view, that they are no longer driven by fear, that they will no longer allow themselves to be ruled by a critical article on the front page of a newspaper or by the next elections. We will not do it with fine conclusions of the Council alone. My question, therefore, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, is how are you going to make sure that this situation changes? Is the President-in-Office of the Council willing to give Parliament codecision powers with respect to the new directives on legal migration, such as the Blue Card, in anticipation of the new Treaty. That, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, would be the right signal.

  Mario Borghezio (UEN). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, President Doyle warns us about the risks of simplistic solutions. The achievements of Frontex, which ought to be much better resourced, indicate that something is beginning to happen and results are being achieved. France's policy goes in the right direction and could serve as an example. The same applies to some decisions taken by the judiciary, for instance in Italy where houses rented out to illegal immigrants are starting to be seized. Such practical measures should be implemented Europe-wide.

What specious reasoning we are hearing from the well-meaning, open-minded Left, however! I am sorry, Mrs Gruber, but I am amazed to hear an intelligent person like you say that legal migration can be promoted and illegal immigration combated by opening the door to legal migrants. The very opposite is true! It is by eradicating the plague of unlawfulness that we can open up to what is acceptable and tolerable, including in numerical terms, in other words regular, clean and transparent immigration. Have you ever heard of the Mafia? True enough, the word is absent from your report; so is the word terrorism, but the Mafia and terrorism feed on and get rich from the trafficking and deaths of poor illegal immigrants. Even you should understand this; it is not hard!

  Kathalijne Maria Buitenweg (Verts/ALE). – (NL) Mr President, I would like to read to you from a research report that was funded by Parliament. It states:

‘One can reasonably conclude that the number of people who died at the European borders has increased significantly since controls were extended to the external borders in 1995.’

(NL) Mr President, in fact the number of people seeking to find a way into Europe has not increased, but the borders are guarded much better, so that people take more difficult and more dangerous routes. This report also states that:

‘The European Council’s proposals will probably increase human costs because of the intensified security and surveillance orientation.’

(NL) Mr President, I would very much like to hear a response to this from the Commission and the Council. I believe that we should not rely on such research, but that we should gather our own data on the fatal crossings. Do you agree and who should gather the data then?

Mr President, I am not arguing that there should be no border controls at all, but I am arguing that there should be more opportunities for legal migration. With regard to that, I would therefore like to welcome the Commission’s proposal for a Blue Card. The Blue Card: the name refers to the blue in the European flag, but it seems to be mainly concerned with the stars. It requires supplementation. I am pleased that the Commission has said that it is going to work on this. I will eagerly await its proposals, because I think that it is a necessary complement to the proposals put forward up to now.

  Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM). – (SV) Mr President, migration has taken place throughout human history. It has been one of the most fundamental driving forces of that history. When we speak of migration between countries, we are therefore addressing quite fundamental questions, existential questions of human freedom. Do people not have the right to choose where in the world they want to live? None of this is actually up for discussion here. The modern welfare state is irreconcilable with free immigration and hard to reconcile with more extensive migration in general because of different standards of living.

Immigration as a means of rejuvenating our own populations is practically dead in the water according to research. Immigration by family members has very minor effects on the demographic structure. It would require 50-70% of all the people in a country to be immigrants if we were to rejuvenate the population of a country such as Japan.

Brain drain is a major problem for many developing countries. Here it is effectively proposed that we should rob other countries of their educated populations. A new approach is needed.

  Marine Le Pen (NI). – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the latest figures given in the annual report on the activities of Eurodac for 2006, which is the biometric tool that Europe uses for monitoring asylum seekers, show that the number of persons who illegally crossed one of the EU borders has increased by 64% since 2005. This worrying development only proves, if proof were needed, that Europe is powerless to control its external borders and to contain the exponential growth in illegal immigration, especially from Africa.

The only crumb of comfort in the report is that Parliament seems to have woken up to the fact that the en-masse regularisation of immigrants who have illegally entered the territory of the European Union is not in itself a solution and will not solve the problem. Well hallelujah! Nevertheless, Spain, Belgium, France, Italy and the Netherlands first had to resort to this dangerous policy of regularisation, which inevitably gave rise to the so-called ‘aspiration’ phenomenon and by this fact influenced the migratory flows of their European neighbours, before this awareness finally dawned on them.

Let us be positive, however. We have at least made a start. However, if we are to fight illegal immigration effectively there is one measure that has to be introduced as a matter of urgency: re-establish the European Union’s external border controls. This gimmick that is Frontex, a real empty shell with insufficient men or equipment that is not even supported by some European countries, anxious as they are to preserve their sovereignty over immigration management, will never save Europe from this infernal spiral.

Europe itself is to blame for the continuing and exponential problem of immigration by having signed-up to the criminal Schengen agreements. It must annul these, and quickly.

  Irena Belohorská (NI). – (SK) The European Union has extensive legislation on migration policy. We have the Geneva Conventions, the Dublin Convention, several Regulations and a large number of Directives.

However, there are major problems with their implementation and their large number render the entire system opaque. In addition, the Member States’ legislation is frequently applied incorrectly and refugee and asylum-seeker status often merge.

Since time is limited, I will stick to the question of children who are not accompanied by their parents and who leave their country of origin to seek asylum in another country: 5% of all asylum seekers are made up precisely of children. We have statistics on how many of those children have applied for asylum but we do not know how many of them cross the border and do not apply for asylum. We know how many are granted asylum but have no information on what happens to those whose applications are rejected.

Moreover, on arrival in a country children must be assigned a legal representative who will defend their best interest, but we do not know precisely what the definition of a child’s best interest is. A child’s legal representative should not be an inexperienced volunteer, a student or a legal person with a conflict of interests.

  Patrick Gaubert (PPE-DE). – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I was pleased to read recently about the Socialist Group in the European Parliament calling for this morning’s debate not to become an electioneering exercise. What is more, on listening to you this morning I find that your positions are becoming dangerously close to those of my own Group.

I agree with Mrs Gruber that Member States can no longer manage immigration by acting independently in their own corner of Europe. I also agree with Mr Moreno that we wish to help countries with a high level of emigration develop so that their citizens are more inclined to stay at home. I am also in agreement with Mr Fava when he says that Europe should take a firm stance towards those employers who unscrupulously exploit their workers.

There are those who associate immigration with violence and who claim that immigrants are the cause of all the woes affecting their country. These people do not share the fundamental values of the European Union.

Fortunately, there are also those who fight humanely against illegal immigration, which only creates modern-day slaves, and who support legal immigration, which provides economic, cultural and intellectual opportunities for us all.

We in this House know one thing: this problem cannot be solved simply by acting at a national level. The only way ahead lies in a concerted European policy. We did not set up Frontex to fish drowned people out of the seas off southern Europe or to gather up children in the eastern territories who have died from hunger and thirst. Frontex is not an impassable frontier, it is a means of preventing the arrival of excessive numbers of immigrants for whom we do not have sufficient welfare and material resources.

Controlling our borders is not a technical problem and it is not a military problem: it is a political matter. Like you, I am seeking the most realistic and the most humane solution. As we all know, that is to be found here around the European table, to be agreed between ourselves and those who run the countries that are the main sources of immigration. It is up to us to initiate a new, more effective form of co-development that will provide for an intelligent regulation of migratory flows and the peaceful arrival of immigrants into the European Union.

Fellow Members, migrants often do not have any choice over what happens to them, but we do have a choice: we can choose to receive them with concern, dignity and understanding. It is up to us to succeed where others have for so long failed.

(Applause)

  Martine Roure (PSE). – (FR) Mr President, we indeed welcomed this joint debate because it is impossible today to have a truly effective and coherent European immigration policy without tackling these two issues together and on a Community level.

For a number of years our respective countries have adopted a restrictive policy towards immigration, yet this policy has not stopped migrants arriving. On the contrary, they continue to come to Europe, at great personal risk, to find better living conditions and for many of them it is a question of survival. The world is now a global village and we will never be able to stop those who are fleeing from misery and despair. Some people continue to project the illusion that we can close our borders and they are being completely irresponsible.

It all comes down to a question of morals and of solidarity and it is up to us to help out all those countries that are in distress. That is also why I want to see this debate extended to include more than just Frontex. Certainly the European Council has to explain why Frontex was forced to suspend its operations in the Mediterranean in mid-August for want of operational resources. However, the question we really should be focusing on is this: how do we enable those who want to come to Europe to do so in a properly regulated manner?

We should of course look into the possibility of introducing a European Blue Card: this would allow migrants to move freely between Europe and their country of origin and to do so transparently and in safety. At the same time it is important that the Commission should first put forward a proposal defining a common basis for the rights of migrants. There are a great many people who are scandalously exploited in our different countries. We need fully to realise that in today’s changing world it is now a matter of urgency that those countries where people are still living in misery are allowed to develop harmoniously. This is nothing more than our duty. Everyone should have the right to stay and live in their country of birth: the way things are at present they do not have this choice.

Finally, I hope that the Member States respect the mandate of the Intergovernmental Conference to put the matter of legal immigration to qualified majority voting and to codecision. I would just repeat that this is absolutely essential if we are to adopt a coherent European policy in this area.

  Jean-Marie Cavada (ALDE). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, at last we are able together to discuss the subjects of illegal immigration and immigration that is referred to as legal: these are two sides of the same coin without which no country today can really claim to have a successful immigration policy. In truth, most have simply succeeded in creating electoral imbalances that only serve to aggravate the problems, which really do not need this if they are to be tackled effectively.

No Member State at the present time can claim that it wants to manage its immigration policy alone and the tragedy of this European Union is that many of its members are countries that historically, over two centuries or more, have known all about immigration, for they were the victims of it. There will be some political posturing today, but I think the time has now come to move up a notch. In an area that permits freedom of movement, such as ours, the decisions taken by one Member State will have an immediate effect on neighbouring countries. By the same token, as external borders will henceforth be shared by all the countries of the Union we cannot expect those Member States located in the south and east of the EU to have to face, alone and helpless, the massive influx of migrants of the kind we are now witnessing in Malta, the Canaries and Lampedusa, in the eastern parts of the Union and even in the north west.

With solidarity clearly called for here we need to apply the kind of political will that I feel the Member States are not sufficiently prepared to demonstrate. We cannot develop a proper European immigration policy if we do not put an end to the imbalance that exists in the current Treaties: the fight against illegal immigration has to be made part of a proper Community system and the present all-round paralysis affecting our policy on legal immigration can no longer be tolerated.

This is why I would again stress that for our policy on legal immigration and integration, as set by the mandate of the Intergovernmental Conference, we need to apply the principles of qualified majority voting and codecision with the European Parliament. This is the only way in which we can effectively and democratically meet one of the greatest challenges currently facing the European Union.

  Roberts Zīle (UEN). – (LV) Mr President, Commissioner, I am particularly glad that Parliament, in strengthening the Community approach, is also grappling with legal immigration issues in my country – Latvia – relating to the employment deficit in various sectors such as construction and catering services. Yes, many people have left Latvia to work legally in these sectors in various EU countries, and citizens from non-EU countries are filling these jobs in our country both legally and illegally. For those, however, who have a strong wish to strengthen the role of the European Parliament and to decrease that of the Member States, especially the small states, on immigration issues, I would like to change the emphasis. We should make every effort to convince various Member States to stop restricting entry to the labour market for Member States that joined the EU in 2004, not to mention the attitude to the 2007 Member States, which encourages illegal employment even for EU citizens. Be consistent, ladies and gentlemen! Thank you.

  Hélène Flautre (Verts/ALE). – (FR) Mr President, in proposing legal channels of immigration, an idea that is essentially motivated by Europe’s economic needs, which are for the most part insensitive to the real needs of those who live in the southern parts of the Union, you are in fact deciding not so much on the number of migrants coming to Europe but rather on those among them who may enter our territory legally. What about the others, however?

For them there only remains the nightmare voyage. Prevented from leaving their country of birth, intercepted at sea, unofficial channels, detention, rescue or drowning – and I would like to hear you say and say again that rescuing people at sea is a universal and fundamental duty, witness the case of the seven Tunisian fishermen, and that it is the very minimum that we should expect – and then possibly forced repatriation, endless wandering in hostile transit countries, plus serious violations of human rights and so on.

As the Commissioner responsible for justice, freedom and security, ensuring respect for human rights ought to be your main concern – as it is ours – and your powers in this area are very great indeed, in fact as we all know they are immense.

When Chechen nationals are refused asylum in Slovakia, and are expelled back to Russia via Ukraine, how can you guarantee that they will not be victims of maltreatment? What has been the outcome of the initial agreements on readmission that the EU has negotiated in this area? How can we guarantee that there will be no repression when we unceremoniously return people in this way?

When Frontex patrols intercept boats full of migrants at sea how do you ensure that those on board are effectively able to apply for asylum and that the patrols in question will treat minors in a proper manner, and with their best interests in mind, as required under international law?

In closing may I just ask you to explain clearly why you do not have a proactive policy requiring Member States to ratify the International Convention on the rights of migrant workers and their families?

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL). – (PT) In a one-minute speech, we can only stress that the repressive security-oriented policies which criminalise migrants, both men and women, who aspire to work and a dignified life, must be ended. Detention centres for migrants must be closed and the inhuman policy of repatriation must be ended. Xenophobia, racism and all policies and corruption which encourage these must be combated. The situation of migrant workers must be regularised by guaranteeing their labour and social rights, which is a necessary condition for ending unacceptable situations of exploitation. There must be an effective integration policy which specifically includes family reunification.

We consider that developing a common migration policy is not an adequate response to these issues and problems, as demonstrated by the results of other common policies. The migration situation is different in each country making up the European Union. The decisions made on this policy must respect the sovereignty of each state, which of course does not hinder the cooperation needed in this area at EU level. Rather than a common policy, what we need is a different policy and different measures which will effectively protect the rights of migrants and combat the deep causes of migration.

  Patrick Louis (IND/DEM). – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, enough of all this political hypocrisy. The right of asylum and immigration where similar types of civilisation are concerned is not the problem. The question essentially concerns immigration from another civilisation and this benefits no one.

Immigration by job seekers is a double injustice: it robs the country of origin of the skills that it has paid for, while in the host country it drags the labour market down and takes job opportunities from the locally unemployed.

Immigration by benefit seekers is a mistake on two counts: it uproots poor people, hypnotised by the lure of the Western world, while in the host country it destabilises the social budgets that have been created and can only survive within the limited and protective context of the nation.

This means that, contrary to what was written on the walls of the Members’ restaurant in Brussels a month ago, the European Union does not need immigration. In fact quite the reverse: what Europe needs is a proper family and demographic policy, sovereign cooperation between nations and frontiers, not Frontex. The world needs to understand, for one thing, that peace does not come through immigration but through self-reliant development and, for another, that real proletarianisation sets in when people lose their cultural roots.

  Jim Allister (NI). – Mr President, the ability of a nation state to control its own borders and change its immigration policy as required is a tangible demonstration of sovereignty.

The fact that the United Kingdom cannot now rectify the grave miscalculation which it made in 2004, with its open-door policy to Eastern Europe, is a telling indication of just how much sovereignty we in the United Kingdom have conceded to belong to this club. I say ‘grave miscalculation’ because, instead of the 13 000 predicted immigrant workers, we have had 750 000, with the related massive drain on our welfare system of millions per annum in child benefit and tax credits for children who do not even live in the United Kingdom but qualify because their fathers work there. Because of the rules of the EU, we are powerless to do anything about it, and yet some would have us concede even more powers to Brussels. How foolish we would be to do so.

  József Szájer (PPE-DE). – (HU) Ladies and gentlemen, the shortcomings of European immigration policy and the difficulties experienced so far surrounding joint action have now succeeded in undermining support within society for shared values such as the free movement of citizens within the European Union.

We have opened our internal borders, but we do not yet have a common policy on immigration. This is completely absurd. European citizens, meanwhile, feel that having open borders within the EU leads to unchecked immigration. If we want to maintain peace in our societies and public support for freedom of movement, we need a strong Europe, stronger than it is at present, on the issue of immigration. In this regard we should not forget, however, that citizens of the new Member States still face major restrictions in terms of immigration policy, despite the fact that they are European citizens.

The European People’s Party believes that the following are necessary for an appropriate and transparent common European immigration policy. First: solidarity among the Member States, which would rule out unilateral decisions that affect everyone as a result of the open borders, as in the case of the decision by the Spanish government. Second: human dignity must be the guiding principle.

Third: we must take resolute action against illegal immigration. A fellow Member from the Socialist Group said a little while ago that immigration is not a crime. However, ladies and gentlemen, any person violating European rules and Member States’ rules is indeed committing a criminal offence and this is why we refer to illegal immigration. In order to take action against illegal immigration we need stronger protection of our external borders than we have at present, and statutory provision concerning return of immigrants to their own country.

Fourth: rules on illegal immigration must be reinforced and made more transparent – I am sorry, I meant to say rules on legal immigration – taking greater account of the types of labour needed in our countries.

Fifth: immigration policy must not begin at our borders. It is astounding that although the European Union is one of the largest aid-providing organisations in the world, we do not set many conditions relating to corruption, respect for human rights and democracy in recipient countries. This must be brought to an end, and conditions of this sort must be imposed on recipient countries. Ceterum censeo: Europe needs a stronger immigration policy.

  Stavros Lambrinidis (PSE). – (EL) Mr President, some decades ago millions of our fellow European citizens emigrated to America, Australia, South Africa and other European countries. They were not rich, but were escaping from poverty.

We asked for them to be accepted and to be given rights. The money they sent home supported our economies. Thousands of Italian, Greek and Irish flags fly in those countries on the days of our national festivals. They love the countries to which they went, but they are also allowed to love their countries of origin; nobody feels threatened by this dual love. They excelled and boosted the economies and cultural and democratic wealth of the host countries.

As a result, immigration should surely not be treated primarily as a police phenomenon, let alone as a likely source of terrorism, as it has ended up being discussed in Europe.

Immigration policy ought to be comprehensive and should cover a whole range of aspects:

- firstly, improvement of legal migration channels;

- secondly, combating clandestine immigration, especially inhumane immigrant trafficking rings; and upholding respect for human rights at detention centres. The only crime committed by these people is to have been born in poor or war-torn countries;

- thirdly, the reason for the surge of immigrants: wars, poverty, underdevelopment, dictatorships; Europe must tackle these phenomena in its foreign and economic policy;

- fourthly, we should ask why Europe is so attractive to immigrants. At the same time, we must combat illegal employment;

- fifthly, the demographic, research, educational and economic needs of the European Union; we must attract a much-needed labour force;

- sixthly, respect for fundamental rights;

- seventhly, creating a European bridge between peoples and cultures, thus strengthening our foreign policy.

Very few of the above require police action. On the other hand, they require politicians with insight and boldness. I am glad that, after its initial emphasis on a police-based approach, the Commission is now moving forward with a much better overall approach. I congratulate Mr Frattini!

  Mogens Camre (UEN). – (DA) Mr President, at the core of the problems that we are concerned with here is the demographic imbalance in the world. Legalising illegal immigration will not solve any problems: managing immigration in accordance with a uniform set of rules even less so. Only assistance with development and democracy will help. The EU countries are so different that uniform rules are impossible to administer. In Denmark over half of all immigrants from non-western countries are unavailable to the labour market and those who are on the labour market experience high levels of unemployment. This is because the country has high minimum wages and high social benefits – so high, in fact, that few people in this Parliament can comprehend that Denmark quite simply cannot get people without qualifications onto the labour market, irrespective of the nationality of the person concerned and irrespective of an enormous financial support initiative.

The opposition in all Member States to increased immigration from foreign cultures should be enough to persuade the European Parliament to listen more to its electorate.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE). – (ES) Mr President, any debate on immigration must be based on at least four facts. People will continue to risk their lives coming here no matter how many walls, prison bars or vessels we deploy. People do not come to Spain, Malta or Italy: they come to Europe. All the studies point to the fact that the immigrant population is necessary in the EU to guarantee the current level of the welfare state. However, there is still a disturbingly high level of abuse of many of these people by unscrupulous businessmen who take advantage of their vulnerable situation in order to exploit them.

If this is the case – and I would remind you that this has already been demonstrated and is not the result of prejudices or suspicions – if this is the case, what we must do now is develop a reasonable and intelligent European policy on access at our borders: stopping people crossing them does not help to control the process; it merely makes the situation more dramatic.

We must likewise take a responsible attitude to our reception process, guaranteeing asylum and refugee status to immigrants, individual treatment of each person, and realistic solutions.

  Kyriacos Triantaphyllides (GUE/NGL). – (EL) Mr President, we have carefully read the reports of our two fellow honourable Members. There are no proposals in them which differ substantially from the measures and policies proposed by the Council and the Commission.

Frontex, for which more allocations are being sought, is not just a mechanism for policing our borders; it can also be used as a platform for the control of non-EU countries bordering the EU. The solution for combating illegal immigration is not to set up repression and intervention mechanisms. We should not establish detention centres, collect biometric data in central databases, or treat all those who attempt to cross our borders either as terrorists or as criminals across the board.

At the same time, nor is the creation of a framework of specifications for legal immigration a way to combat illegal immigration. We should not continue to use this framework as a pretext for the promotion of measures that will serve the European Union as a whole without taking into account the rights of immigrants themselves.

The relevant explanatory statement does not criticise the use of biometric data; it does not distinguish between controls and the management of immigration, nor does it consider those immigrants who do not fall into the categories of useful intellectual skills or vital manual labour to serve the needs of the multinationals.

Immigration is a two-way relationship of supply and dialogue, exchange and mutual influence, cooperation and respect for peoples and individuals, comprehension and the guaranteeing of equal opportunities. It is therefore our duty to promote policies which take this approach, and this approach alone.

IN THE CHAIR: MR MAURO
Vice-President

  Manfred Weber (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we have spoken a great deal about migrants today. I would now like to focus attention for a moment on what our citizens are asking us. The question that citizens are asking us is this: we have millions of unemployed in the European Union, and yet at the same time, we are talking about the immigration of highly skilled workers. As politicians, we will have to devote a great deal of energy to explaining to our citizens that when it comes to skilled workers, we need the best brains in the world.

The citizens are asking us another question as well: 'Are you taking our concerns about this issue seriously?' We are talking about circular migration. Over recent decades, we have brought Turkish citizens into my own country and recruited them into the workforce. In the Czech Republic, we have the Vietnamese. Circular migration – in other words, these guest workers' return home – has not worked in these countries so far. Our citizens are asking: how do you intend to solve this problem? How does it all fit together?

We will also have to make it clear to citizens that we consider that migrants have a duty to integrate, just as Mr Lambrinidis has said, which means learning the language and making an effort to integrate. We will only generate citizens' understanding for a European migration policy – for legal immigration – if we make it clear that when it comes to illegal migration, illegal migrants will have to leave Europe. That is the only way to gain the public's endorsement of legal immigration.

The most important element in the report, in my view, is the clear commitment to Europe's citizens that we will leave quotas – in other words, the task of determining how many people enter the labour market – up to the Member States, just as before. That is where there is much more confidence among citizens.

I would like to thank our two rapporteurs, who have submitted a good report. On behalf of my group, the PPE-DE Group, let me say that we are pleased that our fellow Members from the left-wing parties in this House have also moved towards our position in many areas, notably on the issue of a robust policy on return, the issue of leaving quotas to national decision-making, and establishing effective border controls. For me, it is extremely gratifying that as the PPE-DE Group, we have been able to assert our position here.

  Magda Kósáné Kovács (PSE). – (HU) Thank you, Mr President. Europe needs a common immigration policy. From Tampere to The Hague, from Claude Moraes and Patrick Gaubert, to today’s two excellent reports and all the Commission communications in between – these have been the various stopping points en route where we have already been able to establish that strictness in immigration policy is not an asset in itself.

Our task is to coordinate and differentiate. We need to coordinate the complex phenomena that are factors in migration, including people migrating for economic reasons only, but also those who cross the border illegally. From these we need to differentiate asylum seekers, those who infiltrate in connection with criminal activities, and those who may perhaps have been pushed into illegal action by the authorities themselves.

Up to now, we the new Member States have been transit countries, but now we will also be destination countries and our responsibility will increase, as we too need fresh supplies of labour. It is not extra muscle power we need, however, or grey matter to exploit, but fresh labour for our labour market. This is why I welcome regulations that indicate the place of immigrants in our labour market situation. I also welcome the plan for common legislation and the instruments suggested in this common legislative plan.

Lastly, I would like to emphasise that cooperation with the countries of origin represents the real future with a human face, where legal and illegal immigration is not a decision that affects a whole lifetime, and does not mean fleeing one’s country and one’s home; rather, it is a temporary period in which the conditions for return must be established through understanding and integration. Thank you, Mr President.

  Simon Busuttil (PPE-DE). – (MT) Thank you, Mr President, Commissioner. The Frontex Agency is making a great effort, but I must say that we are still far from achieving the required results. Last July Frontex’s mission in the Mediterranean led to the number of immigrants arriving in my country, Malta, being decreased by half when compared to July of the year before. Incredibly, in spite of this, the mission stopped at the end of July and in fact we saw the number of arrivals double in August compared with the previous year. This month Frontex’s mission continued but we have still seen an increase compared with September of the previous year. What does all this mean, Mr President? It means, firstly, that we need to strengthen Frontex further and that is why this Parliament is committed to increasing Frontex’s budget and not to decreasing it, as the Council is trying to do. This means that the Member States that promised Frontex so many boats, helicopters and aeroplanes are not honouring the promises they made and I expect both Frontex and the Commission to work with this Parliament to make the Member States honour their responsibility. This also means that there is a need for more work to be carried out so that third countries such as Libya cooperate with us in the immigration sector. However, this also means, Mr President, that there is still hypocrisy to be found in European immigration policy. Everyone agrees that the first priority should be to save the lives of people who are drowning in the Mediterranean. Very well, that is how it should be. However, when we ask, as Malta did, who will welcome the people that are saved from drowning, there is a profound silence.

  Wolfgang Kreissl-Dörfler (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is good that it has finally been recognised that it is not just about joint efforts to combat illegal migration but that comprehensive strategies are also required to manage and coordinate legal migration on a joint basis, especially in a Europe without borders. However, this cannot only be the task of the Home Affairs Ministers, who quickly reach agreement on measures to deal with illegal migrants; it is a task for the Ministers of Employment and Social Affairs as well.

I therefore welcome the initiative of the Council and Commission to involve the relevant specialised ministries, including our Vice-Chancellor, Mr Müntefering, for example. The fact is that legal migration always means immigration into the labour market and therefore into the social security systems as well.

However, we must also combat the causes of migration more intensively and the reasons prompting so many people to seek a remedy to their situation by fleeing from their desolate countries. We must create legal employment opportunities. The 'Blue Card' and circular migration are an initial step in the right direction.

I have one comment about Frontex as well: what some Member States are doing here is scandalous. The solidarity which is always demanded must apply to all EU countries, not just to a few, and the refugees must, in my view, be allocated among all the Member States according to a formula, which has yet to be decided. It cannot just be a matter for Malta or the Canary Islands or Greece. Ultimately, Frontex can only be as good as Member States permit.

I would like to made a peripheral comment on Frontex: Frontex always takes the names of its operations from Greek mythology; Nautilus is one example. However, one forthcoming operation is called Hydra. This seems to me to be in poor taste. In my view, the name of the operation should be changed, for anyone with any knowledge of Greek mythology knows what Hydra means.

(Applause)

  Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE-DE). – (ES) Mr President, I have want to make a few comments and highlight just a few statistics. According to Eurostat, 45% of foreigners entering the European continent chose to remain in Spain. Between 21 September and the early morning of 24 September, 595 sub-Saharan nationals arrived on Spanish beaches. Since the beginning of the year, 11 000 immigrants have reached the Canary Islands alone, and 9 000 of these since implementation of the Hera mission on 23 April.

Despite the Frontex, Hera, Hermes, Nautilus, Poseidon and Malta operations, figures show that mafias trafficking in human beings have the necessary means to dodge our control mechanisms and open up new sea routes. One example of this is the large number of immigrants reaching the coast of eastern Spain, or more than 4 000 immigrants from Sri Lanka and Pakistan waiting to be taken to Europe from the beaches of Guinea Conakry.

Priority must therefore be given to the missions aimed at identifying and arresting members of the mafias, and stepping up police and international cooperation through the establishment of joint investigation teams. Frontex must keep its missions in crisis areas on a permanent basis. It is essential that the Council push the European Border Patrols Network forward to enhance monitoring and surveillance tasks.

The EU as a whole must support and encourage cooperation agreements and information campaigns, not only on a linguistic and professional basis; the countries of origin and transit must also be made aware of the risks taken by immigrants and of their deaths.

Finally, there must be coordination of immigration policies at European level in order to prevent permissive laws and regularisation processes that have a ‘call effect’. We must also encourage a generous and humanitarian asylum policy, and the necessary international protection.

I am finishing up now, Mr President: one cannot talk to the Council about 20% solidarity. Frontex supplies 80% for charter ships, aircraft, fuel, everything except for material depreciation. Therefore, the Council must encourage 20% solidarity, and refrain from using double-speak in a policy that affects the entire European Union.

  Inger Segelström (PSE). – (SV) Mr President, let me begin by thanking the rapporteurs for their very good work. I am pleased with the plans to make life harder for employers and private individuals who employ people illegally. Illegal employment, in domestic work and childcare for example, mostly involves women, often with an immigrant background. This affects not only the individuals concerned, but also social insurance and finance systems, and competition in the countries in question. I am also pleased that continued support will be available to combat human trafficking, especially involving women and children, which predominates. I am grateful for the support given to halving the number of victims within ten years with a view to eliminating the practice completely.

On the other hand, I am disappointed that I did not get support from the Conservative Group in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs in helping women and children to break free and find a new life. Voting for Amendment 29 offers a new chance to support women and children so that they can remain in the EU or to help them return. Do this so that women can have a life – after people trafficking.

I am also pleased that we continue to say ‘no’ to refugee camps outside the EU. What I would warn against, however, is the labour force of economic migrants that we will get if we do not allow families, partners and children to accompany them. Then it will be mostly young men who come, which is not a good thing for any society in the EU.

We talk about the EU’s borders. It is important that persons who engage in human trafficking, crime, drugs, arms dealing and money laundering should be kept outside, while at the same time people in need of protection are welcomed into a humane EU. They are the backbone of the EU and cannot be excluded from the EU’s common future. Migration will be important, not just for us who live here now, but also for future generations, and we must achieve both global prosperity and our own prosperity.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE-DE). – (PT) Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, today’s debate is based on two reports which clearly represent two complementary approaches: the policy plan on legal migration and the priorities in the fight against illegal immigration. To favour one and forget the other would be a serious mistake. They are two sides of the same coin. Migration is nowadays a huge phenomenon. It is estimated that there are currently around 26 million migrants in the European Union, here both legally and illegally. Migration is a phenomenon which clearly has a European dimension, not only because each Member State per se cannot manage this effectively, but particularly because any change to the migration policy of one Member State can impact on the migration flows and their development in other Member States.

Mr Vice-President of the Commission, I obviously support the idea of the Blue Card and also the creation of a European immigration portal providing information, on a large scale, on the conditions and options for legal migration in the European Union. I welcome the strategy of abandoning the idea of a single directive, following a number of years of deadlock within the Council, and adopting a progressive method involving the presentation of four sectoral directives over the next three years. I would stress the need for a development aid policy involving the signing of agreements with third countries to effectively manage migration. Cooperation with the countries of origin is essential in the fight against human trafficking and illegal employment.

Finally, Mr President, we must also guarantee border control and the use of available resources such as Frontex and RABITs (Rapid Border Intervention Teams), which must have access to the resources needed for their work.

  Genowefa Grabowska (PSE). – (PL) Migration is not only a problem for southern Europe. It also affects the Union as a whole, including my country, Poland, which lies in the north-east of the continent.

Poland’s eastern border is the Union’s longest land border, and we are responsible for its security. In addition, Frontex, of which so much is expected, is based in Warsaw. We allocated certain duties and responsibilities to Frontex, and we should therefore also ensure it has the necessary tools and resources at its disposal, so it is able to take action and protect our borders effectively.

Almost three million of my compatriots have left Poland in recent years. They have travelled to other Member States of the Union, taking advantage of the principles of the common market. We have, however, also received thousands of individuals from the Far East, for example from Korea and Vietnam. People have, of course, also arrived from Ukraine and Belarus. We need these new arrivals. They are helping to build Poland.

That is why I welcome the reports by Mrs Grüber and Mr Moreno Sánchez, especially the report on immigration policy, because its premises civilise immigration by creating channels for legal immigration. The two reports complement each other very well. Taken together with the proposal for a directive providing for criminal sanctions against employers of illegal immigrants that the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs is currently working on, they represent a sound legal basis for the Union’s immigration policy. I am glad Parliament is playing such a mayor role in this regard.

I should like to add a final comment. Immigration should not be seen as a problem. We should perceive it instead as an opportunity for ageing Europe! We should take advantage of the energy and enthusiasm of the people who come to us legally, and involve them in the creation of new nations and our common Europe!

  Barbara Kudrycka (PPE-DE). – (PL) Mr President, it is worth considering where the emphasis lies in the report on illegal immigration. The report focuses mainly on the Mediterranean Basin. It also expresses undue confidence in Community action instruments.

We are all aware that responsibility for border controls rests with the Member States. In this regard, however, much still depends on the preparedness of specific services of the Member State concerned, despite references to the principle of subsidiarity and the existence of Frontex.

The situation along the south-eastern land border also calls for attention, financial resources and common action, even though it is not currently a major route for illegal immigration.

In addition, enlargement of the Schengen area may exacerbate the problems related to migration. That is why Union policy on legal migration is such an important issue. In order to be able to manage legal economic migration, however, we must first deal with harnessing the potential and mobility of the workforce within the Union.

The existence of transitional periods for opening up labour markets to citizens of the new Member States, and of selective lifting of these arrangements by opening the labour markets only to highly skilled workers seriously disrupts all moves towards a Community migration policy for citizens of third countries.

The cultural and geographic factors involved in legal migration are also significant. On the basis of their geographical location, cultural and linguistic similarities, Member States are obviously more inclined to adopt a migration policy in relation to specific third countries. I refer to those countries whose citizens find it easiest to integrate with European culture and values on account of proximity and acquaintance, if only of the language concerned. That type of legal migration therefore has double added value.

  Josep Borrell Fontelles (PSE). – (ES) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Mediterranean is the world’s most unequal border. In economic terms and in terms of income, the tremendous difference between the two sides produces a flow of people that cannot be controlled solely by police forces.

In the summer of 2006 I had the opportunity to congratulate Commissioner Frattini because he and some Spanish fishermen saved Europe’s honour by rescuing a group of people adrift at sea, and we then witnessed a disgraceful trade-off process as to what we ought to do with them. One year on, Commissioner, are we in a better position to deal with this problem?

We are moving forward very slowly indeed, and our rate of progress is incompatible with the gravity of the problem that lies before us. It is a problem that we will be unable to solve without further development in the countries of origin. We must get that into our heads. We will not be able to solve the problem without development in the countries of origin because, although we need a large number of immigrants, we cannot cope with the entire demographic excess of sub-Saharan Africa.

Moreover, what is happening here is the terrible combination of hunger on one side and TV satellite dishes on the other. The empty bowl in the kitchen and the satellite dish laden with expectations constitute the best possible breeding ground for illegal immigration, which we can only control by contributing to the development of the countries of origin and preventing the real ‘call effect’: illegal employment.

(Applause)

  Philip Bradbourn (PPE-DE). – Mr President, the topic we are discussing today is undoubtedly one of the utmost importance to Europe and one where each Member State faces different challenges. For this very reason, whether we are dealing with illegal or legal migration, we must not go down the path of a one-size-fits-all approach. Migration matters must remain a sovereign right of each Member State.

However, I am in favour of greater cooperation between Member States where common ground can be identified and where it can work for the benefit of all. And, like other speakers, I would particularly like to focus the House’s attention on the Frontex system, where we have recently released a further EUR 12 million to this organisation.

From the outset the system has suffered as a result of Member States who have pledged resources but who are not honouring their commitments. If this project is going to be a success we must ensure that these promised resources are made available to the operation as and when needed.

However, this is only one tool in the struggle to stop illegal immigration. We must look at new and innovative solutions at the very source where migrants start their journey. We need to look at targeted campaigns in the states of origin, making it clear that Europe is not an open door. Most of all, we must also target people traffickers.

The other side of this coin means our Member States having effective repatriation policies to deter those who both seek and organise illegal migration.

So finally can I sum up by saying that it is cooperation, not regulation, that is needed between Member States. A one-size-fits-all approach cannot solve the problems of immigration, and we must not fall into the trap of thinking that ‘more Europe’ is the solution.

  Louis Grech (PSE). – (MT) Mr President, it is true that in the past months the continuous commitment of Commissioner Frattini together with the priority that is being given by the Portuguese Presidency is producing some results, notwithstanding the formidable bureaucracy and the tangible lack of solidarity in some aspects, which delayed the efficacy of a number of initiatives. However, this tragic issue deserves a common European policy that urgently addresses fundamental ‘issues’, including: the adoption of ‘burden-sharing’ policies between all the Member States, the revision of Dublin II as proposed in paragraph 18 of the Sánchez report, adequate financial support or support of another kind, including capital provision for infrastructure projects, as well as an assessment of the viability, or otherwise, of developing centres such as job centres in countries of origin and transit, the development of a realistic return policy, the implementation of timely integration policy and the fight against organised crime involving trafficking in people, as well as xenophobia and racism. Unfortunately we do not have a European agency based in the Mediterranean to develop this common policy on immigration and asylum. Frontex can never fulfil the role if its terms of reference do not change substantially. Finally, Mr President, I would like to thank the two rapporteurs who showed us in concrete terms how backward the Union is in this respect. They addressed the rights and dignity of the immigrants that are frequently the victims of political repression, poverty and organised crime, as well as the difficulties faced by small Member States such as Malta that carry a disproportionate weight, frequently without any real solidarity.

  Libor Rouček (PSE). – (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, Europe is facing two challenges. On the one hand we see ageing and a demographic decline. On the other hand hundreds of thousands, even millions of people from developing countries, anxious to enter either legally or illegally, are knocking on the southern and eastern gates of the Union. This challenge has to be addressed in the European Union through joint efforts: no country, regardless of how big it is, can solve this on its own.

I therefore welcome the Commission’s efforts to seek and propose joint solutions, such as using Frontex to prevent illegal migration. Another example is managing legal immigration through the Blue Card system or through cooperative agreements with the countries of origin. I also welcome today’s repeated appeal by Commissioner Frattini to those countries of the European Union that have not yet opened up their labour markets to their fellow citizens from the new Member States to do so as soon as possible.

  Manuel Lobo Antunes, President-in-Office of the Council. − (PT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I will be brief. This was certainly one of the fullest, most detailed and all-encompassing debates that I have had the honour of chairing, attending and participating in within the Council and this Parliament. It was a debate in which I noted and from which I have naturally taken various suggestions, advice and proposals which in my opinion are extremely important and essential to the work that we must do in the future.

In light of all this, I feel that I can legitimately conclude that the European Union has a coherent and comprehensive strategy for tackling the issues of migration and that it is well on the way to implementing policies which will give physical and practical form to this strategy. Of course there will be some hesitations, some doubts certainly and also of course the need to be a bit more ambitious but, I must stress, everything will be balanced within the context in which we live and according to the difficulties facing us. I feel that we are on the right road and that we can, and must, move forward with determination to implement a truly global approach to migration.

In our opinion, two essential words form the basis of this policy, humanity and solidarity: humanity because this policy is based on the people and is aimed at the people. This issue of humanity cannot be and is never forgotten by the presidency. As has been said, we are talking about people who, by seeking to enter our societies, are legitimately striving for a better life for themselves and for their families. This is a human desire and wish that we must fully respect. The other essential word is solidarity because, as has been said, this is not an issue or a problem that can be solved by only one Member State, or even by two or three. It is a problem that affects everyone and that therefore has and must have a joint response. Fortunately, we believe that there is an increasingly apparent awareness of the need to bring together these two concepts – humanity and solidarity – when defining and implementing European migration policies.

We have already set up a joint instrument for fighting illegal immigration, an agency known as Frontex, which has been in existence for two years. Over this period it has been taking its first steps and, in our opinion, despite some difficulties, has acquitted itself well. Clearly we must increase our efforts to equip it with the instruments needed so that it can achieve the purpose for which it was created more effectively, quickly and accurately. However, we consider that this collective instrument has so far given a good indication that its creation was necessary and right.

In the context of legal migration, mention has very rightly been made here today of the need to increase our dialogue with third countries, specifically those countries which are the source of migration flows. This dialogue is absolutely fundamental and, as has been said, I fully agree that, without considering, analysing and in some way attacking the causes which, in these countries of origin, are at the root of these migration flows, we will never be able to find a permanent solution to this problem.

We have stepped up dialogue in this area with Africa and we hope that at the next Europe-Africa summit very important results may be achieved, and ultimately legal migration, in the context of migration and dialogue on migration with the countries of origin. The Portuguese Presidency has put legal migration high among the action priorities of its agenda for its six-month term. The Commission has also been active in this area and has tabled proposals we regard as very interesting. These will be discussed during our presidency, when we hope, as I have said, to be able to make significant progress.

To sum up, despite the difficulties, despite the tough problems that we must face, we feel that we are on the right road. Here and there perhaps, we must be a bit more ambitious. Here and there perhaps, we must be a bit quicker, but I feel that no one of good faith can deny that a great deal has been done in recent years.

Of course the Council welcomes and encourages this debate with the European Parliament. The issue of codecision and the Reform Treaty was raised here today. As you know, the Reform Treaty has its roots in a mandate that was approved by the European Council and therefore by all the Member States. Decisions of this type must be taken by all the Member States, not just the presidency of course. In any event, I believe that the Reform Treaty, like the Constitutional Treaty, takes extremely important steps towards extending the codecision process to many legislative initiatives within the EU.

  Franco Frattini, Vice-President of the Commission. − (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I too am grateful to everyone who has spoken in this extremely important debate. I believe that Europe must be truly united in its approach to this global phenomenon which involves millions of children, women and men and affects all continents.

First of all, it has been said - and I agree - that we must combat unlawful conduct by taking action against traffickers and those who exploit illegal immigrants, and by means of a repatriation policy that is both credible and fully respectful of individual rights, of the dignity of every human being. The European Union has already undertaken some repatriation activities and may continue to do so. I would recall that repatriation initiatives are often delegated to the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, so as to ensure maximum transparency in our respect for human rights.

I believe that a European policy has to link aid, respect for human rights, trade policy with Africa and immigration. I very much agree with Mr Watson's wise words about those countries: ‘we take their goods or we take their people’. We must reflect on this, especially because the strategy must be a global one and cannot exclude trade relations or our policy of development aid to Africa.

External border controls are also vital. Some of you have referred to them; some have expressed doubts. I believe that Frontex deserves support. It deserves support because, as happened this summer, not only have human lives been saved that would otherwise have been lost, but the Frontex officials have arrested a large number of people: 400 people, members of trafficking organisations, have been caught and handed over to the authorities. This is a large number because it relates only to the past summer.

I therefore hope that this House will recognise the need to give Frontex additional resources in the 2008 budget. I know there is an amendment seeking to freeze as much as 30% of Frontex’s operating costs with immediate effect. I do hope this proposal will be reconsidered and that the budget will instead be increased, subject to monitoring and a fully responsible attitude to expenditure.

There have of course been many references to economic migration. The detailed proposal I shall make about a European work permit certainly does not mean that we will decide in Brussels how many immigrants are needed in each country. That will remain the responsibility of each country’s national government and national market, so I wish to reassure all those who have questions or concerns about this. In other words, each Member State will be free to decide how many of each category of non-Community workers it needs. However, ladies and gentlemen, one thing Member States will not be able to do is to say ‘we do not need any at all’ and then carry on tolerating illegal immigration and the exploitation of undeclared employment. That is not possible because there will be European rules.

Immigration naturally brings us to a universal value, which some of you have mentioned: mobility among peoples. I believe that there are opportunities, but also rights. Rights are always accompanied by duties. A policy relating to rights but not duties would be unthinkable. We cannot and would not wish to impose our European laws or funding on anyone else unless our counterparts agree. This is something we must make crystal clear: our idea, our policy, is partnership. It is that of a large-scale pact with the countries from which immigrants come and through which they transit.

Such a pact should include - and this is a key component - total respect on our territory for our laws, for fundamental rights and for our most absolute and universal values: life, the dignity of every woman and every man, respect for the individual. This brings me to integration.

Integrating immigrants means showing respect for their background and religion, because they are a source of enrichment for every one of us, but it also entails respect from them for our traditions, our background, our culture and our religion. That is why, as I see it, integration means participation.

Quite frankly, we cannot integrate by law those who do not wish to integrate, those who are not prepared to move forward, those who think that Europe can still tolerate forced marriages or polygamy. Such things are not acceptable because we have our laws and our universal values.

This, then, means education, it means language-learning, it means vocational training, and it means regular employment and the rejection of anything unlawful. It means taking a firm stance on unlawfulness. Someone expressed this thought, with which I particularly agree: immigrants who commit crimes are the worst enemies of honest immigrants who work and earn their living normally.

The reason is that we have to explain this policy to our citizens who are full of concern: they should not be afraid of immigration as such, but of those who commit crimes. It is our duty to ensure that people who commit crimes are punished, because otherwise we do not draw a distinction for our citizens and we fail to address this fear, this concern which then turns into racism and becomes xenophobia, a dreadful but growing phenomenon within the European Union.

To conclude, Mr President, politicians have to make choices. I believe that our choice must be to establish a global pact of rights and duties among equals, among counterparts. There should not be one side laying down conditions and the other accepting them; nor should anything be imposed on us that we find unacceptable. This is what is needed because we are talking about the dignity and rights of human beings. We are talking neither about an economic remedy nor about a bureaucratic remedy.

  President. − The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow at 12.00 noon.

(The sitting was suspended at 11.45 a.m. and resumed at 12.00 noon)

Written statements (Rule 142)

  Filip Kaczmarek (PPE-DE), in writing. – (PL) Illegal immigration is a somewhat paradoxical notion. I grew up under a political system in which certain terms were deemed to be a priori positive or negative by those in power and their propaganda. For instance, international was classed as positive but cosmopolitan as negative. We must guard against falling into a similar semantic trap. Since xenophobia is bad, one can hardly consider that it is a very good thing for a country or the European Union to protect itself against illegal immigration. It is surely more of a necessary evil.

I saw the words 'Nobody is illegal' painted on a wall in my home town of Poznań. It is sometimes worth pausing to consider whether a human being can actually be illegal. It is not only on the Atlantic and the Mediterranean that people put their lives at risk attempting to cross the Union's borders. Last week a Chechen woman and her three young daughters died on the border between Ukraine and Poland. They were fleeing from the tragedy that has befallen their homeland. It is hardly surprising that people are trying to escape from Chechnya, and are even prepared to risk their lives to do so.

The presence of several million immigrants in Europe, who entered the Union illegally, is a very real problem. As we strive to resolve it, however, we must keep in mind the universal values that underpin European integration. We must also remember that immigration itself is not a negative phenomenon, for the very simple reason that no human being is a negative phenomenon.

  Katalin Lévai (PSE), in writing. – (HU) Ladies and gentlemen, Mr President, 85% of unskilled immigrants from the developing world live in the European Union and only 5% go the USA, while a mere 5% of highly skilled immigrants arrive in the countries of the old continent, and more than half are snatched up by the US economy. I am delighted that Mrs Gruber’s report seeks, among other things, to halt and reverse this process.

I think we must find ways of attracting highly skilled labour, but at the same time we must also prevent the ‘brain drain’ from developing countries. The term ‘highly skilled labour’ should therefore be defined and common criteria for training should be standardised and established within the European Union.

This time I do not support the Commission in its application of the principle of ‘the more the merrier’, and I agree that the five directives should merged. Less bureaucracy will also prove more attractive to skilled workers.

Prior to drafting the directive(s) I suggest that an initial impact assessment should be carried out that also takes social factors into account. This assessment could help to ensure that by representing the real interests of citizens, the legislation being devised will save the European Union millions of euros.

The proposal by Mr Frattini concerning the introduction of packages of legal-entry quotas could, I think, facilitate a reduction of illegal migration within the European Union, but it could also result in more effective control over illegal migration in third countries.

Instead of the EU green card proposed in the report, I believe the new blue card scheme is more likely to succeed in achieving what we hope for concerning legal immigration.

IN THE CHAIR: MR VIDAL-QUADRAS
Vice-President

3. Welcome

  President. − I would like to welcome His Holiness Satguru Baba Ji and his delegation, who are seated in the official gallery. His Holiness is the spiritual leader of the Sant Nirankari Mission, also known as the Universal Brotherhood. The Mission is founded on the belief that true religion unites, never divides.

His Holiness is visiting Europe and spreading the Mission’s message of humanity as the only religion. His visit to Parliament today and his meeting with President Pöttering are part of his current mission to build harmony and understanding between cultures and religions.

We welcome him and wish him every success.

(Applause)

4. The need for measures to protect the Roman Catholic Cathedral of St Joseph in Bucharest, Romania - an endangered historical and architectural monument (written declaration): see Minutes

⁂

  Reinhard Rack (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, President Pöttering asked us yesterday to be on time for the vote. Many of us tried, but the lifts here in the building are not capable of bringing our colleagues down from the upper floors in time. Perhaps something could be done about this, or the bell could be rung a bit earlier.

  President. − Well, Mr Rack, do not worry: we did begin again at exactly 12 noon and it is now 12.04 p.m., so we are not doing too badly.

5. Verification of credentials of new members of the European Parliament

  Giuseppe Gargani (PPE-DE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Committee on Legal Affairs has authorised me to give a very brief oral report. During the part-session on 10 and 11 September we verified the credentials of the 18 Members from Bulgaria, plus another seven who were nominated by the competent national authorities owing to the resignations that occurred. We have ascertained, by checking all the customary documents and the annexed minutes, that the statements on incompatibility are in order and the statements on financial interests have been signed by the Members. I therefore believe that I can speak for the entire House in welcoming the 18, plus the other seven Members from Bulgaria, thus completing the coverage of this Europe of ours. We therefore wish a warm welcome as from today to those who are joining us in the work of the European Parliament.

  President. − Thank you, Mr Gargani. Those mandates are thus ratified. We wish the new Members every success.

6. Voting time

  President. − The next item is the vote.

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

6.1. European Institute of Technology (vote)

- Report: Paasilinna (A6-0293/2007)

6.2. Right to vote and stand in elections to the European Parliament for EU citizens residing in a foreign Member State (vote)

- Report: Duff (A6-0267/2007)

- Before the vote:

  Andrew Duff (ALDE), rapporteur. – Mr President, the report supports the Commission’s proposals to streamline procedures for those citizens who wish to stand or vote at an election to the European Parliament in their state of residence. It fully respects national law and practices, and it pushes forward the argument for the future about extending cross-border democracy. Would Members please support the committee resolution without amendment.

  Franco Frattini, Vice-President of the Commission. – (FR) Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Duff, for his report, which is full of ideas. Some of the amendments being put forward by the European Parliament go well beyond what the Commission is proposing in order to resolve certain administrative difficulties in the application of the Directive, as were identified in its report on the elections of 2004.

However, I fully understand the motivations behind some of Parliament’s amendments – and moreover the Commission supports these too – particularly the need to improve the degree of citizen participation in European elections and the European make-up of elections to the European Parliament. This is all linked to questions concerning the exclusion of dual candidacy, which one of the amendments seeks to do away with, and the automatic process leading to loss of rights to stand as a candidate.

The Commission is therefore in favour of a more detailed examination of these issues, if necessary by conducting a proper study, and the European Parliament will obviously be involved in this process. These questions could also be discussed, if necessary, by the interinstitutional information group, which is currently exploring all possible ways in which the dissemination of information on the 2009 European elections can be made somewhat more effective.

  Richard Corbett (PSE). – Mr President, on a point of order, I see that the ALDE Group has requested a separate vote on every single amendment in the context of this report.

Under our Rules of Procedure, only a group can table an amendment. I wanted to check whether this has really been done in the name of the group or whether it is just one of their members claiming to act on behalf of the group.

  President. − Mr Corbett, we have here the proof that it was the group who asked for that, so everything is OK. I am sorry, but everything is OK!

(Laughter)

6.3. Set aside for year 2008 (vote)

- Proposal for a Council Regulation – Set-aside for year 2008 (C6-0302/2007)

6.4. Dangerous toys made in China (vote)

- Resolution: B6-0351/2007

6.5. Towards a common European foreign policy on energy (vote)

- Report: Saryusz-Wolski (A6-0312/2007)

6.6. Legal migration (vote)

- Report: Gruber (A6-0322/2007)

- After the vote on Amendment 19:

  Roberta Angelilli, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I wanted to speak before the vote. I am speaking under Rule 150 of the Rules of Procedure. Given that our Amendment 19 is the same as Amendment 1 from the PPE-DE Group, the UEN Group withdraws its amendment and would like to co-sign Amendment 1 of the European People’s Party and European Democrats.

6.7. Policy priorities in the fight against illegal immigration of third-country nationals (vote)

- Report: Moreno Sánchez (A6-0323/2007)

7. Explanations of vote

- Report: Paasilinna (A6-0293/2007)

  Jaroslav Zvěřina (PPE-DE). – (CS) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I did not support the proposal to establish a European Institute of Technology. Of course I wish, like most of you, that the European Union would adapt and would produce more inventions and patents.

However, having listened to the debate on this proposal I do not believe that setting up another institution is a step in the right direction. Our universities and research institutes will get no extra money; if anything, they will have another institution to compete with for research grants. Nor has the vote of our venerable institution created a new body of super-scientists. The Institute will be managed by scientists who will leave the universities where they are now. I therefore believe that it would be better if we channelled the available funds, if can find them, into the existing top scientific teams through research grants.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE-DE). – (SK) If we actually want to overtake the US, Japan and other world leaders in science and technology and if we want Europe to set the tone, then the necessary preconditions must be created.

Centres of excellence must have all the conditions and preconditions in place. The European Institute of Technology is a step in the right direction. It is a shame that this decision has been delayed for so long. I believe that the problems surrounding sufficient funding for the EIT will be resolved satisfactorily.

I also support the idea of cofinancing according to the Public Private Partnership principle, as is the case, for example, at research centres in the United States. I would like scientists and researchers from the new countries also to be selected for, and involved in, the scientific teams, and the governing board to be subject to monitoring by the European Parliament. The research objectives should mirror the Seventh Framework Programme for science and research and only research on embryonic stem cells should not be funded by the taxpayers of those countries where such research is illegal.

  Tomáš Zatloukal (PPE-DE). – (CS) Mr President, allow me a remark concerning the vote on the establishment of the European Institute of Technology. I voted for the proposal since this is the first time that we have had a system linking research, education and the business sector.

This is a fundamental project in the area of European innovation and like other similar projects it is accompanied by problems, in this case financial problems in particular. That said, the proposal to establish the Institute and to give it enough space to justify its future existence deserves our support.

  Hannu Takkula (ALDE). – (FI) Mr President, I wish to say a few words regarding the European Institute of Technology. Firstly, I would like to thank the rapporteur Mr Paasilinna. He has done some excellent work. I know that he is an expert in education and research and other such areas.

This a very ambitious project, but I would nevertheless like to point out that if we in the European Union establish new institutions it might be very important that, before we do so, we ensure that existing institutions can obtain adequate funding. Consequently, we should also ensure that the network of universities which now exists can obtain adequate support and thereby produce new research.

In the vote I voted in accordance with Mr Paasilinna’s recommendation, but I would ask Parliament to consider that existing research communities should be able to obtain their funding and that this new institute should not eat up the money set aside for them. I ask that this should be recorded and taken into account when the decisions are being taken.

  Edite Estrela (PSE), in writing. − (PT) I voted in favour of the Paasilinna report on the European Institute of Technology because I consider that this will make a decisive contribution to increasing the competitiveness of the European economy, by reinforcing synergies between innovation, research and education.

I therefore support the proposals made by the rapporteur which aim to clearly define the sources of funding of the future European Institute of Technology so that this can start work as soon as possible and successfully fulfil its mission, contrary to the objectives set out by the Lisbon Strategy.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) Our position on the creation of the European Institute of Technology is highly critical as a result of the position taken by various research organisations. For example, last year the League of European Research Universities presented a study which concluded that the plan for the European Institute of Technology was ‘misconceived and doomed to failure’. Euroscience, a European organisation of scientists and political experts, called it ‘a politically motivated idea, starting from a wrong premise’. The United Kingdom’s science adviser, Robert May, said that ‘it is based on a misunderstanding’ about innovation.

This Institute will be virtual, composed of scientists based at EU universities, research laboratories and companies, and will not grant qualifications, contrary to what was originally proposed. Following pressure from various countries that wanted to host the Institute, this became virtual, a type of gateway for consulting scientific communities in different areas. The European Parliament has just adopted several amendments to the Commission proposal, but in our opinion these are insufficient to straighten something which was born crooked.

As for the funding, one of the options is the Community budget, including appropriations intended for research, which may end up being just another way of supporting the developed countries and thus worsening the inequalities.

  Janusz Lewandowski (PPE-DE), in writing. − (PL) Mr President, the concept of a European Institute of Technology has changed in the course of the lively debate on how to promote innovation within the European Union. Initially, the Institute was to be a European equivalent to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, within the framework of the Lisbon Agenda. In other words, it was to be part of our strategy to compete with the United States. In the current fast-changing global environment, we are thinking instead in terms of a network of Knowledge and Innovation Centres, the so-called KICs, coordinated by a central body. This was reflected in the separation of two budget lines in the amendments tabled by the European Parliament to the draft budget for 2008 (separate financing for the network and for the coordinating body). We seem to be closer to finding a solution to financing this enterprise since the European Commission proposed reviewing the 2007-2013 financial perspective, in particular, raising the limit for Heading 1A, whilst reducing it for other headings. This confirms, once again, that Parliament was not mistaken when it highlighted the unduly low level of budgetary resources allocated to the objectives of the Lisbon Strategy.

I also wish to support Wrocław in its bid to host the headquarters of the European Institute of Technology. I must point out, however, that better financing of R&D and the creation of a new institution is not enough to ensure that Europe becomes competitive and innovative. That will be determined by the development of a business culture, a willingness to take risks and by practical links between research and development circles and private entrepreneurship.

  Erika Mann (PSE), in writing. − (DE) In my view, the decision to retain the idea of an EIT is a mistake. None of the arguments presented is convincing as they start from false premises.

1. Even the original idea put forward by Mr Barroso, the President of the Commission, to launch the EIT as a European response to America's MIT ignored reality, and the proposal presented for the vote today further worsens the original concept. MIT evolved with a great deal of money and diverse support, and in Europe numerous 'mini-MITs' are already carrying out world-class research. Europe's dilemma is the inadequate financial and moral support for innovation and top-class research.

2. The proposed EUR 309 million in funding from a reserve budgetary source blocks other parliamentary initiatives such as the strategically important Galileo project. The funding proposal amounts to just an eighth of the estimated budget and therefore does not offer any incentive for serious additional private initiatives. BP has invested USD 500 million in the biofuels sector in Berkeley in the United States alone.

3) With its own generous sources of funding and grants to the top-class European institutes already in existence, the EIT would have a prospect of success. For example, the EU could follow the Canadian model and set up an innovation fund financed from monies left in the EU budget at the end of the year.

4. The planned network infrastructure is a virtual supranational institution without any real significance in the European and international research landscape. It is an unhappy and bureaucratic compromise.

I have therefore voted against the proposal.

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. − I welcome in principle the idea of a European Institute of Technology. However, I abstained on the resolution because I do not think we have yet sorted out the objectives, management and finances of the Institute to a satisfactory level.

  Pierre Pribetich (PSE), in writing. – (FR) On Tuesday, 25 September I supported my colleague Reino Paasilinna by voting for the establishment of the European Institute of Technology (EIT).

This report reflects a real desire to converge towards a knowledge society. Arranging for tools to be put in place, within the European Union, to promote the integration of innovation, research and education will eventually help stimulate competitiveness within the European economy.

The activities of the EIT will be steered by a Governing Board of scientific and administrative personnel. This Board will designate the Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs) that are responsible for implementing the strategic priorities of the EIT.

At the same time, however, it is a matter of regret that the financial resources being earmarked for this project are somewhat lacking. This could in the long term prove to be the undoing of this promising initiative.

We all need to be aware of the absolute necessity of providing the European Union with Community projects that will ensure its development within the context of the Lisbon Strategy.

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. − (PT) The European Union is now at a real crossroads in terms of its competitive capacity with regard to the rest of the world. Despite enjoying many attraction factors, whether historic and cultural or economic and tourist-related, we cannot escape the major challenges of global competition with the new emerging Asian economies. Our capacity to be an attractive environment for knowledge and innovation is under question.

I believe that the vote on the European Institute of Technology marked an important step in the construction of a framework of European actions to help our economy grow and develop, based on the triangle of innovation, research and education. I believe that it should not be low wages or cheap labour that make the EU attractive to investment and the growth of our companies. The future is companies which understand that they need to invest in making the population highly skilled, by helping society to interact with industry and companies in order to develop high-quality and highly innovative responses to the dynamic and demanding needs of the markets.

  Dominique Vlasto (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) When the European Commission proposed establishing a European Institute of Technology (EIT) the idea was to create a new centre of excellence for higher education, research and innovation. This ambition is now being thwarted by the difficult question of funding and no satisfactory or permanent answer has yet been found to this problem. This is extremely worrying because it diminishes the credibility of the EIT even before it has been established.

The idea of the EIT issuing an EIT mark could help solve the problem of visibility from which European research has been suffering, while at the same time providing real recognition for projects whose excellence and quality has merited such a label. It appears to me that such a flexible system, which lends itself well to the diversity that exists within Europe, would stimulate healthy competition between universities and between research projects.

Another imperative, I believe, is to involve the private sector in the EIT project. The role played by public authorities should be restricted to promoting and structuring the various instruments that are required. All the rest should come from the private sector, namely the funding, organisation and management of the EIT. Above all I do not want to see the EIT become just another in a long list of EU agencies.

In spite of these reservations, however, I support the report in order that the EIT may have a chance to succeed.

  Glenis Willmott (PSE), in writing. − The EPLP have chosen to abstain on both the Amended Proposal and Legislative Resolution for the Report: European Institute of Technology. While in favour of the general objectives of the proposal and its focus on innovation, EU and Member States money would be better spent on existing Universities and EU research framework programmes. We believe that the EIT administrative structure should be as least bureaucratic as possible, and therefore smaller than the proposed 21 appointed members. There are also still serious concerns regarding the private and public financing of the EIT. Given that the Commission’s proposal to finance the EIT suggests the reopening of the financial perspectives, we cannot support the report.

- Report: Duff (A6-0267/2007)

  Frank Vanhecke (ITS). – (NL) Mr President, I would like to take a moment to explain why I voted against the Duff report, although the Duff report is not really a controversial report as such. It is because I am opposed to the European federal philosophy that underpins the report.

In short, I am opposed to a European federal state and so I am also automatically opposed to EU citizenship, and this right to vote and right to stand as a candidate for election for EU citizens in Member States other than their own is an integral part of that. I believe that the Union must remain a community of national democracies, where the right to vote and the right to stand for election, whatever type of election, must continue to be reserved for the citizens of the states concerned. It is actually a mark of the evolution of the European Union that EU citizenship is systematically confirmed and expanded, including now making the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union binding.

  Bogusław Rogalski (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, we have today voted on and adopted Mr Duff’s report on the exercise of the right to vote and stand as a candidate in elections to the European Parliament for citizens of the Union residing in a Member State of which they are not nationals.

I cannot support this report, because contrary to the intentions of the rapporteurs in my view, this method of voting and standing in elections to the European Parliament will not promote good neighbourly relations between countries, especially if they share a border. Over many years, countries with significant national minorities have developed standards for avoiding conflicts of a nationalistic nature.

The voting method adopted may re-ignite such conflicts, which will run counter to the spirit of peaceful coexistence between the nations of Europe. This is because it will be possible for individuals to stand for election and vote when they are not nationals of a particular state. There are bound to be abuses of the system, for example by providing a fictional domicile simply in order to reduce the voice of a particular country, and to engineer an impact on the outcome of the elections. Checking the relevant information is difficult and expensive.

In addition, this voting method will strengthen separatist movements, which is surely not what we wish for contemporary Europe. I regret that for somewhat unclear reasons, we are imposing our will on the Member States from above in this regard, thus interfering in national electoral procedures.

  Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE). – Mr President, of all the claims made by supporters of the European Constitution, perhaps the silliest is that EU citizenship does not prejudice national citizenship. One by one, the entitlements once bestowed by nationality have been eroded: the right of residence; the right to elect your own representatives; increasingly, too, the right to claim welfare.

Any neutral observer would conclude that EU citizenship is becoming the primary legal status of our constituents, with their national citizenships a secondary, almost folkloric category.

I accept that this is where the majority in this House wants to go but, for heaven’s sake, be honest about it! Let us hear no more nonsense about the status of my constituents as British subjects being unaffected.

  Ignasi Guardans Cambó (ALDE), in writing. − (ES) I feel that adopting this report is a serious mistake and extremely irresponsible, and so I am voting against it.

Above all, we must remember that there is no European election system. Things would be different if this were to be established at some point (and I would support it). Meanwhile, European elections must be in line with the election systems in each Member State. The Duff report proposes the scrapping of dual or multiple candidacies in European Parliament elections. The same candidate could stand in a number of states, and after the elections could choose which of the seats he or she wants to retain.

In addition to the obviously complicated arrangements this would involve, it is evident this is defrauding the electorate, and is adding nothing to the respectability of the Parliament we wish to construct.

Moreover, the proposal put to the vote today eliminates compulsory recognition of legal decisions (both civil and criminal) in relation to the capacity to stand as a candidate, making it possible for someone who has been banned from standing by a court in the state of which he or she is a national to stand in another state. This is a contradiction of European justice and home affairs practices, and we can easily imagine the shameful situations it could create.

  Monica Maria Iacob-Ridzi (PPE-DE), in writing. − (RO) Due to the heavy system of information exchange between Member States, in practice, very few citizens know how to use the right they hold under the Treaty to vote in the elections for the European Parliament if they are residents of another European country. The voice of these people needs to be heard and their access to the political life of their country of residents needs to be facilitated; this is why I support the replacement of the current system with the requirement of filling in a sworn statement.

For the residents who wish to candidate in the European elections, the obligation to obtain a national attestation is disproportionate to the general objective of the EC Directive 93/109. In practice, obtaining such an attestation from the institutions of the country of citizenship is very difficult and time consuming. This formal obligation actually results in the cancellation of the right granted by the Treaty.

A future proposal of the European Commission should also deal with the issue of the establishment of political parties of non-national citizens. Electoral laws of Member States must not discriminate between national parties made up of nationals of the given country and other parties. Political representation in the European elections is a very important matter for countries with a large segment of population residing in another Member State of the European Union, such as Romania.

  Carl Lang (ITS), in writing. – (FR) If the people of Europe do not vote in large numbers in their country of residence and if the level of participation in the European elections fails to match the aspirations of the Eurocrats it will not be because the application of voting rights and eligibility for the European elections has been overcomplicated by the need to exchange information between the Member States.

It will simply be because your bureaucracy and policies appear to them at best pointless and incomprehensible and at worst harmful, and because many European citizens not residing in their country of origin prefer to participate in the parliamentary elections being held in their own country.

As for the report, it uses this technical pseudo-simplification in an attempt to authorise multiple candidacies, in other words the appearance of the same candidate in several countries, something that would give an inordinate advantage under common law to foreign residents only, and it tries to bypass the laws of the Members States where ineligibility is concerned. This is absolutely unacceptable.

We believe that citizenship is indissolubly linked to nationality and the rights, particularly electoral, that it generates can only be exercised within a national setting. If European citizens want to participate in the democratic life of their host country then the option is always there: naturalisation.

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. − I welcome this report, which should reduce the burden on electoral authorities and individuals as regards the right to vote in the European elections. I support scrapping the current information exchange system while keeping the individual declaration not to vote or stand twice.

- Proposal for a Council Regulation – Set-aside for year 2008

  Agnes Schierhuber (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, the ending of set-aside is absolutely the right course of action for us to pursue. The demand for food and feedingstuffs as well as for renewable raw materials is constantly growing, and it is therefore absolutely essential to have these areas in production. Set-aside was a measure which farmers never wanted but which they had to go along with because it was necessary. Farmers want to produce! I hope that the abolition of set-aside will not only apply for one or two years but on a permanent basis. It also gives the agricultural sector the opportunity to make its contribution to the EU's ambitious targets for the reduction of its CO2 emissions.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) We not only agree that the cultivation of set-aside should be permitted for agricultural purposes for 2008, we in fact consider that the derogation should apply for longer. We therefore tabled a proposal for 2009 and 2010 and it has been agreed to include 2009. As a result farmers will be able to plan better in relation to the situation of exceptionally high prices in the cereals market.

However, this measure does not resolve the fundamental issue of the need to increase the production and supply of each Member State and employment in rural areas.

We must also draw attention to the shortage of cereals on the European market and to the negative effects of gambling on biofuels, as was decided by the Council, in terms of both the offer and price.

Once again we repeat the need for an in-depth review of the CAP (common agricultural policy) to take account of the soil and biodiversity characteristics in each country, to adapt the rotation of crops and to guarantee farmers sufficient income without threatening consumers’ interests in terms of healthy and high-quality food.

  Astrid Lulling (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) Would you have believed that after years of accusing the common agricultural policy of all kinds of wrong-doing, of costing too much and especially of producing milk lakes and grain mountains that could not be sold on the market, we would now be discovering that we have to stop cutting back our production capacity in these areas?

I am pleased to see the Commissioner’s immediate response following the surging prices, which have certainly been lucrative for our farmers: put an end to set-aside to encourage our farmers and growers to produce more grain in order to take the pressure off the market.

She should also react just as quickly to increase milk quotas and abolish the surcharges for exceeding quotas at national level. Moreover, I hope that this will serve as a lesson to the Commission, which has also been trying to reduce wine production capacity by 200 000 hectares without any regard for the opportunities that European wine producers would have for exporting to emerging markets such as China and India.

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. − Given the changing market conditions I understand and support the Commission’s proposal for a zero set-aside for agriculture in 2008. Ending set-aside is expected to increase output by at least 10 million tonnes of cereals. This should take pressure off the rising grain prices.

  Jean-Claude Martinez (ITS), in writing. – (FR) The Commission in Brussels has been telling us since 1992 that there were grain mountains, to say nothing of the oceans of milk and other larders full to bursting. The agricultural land of Europe therefore had to be put on set-aside and production had to be scaled back. The southern hemisphere and the US were calling on the WTO for a monopoly on wheat and oilseed.

Remember that as part of the Uruguay Round, and with the Blair House Accord of 1992, the European Commission agreed to limit our oilseed growing areas to 5 million hectares.

What was supposed to happen happened. Agriculture is subject to the vagaries of climate. In the Bible Joseph explained as much to Pharaoh. Drought in Australia, falling production in Ukraine and no end to the growing demand in China, India and Africa: all of these factors are driving up the price of grain and maize.

After having paid our farmers not to produce from 1993 on, even after having removed aid to production and after having put millions of hectares on set-aside when one third of humanity is going hungry, the Commission in Brussels now discovers that there is a shortage of grain and that stocks have collapsed. They are thus going back on their decision on set-aside.

It will be the same for wine. It has already happened for butter and meat. Confusion and Malthusianism are running the show.

  Brian Simpson (PSE), in writing. − One of the great mysteries to the population of the European Union is how we can devise a system that pays farmers for leaving land idle. Now whilst I understand that some reputable organisations like the RSPB in the UK use this system to fund their excellent work, nevertheless it cannot be right that we leave good land idle and pay farmers for keeping it that way.

That is why I support a zero per cent set-aside, but we must also in tandem ensure that our farmers and others are encouraged to keep land in good order and by making the land productive by helping them from other sources.

If we are serious about fundamental CAP reform then an end to set-aside payments has to be at the forefront of any reform procedure. That is why I will support the Commission’s proposals.

- Motion for a resolution (B6-0351/2007)

  Kathy Sinnott (IND/DEM). – Mr President, I would like Members to take some note of how I voted.

The bottom line is that we must and will protect children. We should be uncompromising on chemicals and pollutants that can in any way affect their functioning and development. Companies must be held to account.

But we cannot stop there. We have to take a serious look at the kind of pressures companies are under. Companies functioning in China face these pressures from the Chinese Government. The rules of the game in China are far different from the rest of the world. If a company is to operate there, it must surrender most of its decision-making and operations procedures to the Government.

China puts incentives into place which control the vertical operations of manufacturing. The tools used by Mattel to produce those 21 million toys are Chinese made and owned. The moulds used to form the plastic and put in the machinery to push out all those toys are owned by China. The reason for this is that the Chinese subsidise companies’ parts if they remain in China, and to break with this system increases their costs by 20%.

So we see that China controls businesses far more than perhaps we realise, and we need to take a lesson from this in toy safety. We must not tolerate this, just as we must not tolerate any of the human rights and environment practices of China any longer.

  Proinsias De Rossa (PSE), in writing. − I have repeatedly called on the European Commission to press forward with legislation which would require all imported products to have a country of origin label. This is extremely important as it has been found that in 2006, 17% of all detected unsafe products, including toys, were of unidentified origin, while 58% are of third country origin.

While 48% of detected unsafe products had their origin in China it should not be assumed that the fault lies solely with quality control deficiencies of Chinese manufacturers. It has been shown for instance that of the 21 million toys recalled over the past 3 months, by the US Mattel Company (which also markets its products in Europe under the Fisher-Price brand), 18 million were because of Mattel design faults, and not defective manufacture.

It has been clear for some time that tougher penalties are needed for both manufacturers and importers, to ensure that they take their responsibilities to consumers seriously; in this case to defenceless children. But some Member States continue to resist change at the behest of importers and companies which outsource manufacturing.

  Brigitte Douay (PSE), in writing. – (FR) Globalisation of trade and the lack of transparency and information on the origins of the various products being marketed across the European Union means an increased risk of acquiring dangerous, defective or counterfeit goods.

The joint resolution on product safety, especially that of toys, which I voted for on Wednesday, has been adopted by almost all the groups. It is another example of the commitment being shown by the European Union, and especially by the European Parliament, towards consumer protection.

By calling for requirements to be imposed in respect of product safety, the integrity of the CE mark, the exclusion of counterfeit goods and the introduction of traceability this resolution will provide more effective protection for consumers, especially children.

However, the call for better cooperation with the third countries concerned must not be allowed to overshadow the responsibility that falls on those companies that are placing the orders, for it is up to them to ensure that their product specifications comply with these health and safety requirements.

  Edite Estrela (PSE), in writing. − (PT) I voted in favour of the motion for a resolution on ‘Dangerous toys made in China’ because I consider it essential to take all necessary legislative and administrative action to ensure that consumer goods that are marketed within the EU not only comply fully with existing EU standards but also do not put the health and safety of consumers at risk. I therefore feel that Directive 88/378/EC on the safety of toys should be revised as quickly as possible and that it should include efficient and effective requirements for product safety.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) Ensuring product safety, particularly the safety of toys, is a priority in the protection of public health and children’s health in particular.

The necessary checking and quality control of products is an essential mechanism in achieving this objective. Companies and competent national public authorities should carry out this control and certification as a preventative measure.

As legislation defines all the safety rules with which products must naturally comply, it is up to the company or companies designing, producing and marketing these products to assume their responsibilities.

The initial reaction to unsafe products or products harmful to health, particularly toys, being imported from third countries is to try and shift the blame onto others, to the point that the Financial Times noticed that the Mattel company had formally apologised to the Chinese Government and people. It should be stressed that many imported products are made in third countries but their owners are large EU-based multinationals, which, greedy for profits, transfer their production elsewhere.

Furthermore, focusing the discussion of poor quality on imported products only obscures the fact that many products made in the EU also do not comply with the standards in force.

  Malcolm Harbour, Andreas Schwab, Marianne Thyssen and Corien Wortmann-Kool (PPE-DE), in writing. − The resolution of the Parliament, approved today by a large majority, rightly concentrates on the immediate issues of ensuring the safety of products under existing EU directives.

The EPP-ED group has insisted throughout that the resolution should concentrate on practical proposals that would reinforce consumer safety, without delay.

We have, in addition, proposed the evaluation of a European Consumer Safety label, to be applied on a voluntary basis by providers of consumer goods. We are pleased that the Parliament has endorsed this proposal.

We will take an intense interest in the future Toys Directive, and will examine the Commission’s proposed reforms with an open mind. In our view, the attempt to introduce very detailed and specific requirements for this future Directive in this resolution was entirely unnecessary. We have therefore voted against these proposed additions, but this in no way diminishes our interest and concern to bring about an effective and workable directive when we receive the Commission proposal in 2008.

  Carl Lang (ITS), in writing. – (FR) Parliament’s resolution only contains a few proposals for putting an end to the import of dangerous products, half of which come from China. It focuses on toys, yet fails to mention clothing containing toxic dyes, dangerous medicines, foodstuffs containing ingredients unfit for human consumption, electrical goods that catch fire, toothpaste made from antifreeze: the list just goes on. It also makes do with feeble measures that are based on cooperation and certification and points the finger of responsibility at the Member States rather than at China, at European companies rather than at others.

This is just not enough in this particular instance. It is time to apply exemplary sanctions against any country that, after becoming a member of the WTO, continues to engage in dubious commercial practices, whether this be dumping, counterfeiting or forced labour. It is true that the few trade protection instruments available to the European Union fall within the competence of Mr Mandelson, who has quite rightly been cited for his passivity in this area.

If at the end of the day we are then to approve this document it is because, in spite of everything, it is better to have some derisory measures in place than none at all. At least that is some form of reaction.

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. − I welcome the overwhelming vote in favour of this resolution. We have sent a clear message to toy manufacturers and to China that failure to ensure the highest safety standards for children’s toys will not be tolerated. China is on notice that it must improve its inspection of goods and detection methods to dramatically reduce the flow of unsafe goods on to the European market.

  Jean-Claude Martinez (ITS), in writing. – (FR) Children in Vietnam, Africa and elsewhere are standing on land mines. In Europe our own children are being suffocated and poisoned and are developing allergies because of Barbie dolls and toys.

The cinema has already sounded the alarm bells with the film ‘Le père noël est une ordure’. It is now up to us, the Members of this Parliament, to react and to do so on safety principles as well as to protect the demographic future of our continent, which has already been afflicted by the games played by adults at large.

It is time to do this now. Even yesterday was not soon enough, for how many faces with skin as smooth as a Brancusi sculpture have been ravaged by celluloid dolls that burst into flames at the slightest hint of a match. Toys kill and the children of Darfur do not know how lucky they are in not being able to play at eating.

  Tokia Saïfi (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) Following the large-scale safety recall of Chinese-made toys by the US manufacturer Mattel the European Commission is now taking stock of its product safety legislation, especially where imported toys are concerned. The European system of regulation in this area is solid enough, with RAPEX and the CE mark, but it needs to be strengthened.

The European Parliament is therefore going much further and, as part of its resolution on the safety of toys, wants to see adopted a common regulatory framework for the marketing of products and the surveillance of the markets. For me restoring consumer confidence and protecting the health of our children is an essential condition. In continuation of the REACH regulations, which impose strict controls on the use of chemicals in our consumer goods, I have therefore voted today for an unconditional ban on the use of any toxic substances in the manufacture of toys.

Moreover, in support of Amendments 8 and 6, I am in favour of a total ban on the use of dangerous phthalates in any toys that can be put in the mouth. The chemical safety of toys is not just a regulatory matter; it is also a hygiene issue and as such is vital for the safety of our children.

  Karin Scheele (PSE), in writing. − (DE) Today's resolution underlines the urgent need for the revision of the Toys Directive. CMRs – in other words, substances classified as carcinogens, mutagens or substances toxic to reproduction – must be banned under the new Toys Directive. Commissioner Verheugen endorsed this demand during yesterday's debate. It will also be necessary to end the confusion over the CE marking. European consumers assume this marking either to be a statement about product origin or a seal of quality, neither of which is denoted by the CE marking.

- Report: Saryusz-Wolski (A6-0312/2007)

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE-DE). – (SK) Energy security and energy form the axis around which both the domestic and foreign policy of every union revolve and are a vital factor in maintaining prosperity and, where in critically short supply, a matter of survival.

We need to take immediate steps to free ourselves of our raw material dependence on Russia, which may subsequently become a political dependence. I find it alarming that we are allowing energy to be used as a means of exerting political pressure on countries of transit and destination. I support the development of the Black Sea dimension, cooperation with the countries of the Southern Caucasus, and stepping up our involvement with Norway, the Maghreb and Mashreq countries, and the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership. Energy market predictability must be ensured through agreements with China, India and Brazil and a partnership should be established with the US Government.

Black-and-white-thinking environmentalists should realise once and for all that burning ‘eco’ fuels and biomass massively increases the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and that a reasonable, decisive proportion of nuclear energy is necessary. The influence of the fanatical Greens, who have even managed to get a ban on nuclear energy included in the constitution of a Member State – something which will not certainly affect its economy and even that of its neighbours – is of tragicomic proportions.

  Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE). – (FI) Mr President, energy security is one of the crucial factors in European security generally. Mr Saryusz-Wolski’s report responds to this challenge to Europe’s future.

The EU’s problem is that its level of self-sufficiency in energy is on the decline. The EU already imports half its energy needs from outside and by 2025 dependence on imports is estimated to exceed 70%. To deal with this problem we need a firm common voice, a new kind of energy diplomacy and, to engage in it, a special EU High Representative for external energy policy.

Making external energy policy more the mandate of the Union, however, cannot mean weakening the sovereignty of the Member States to decide their energy production means and structure. I would like to thank the rapporteur for this especially. The report allows for independent decision-making by the Member States on their energy supply structures.

  Lena Ek (ALDE), in writing. − Transparency, reciprocity and the rule of law are cornerstones of European energy policy and consequently in our foreign policy. It is however not the right time to add new institutions and I am therefore against the creation of the new position of a High Official of Foreign Energy Policy which also threatens the influence of the European Parliament when it comes to foreign energy policy.

  Françoise Grossetête (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) I have voted in favour of this report, which is aimed at putting in place a common foreign policy on energy.

The solutions applied need to be international in scope and the European Union must play a leading role in this. It is clear that energy has become a real weapon in today’s international negotiations.

Ever since the gas crisis between Russia and Ukraine in January 2006 the European Union has been aware of its vulnerability where energy supplies are concerned. In order to develop a foreign policy on energy the report essentially proposes to appoint a High Official for Foreign Energy Policy, who would be responsible for coordinating the EU’s activities in this area. This High Official for Foreign Energy Policy would wear two hats, as the person in question would be acting under the authority of both the newly created High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (CFSP) and the Vice-President of the European Commission.

I welcome this positive development, which in particular will help to promote the dialogue between the producer countries – witness the Euro-Mediterranean partnership – and the consumers. This will enable the EU to defend its interests in the area of energy security when negotiating with external suppliers.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) Energy is currently a central strategic issue.

The various EU countries, due to their high energy dependence, aspire to dominate the exploitation of existing energy resources, hence the proposal to create an energy strand within the common foreign and security policy. If adopted, this would also form a way of overcoming the contradictions existing between the main powers.

To do this, the EU should announce its ‘market’, its ‘competition’ and its enlargement to other countries in the framework of the so-called ‘energy communities’, the ‘Energy Charter Treaty’ – ensuring ‘security of investment’ and guaranteeing a ‘right to compensation in the event of expropriation and/or nationalisation’ – or the inclusion of an ‘energy security clause’ in commercial agreements. All of this can be controlled, hence its fear of the creation of a ‘gas version of OPEC’.

The majority of Parliament also defends ‘establishing an Energy Security Partnership with the US’ and, of course, a ‘critical and constructive dialogue’ with the countries in the South Caucasus, Caspian and Central Asia regions ‘which balances the EU’s interest in diversifying its oil and gas supplies and the goal of achieving political reforms in those countries’. More words for whom? Iraq, Afghanistan, Africa ...?

  Janusz Lewandowski (PPE-DE), in writing. − (PL) Mr President, the European Union is a major consumer of energy and is dependent on external sources of power. The latter are characterised by uncertainty and potential destabilisation. In the specific case of Russia and those countries of the CIS that are rich in natural resources, an additional factor contributing to the uncertainty is a tendency to use energy as a weapon for political purposes, as we have already witnessed. This should have mobilised the European Union to close ranks and stand shoulder to shoulder in crisis situations. Such a response has been very slow to develop, however, because of the diverse national interests of countries that are not as likely to be the victims of energy blackmail as the post-Communist countries.

Mr Saryusz-Wolski's report is a step in the right direction. It represents a call to base the EU-Russian relationship on the foundation of mutual trust and respect for the principles laid down in the Energy Charter.

The context of the current debate is defined by the parallel efforts of the European Commission to liberalise the Union's energy market, with Gazprom in the background. This leads to stronger pressure for implementation of the principle of separating production and distribution. The countries that are reluctant to liberalise are the same ones that are inclined to resort to bilateral energy contracts with Russia and to cooperate with Russian State-owned companies regarding capital. It is no coincidence that this involves the remnants of the public energy monopolies in continental Europe. The effect is to delay the desired free choice of energy suppliers and the development of a Community policy based on solidarity for this strategic sector.

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. − Clearly the European Union needs to co-ordinate its approach to external sources of energy much better than at present. However, I can see no value in the proposal for a High Official for foreign energy policy believing it would only cause confusion with the role played at present by Mr Solana, and I therefore voted against this proposal. I did on the other hand vote in favour of the reference to unbundling energy production and energy transmission and distribution.

  Tobias Pflüger (GUE/NGL), in writing. − The report advocates a ‘common European foreign policy on energy’. Although so far there is not even a legal base for such a policy, it aims to push ahead with it even before it can be inserted in the new reform Treaty. Instead of solving the problem of expensive and polluting energy, the report wants to shape the EU as a hegemonic, global actor. Such an expansive geopolitical approach of the EU would create more tension and conflicts worldwide. A strong anti-Russian current is seen as a red thread in the text. Almost every idea which could hinder the normal development of relations between Russia and EU Member States has been included. Critics therefore speak of a touch of cold war. By the inclusion of a so-called ‘energy security clause’ in all agreements with producer and transit countries the EU will define its interest far beyond its borders. We are concerned about the foundation of an EU energy foreign policy that would be founded on geopolitical pressure, a background of military threat. The report calls for a close partnership with the USA on energy security, being aware that the USA is waging war in Iraq to secure cheap energy resources.

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. − (PT) Given the growing importance of energy in modern society, on the one hand, and the growing international interdependence which is also now a common characteristic, on the other, it is impossible to exclude energy policy from the external dimension of the EU’s policy, either at Member State level or in terms of the common foreign policy.

I therefore agree with the resolution where it states that ‘whilst the Member States should retain their sovereign right to make strategic choices concerning the energy mix, to exploit their energy resources and to decide on the supply structures, there is a need to [promote a common approach and not necessarily a single policy] covering security of supply, transit and investment related to energy security, and the promotion of energy efficiency and energy savings as well as clean and renewable energy sources, particularly in relations with countries whose energy consumption is growing rapidly’. However, as for the idea of a High Official for Foreign Energy Policy, this dimension must be included within the work of the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, as I do not believe that a more specific approach than this makes any sense.

  Andrzej Jan Szejna (PSE), in writing. − (PL) I voted in favour of the adoption of Mr Saryusz-Wolski's report on a common European foreign policy on energy.

Pursuant to the action plan on energy policy adopted by the Council in March 2007, we must make every effort to develop a common European foreign policy on energy for the European Union, equipped with the instruments required to ensure its effective operation. I would like to draw attention to the need for solidarity and cooperation between Member States, the diversification of energy sources and ongoing development and better cooperation in this area.

I agree it is necessary to decide on a detailed road map, laying down the various stage of the introduction of such a policy. The Commission should present its proposals in this regard at the earliest opportunity. It is also important for the Member States to consult amongst themselves and with the European Commission on issues concerning strategic decisions on contracts with third parties in this area. The proposal to appoint a High Official on Foreign Energy Policy is very appropriate and deserves further consideration. This person would be responsible for coordinating all policies related to all external aspects of energy security. Such a post should help to enhance the protection of the interests of EU Member States during negotiations with foreign partners.

  Charles Tannock (PPE-DE), in writing. − British Conservatives recognise the need for the 27 Member States to show more solidarity in terms of external energy policy as all Member States in the coming years become increasingly dependant on imported oil and gas from third countries who could otherwise pick off the more dependant and vulnerable states to the detriment of the Union as a whole.

This does not mean that we endorse a common energy policy, in particular, that the EU for instance can determine individual Member States’ energy mix such as the proportion of fossil fuels versus renewables.

Broadly, Conservatives support the aims of this report although we reject the need for a single powerful co-ordinating figure to speak on this matter. Neither do we see the need for a new legal basis to be created within the Treaties to address this issue.

Attempts to add new EU competences instead of making proper use of existing ones are unnecessary. Conservatives also believe in a market-oriented approach, not further EU institutionalisation.

  Glenis Willmott (PSE), in writing. − The European Parliamentary Labour Party supports much of this resolution, in particular the priority given to supporting renewable sources of energy, promoting energy as one of the cornerstones of the European Neighbourhood Policy and calling for increased safeguards against pollution.

We abstained on citation 12 due to the abandonment of the Constitutional Treaty, which makes the proposed citation irrelevant. We abstained on Amendment 2 and on paragraph 13 as we feel that the position of a new High Official for energy policy could lead to unnecessary confusion.

We voted in favour of paragraph 62 maintaining the reference to unbundling of energy production as we wish to be consistent with a previously stated position which considers transmission ownership unbundling to be the most effective tool to promote investments, fair access to the grid and transparency in the market.

- Report: Gruber (A6-0322/2007)

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE-DE). – (SK) I voted in favour of Mrs Gruber’s report.

I welcome the drawing-up of a general framework directive and the directive on the entry conditions for highly skilled workers, the directive on the entry and residence conditions for seasonal workers, and the directive on the entry and residence conditions for remunerated trainees.

It is glaringly obvious that the European Union must lay down precise rules and actively regulate who will be admitted to work in the EU. We all know that Europe is already experiencing a ‘demographic winter’ and urgently requires manpower from non-member countries. However, it is absolutely vital that we admit only skilled labour and I propose that we select professions which are in short supply on the labour market in Europe. We must be consistent in this regard; otherwise if we willingly and thoughtlessly inundate the European Union with unskilled labour we could see problems arising from the idle lifestyle of unemployed immigrants, who subsequently commit crime and engage in illegal trade and the grey economy outside the law and are often involved in drugs and people trafficking. They create ghettos and often end up as members of terrorist groups.

  Hubert Pirker (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, I voted in favour of the report because it was made clear in Parliament that it will remain a matter for Member States to decide which and how many labour migrants will be accepted into their sovereign territory. If the 'Blue Card' is introduced, it is important to ensure that it is applied as a control instrument for highly skilled workers residing in the EU, allowing temporary – not permanent – residence in the European Union as a whole.

I would like to address a proposal to Commissioner Frattini – who unfortunately is no longer present – from the European People's Party: that the 'Blue Card' be marked with an additional national symbol, such as the flag, so that it is apparent which of the Member States has issued the work and residence permit.

  Antonio Masip Hidalgo (PSE). – (EN) Mr President, I would like to congratulate my colleagues Lilli Gruber and Javier Moreno. As someone who is temporarily disabled, I have had to use an auxiliary contract for an immigrant and I have understood better, if that were possible, what Mr Lobo Antunes was saying today about the need for solidarity and humanity, although I also understand Mr Frattini’s explanation concerning complete respect for the rule of law.

In my times of solitude I have often thought that Don Quixote, the famous character, the greatest literary figure of all time, would not have existed without Sancho, and today Sancho would undoubtedly be an emigrant coming to his aid.

Therefore, at all times there must be respect for the rule of law and respect for human beings.

  Frank Vanhecke (ITS). – (NL) Mr President, I did not indeed approve the Gruber report on the policy plan for legal migration for two main reasons. Firstly, I do not think it is wise to encourage a brain drain from the poorer countries into Europe to an even greater extent than is already happening now in any case. I do not think that it is helpful to anyone, and certainly not the poorer countries.

Secondly, I continue to be amazed at the naivety with which immigration is looked upon in this Parliament, as a kind of solution to Europe’s undeniable demographic problem. In any case, not a word is said about the huge cost of immigration for the receiving countries, nor about the fact that, more than ever before, we are having to be vigilant to preserve our European culture, our values and standards, which are increasingly coming under pressure due to the massive number of immigrants from other cultures. As well as all the other problems, this also has an economic cost. Today, in our European capital, Brussels, about 53% of the inhabitants are of what you could call non-Belgian origin; by 2050 that threatens to be 75%. We do not need new mass immigration, but the exact opposite.

  Philip Claeys (ITS). – (NL) Mr President, in the Gruber report, Parliament is following the particularly one-sided quantitative economic approach to the immigration problem. I emphatically reject the assertion that only a new wave of immigration can guarantee the economic future of Europe and I want to point out that immigration is about far more than just figures and tables. The proposals in this report will only make the already serious integration problems worse. You have to have read it to believe it. While some of the immigrant population do not want to work and do not want to retrain, some people actually want to set up an information and management centre for migration in Mali. It is undeniably the case that many so-called temporary workers will disappear into illegality when their permit expires, as happens now. Experience, for example in Switzerland, clearly shows that family members of seasonal workers continue to come in illegally.

Last but not least, the fact is that more legal immigration of highly educated persons will undeniably lead to a further brain drain from the developing countries with all the consequences that brings.

  Alfredo Antoniozzi (PPE-DE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of the Gruber report because it took on board so many issues raised by the PPE-DE Group and by myself. However, although I realise that integration is important, I believe it must occur with the consent of our citizens. Therefore, as well as integration there needs to be firm, decisive law enforcement. For example, Member States must enforce the rule stipulating that if immigrants cannot demonstrate their ability to support their family they must be repatriated after three months. This is not happening in some countries, and if it does not happen the dissatisfaction felt by citizens will render any European initiative on integration meaningless.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) Despite containing important points on migration issues which we have been defending for a long time, the report not only does not denounce the EU’s current guidelines and policies – which are criminalising and repressive towards migrants – but in fact forms another aspect of these.

To be specific, the report adopts as its own the concept of the existence of different ‘categories’ of migrants – such as the ‘most highly skilled’, ‘seasonal’ and others – and their management according to the labour needs of the various EU countries, particularly through the creation of a Blue Card: what a dehumanising view of migration and migrants.

Furthermore, the report advocates creating a common migration policy which we consider to be inadequate and unrealistic, given both the results of other ‘common’ policies and the differing situations existing in the Member States. We reiterate that migration policy is the responsibility of each country and its democratic institutions.

As we have said, a common policy is not necessary, but another policy is, in a framework of cooperation between the Member States, which will promote the rights of migrants, particularly through the ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families.

  Carl Lang (ITS), in writing. – (FR) In considering that ‘the future situations of the European Union labour markets can be broadly described as in demand of [...] legal immigration’, Mrs Gruber, like Mr Sarkozy in France, is seeking to give economic justification to the immigration policies being applied in our various Member States. However, the labour force coming from those countries that have been slow to develop is for the most part ill-equipped for the jobs that our economies need doing. Moreover, it has to be remembered that legal immigration is essentially the immigration not of workers but of people.

This policy that is bringing us nearly two million additional immigrants every year is in fact turning into a colonisation of Europe. Between now and 2050 the non-European population, which already stands at some 40 million people, will have tripled. With the accession of Turkey the Europe being constructed by Brussels will include 220 million Asians and Africans, most of whom will be from the Muslim world.

This colonisation of population constitutes a lethal threat to the Christian and humanist values of our civilisation. If we are to protect the legitimate rights of the peoples of Europe to self-determination and to remain themselves, we have to restore our borders, reverse the flow of migrants and introduce major policies that are pro-family and pro-life. We need a new Europe, a ‘European’ Europe, a Europe of sovereign nations, for that is the only thing that can guarantee our rights to defend our culture and history.

  Jörg Leichtfried (PSE), in writing. − (DE) The fact that around 18.5 million third-country nationals are living in the EU clearly demonstrates that Europe needs a common immigration policy. We must assuage our citizens' concerns and fears about immigration and show them that regulated and sensible immigration is entirely necessary in some sectors in Europe. However, I do not share the view, apparently put forward as an article of faith by the conservatives in particular, that the issue of demographic change must be linked to the issue of maintaining the European social model. What is needed instead here is the launch of a debate about the extent to which the substantially increased wealth generation throughout the European economy, which must be considered separately from demographic change, should make a solidarity-based contribution to the European social model.

  Kartika Tamara Liotard (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (NL) I have abstained from voting on Amendment 8, since while I do recognise that the problem of a brain drain from developing countries into Europe is a very serious one, I distrust the motivation of the ITS Group in tabling this amendment. We must strive to prevent highly educated people from leaving their own countries in massive numbers, thereby causing economic damage, but it should certainly not be about opposing immigration into Europe by definition.

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. − I welcome this report, which is designed to make life easier for legal migrants. Despite their status, legal migrants are often intentionally and unintentionally discriminated against. The rapporteur calls for a range of measures for legal migrants including improved employment rights, transfer of pension and welfare rights, recognition of qualifications, long-term and multiple-entry visas, all of which I support.

  Mary Lou McDonald, Søren Bo Søndergaard and Eva-Britt Svensson (GUE/NGL), in writing. − Our vote today reflects our wish to see an efficient, humane and rights-based approach to immigration in Europe. Immigrants of all types must be treated equally and in accordance with the highest human rights standards and decency.

Furthermore, as a general principle, European Member States should accept immigrants on the basis of the need of the immigrants in addition to the needs of the economies of the countries of Europe. Immigration policy across Europe must not add to the loss of vital skills, the ‘brain drain’, in developing countries, Member States and the EU Commission must not pursue policies which undermine development.

  Erik Meijer and Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL), in writing. − We have voted in favour of Amendment 8. In general our views are very far away from the group which tabled it, especially in the case of refugees, immigrants and ethnic or religious minorities. ITS tries to block the admission of refugees who are in danger, and, on the contrary, we try to help those victims of suppression, catastrophes, and poverty. So we understand very well that the majority in our group doesn't like to support ITS amendments on migration. Unlike the situation of refugees and traditional forms of immigration, in the case of the proposed attraction of highly skilled workers the EU Member States are creating a problem for their countries of origin. People who are skilled in countries like India, South Africa or Brazil are highly needed there for the necessary development. We now see that such problems are even arising inside the newest EU Member States, Romania and Bulgaria, who are losing their medical and engineering people at a rapid rate to more wealthy countries. Privileged countries and companies are stealing the brains of those people. As we don't want to support this brain drain, we voted in favour of this amendment.

  Tobias Pflüger (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (DE) The Gruber report views immigration, in some parts, solely in terms of the usefulness of the immigrating workers as capital. For example, the report stresses 'the importance of establishing stable and lawful labour relations between businesses and workers to increase productivity and EU competitiveness' and 'calls, hence, upon the Commission to consider the effects circular migration could have in this regard'.

Whereas the repressive measures against migrants and asylum seekers encounter no opposition, 'any measure designed to increase the attractiveness of the EU to the most highly skilled workers, so as to meet the needs of the EU labour market in order to ensure Europe's prosperity as well as to respect the Lisbon targets' are to be supported.

While the 'risk of a brain drain' is to be averted, 'return' is envisaged for migrants who can only enter Fortress Europe illegally. As regards the endorsement of the Policy Plan on Legal Migration, a key focus is on admission procedures 'capable of responding promptly to fluctuating demands in the labour market'.

Immigration cannot be regulated according to the criterion of its usefulness as EU capital. Instead of immigration for the benefit of Europe's businesses, fundamental and human rights for migrants and asylum seekers must be the priority. I reject any categorisation of people based on usefulness criteria.

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. − (PT) The debate on migration too often focuses on issues of illegal flows and therefore frequently forgets legal migration, which makes an important contribution to our economy and to our cultural enrichment.

In this context, we agree with two fundamental concepts: a clear and effective policy on legal migration is one of the keys to solving the issue of illegal immigration, and a generous welcome based on common principles promoting the integration and adaptation of those arriving is essential. However, it is also necessary to recognise that migration flows, migrant communities and host countries have different traditions, customs and memories and that these differences cannot be ignored.

Another issue in this debate is qualified migration. The idea of a Blue Card facilitating entry and movement could prove interesting, although it seems rather too complex. In any event, the central issue must be the attraction factor, particularly at academic level. It is therefore essential to make educational institutions aware of the need to attract students from other parts of the world. I of course support this objective.

  Carl Schlyter (Verts/ALE), in writing. − (SV) The Swedish Green Party supports and wants a liberal immigration policy. There are many good things in the report which pursue this aim. However, I believe that a framework directive in this field will reduce the possibilities for people to migrate, not the other way round. In addition, the proposal poses the risk of intensifying the brain drain which is afflicting the developing countries and is cynically exploited by the EU for its own development. I am therefore abstaining in the final vote.

  Geoffrey Van Orden (PPE-DE), in writing. − It is a dangerous fallacy that demographic change in our domestic population requires large-scale immigration of people from different, often hostile, cultures and societies, with all the implications that this has for our national cohesion and identity, the full integration of our settled immigrant population, the impact on our public services, as well as on public health, safety and security.

I wholly oppose the transfer of powers or responsibility from national authorities to the EU in relation to our national border controls and immigration and asylum policy. I therefore voted against this report.

- Report: Moreno Sánchez (A6-0323/2007)

  Hubert Pirker (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, I voted in favour of this report because the European Parliament has agreed a comprehensive strategy here to combat human trafficking and illegal immigration. As the European Parliament, we have thus sent out a clear message that 'illegal' means the same as 'not legal' and must be dealt with accordingly. In my view, it is particularly important to have clarified that there will be no quota-based allocation of illegal immigrants across all Member States and that mass legalisations of the type witnessed in recent years will no longer be permissible. This ensures that there is no 'pull effect' and also allows human trafficking to be tackled indirectly.

  Frank Vanhecke (ITS). – (NL) Mr President, the report on policy priorities in the fight against illegal immigration of third country nationals that we have just approved is certainly not the worst report that has ever been passed here and it does, in fact, contain a number of very interesting recommendations, but I still think that the report fails to clearly tell the whole story and so I have not approved it myself.

The immigration problem in Europe threatens to be the problem of this coming century – it may already today be the problem of the coming century – and illegal immigration is an important part of that. We might, therefore, have expected a much firmer standpoint to be taken, especially against the successive waves of regularisation in the various countries of Europe. After all, these have the effect of sucking people in that will eventually roll out over the whole Union, over all Member States.

It is simple actually, and we should have had the courage to put it into words. Illegal immigration cannot be tolerated. Illegal immigrants must be tracked down and we must be resolute in sending them back to their countries of origin in a humane manner. Those who dare not say that, and thus will certainly not dare to carry it out, will create enormous problems that will eventually cost our prosperity and our civilisation dear.

  Koenraad Dillen (ITS). – (NL) Mr President, going through the Moreno Sánchez report automatically brings to mind the Dutch saying ‘zachte heelmeesters maken stinkende wonden’, which means that desperate times require drastic measures. As my colleague Mr Vanhecke already said, although a few of the proposals in the report represent a step in the right direction, in general Parliament is still taking a half-hearted approach, which does not bode well for an efficient and firm European policy to combat illegal immigration. Parliament has failed, for instance, to make clear that the regularisation measures being implemented in many European countries really are one of the most important, if not the most important, causes of illegal immigration, because of the ‘pull effect’ that they create in the immigrants’ countries of origin.

Illegal immigrants should not be regularised, but they should be actively tracked down and deported in a resolute but humane manner. Contrary to what Parliament insinuates, the explicit proclamation of this political message has nothing to do with so-called xenophobia. In addition to a firm deportation policy, tight border controls, and agreements with states to take back their nationals, refugee centres in the region of origin should offer some relief, but this has also been rejected by Parliament. For these reasons I voted against this report.

  Jan Andersson, Göran Färm, Anna Hedh and Inger Segelström (PSE), in writing. − (SV) We Social Democrats want a humane immigration and refugee policy in the EU based on solidarity, which seeks to increase mobility across borders responsibly and which guarantees protection to all who need it. However, we do not want a permanent EU-financed border control force. The Member States are responsible for guarding their own borders. Community deployments should be subject to need and based on inquiries. We therefore chose to abstain in the vote on paragraph 37.

As regards paragraph 18 on a review of the basic principle of the Dublin II Regulation, we think that a discussion of the principle is justified but that it should be conducted in a wider context and as part of a discussion of the common immigration and refugee policy as a whole.

  Gérard Deprez (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) I fully support this excellent report and would like to add three comments of my own on the subject.

Firstly, we have to rid ourselves of the illusion that an active policy on legal immigration will put a stop to the illegal flow of migrants into our countries. An active policy on legal immigration will, by definition, be determined by our own needs, whereas illegal immigration will correspond to the needs of those – and there are currently tens of millions of such people, mainly in Africa – who want to move here to escape war, persecution, poverty or, quite simply, the lack of future prospects for themselves and their children.

Secondly, the control of the EU’s external borders and the fight against networks of illegal immigrant smugglers will unfortunately remain a political priority for many years to come because in reality the trade in human misery is in the hands of criminal gangs. The fight against illegal immigration is therefore not directed ‘against’ the illegal immigrants as such: it is part of the battle against organised crime, which is something we have to win together.

Thirdly and finally, we must at the same time maintain our relentless efforts to combat poverty and this can only be done through co-development in Africa.

  Patrick Gaubert (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) I welcome the adoption of this report, which presents a balanced and realistic view of the issue of immigration and has achieved a broad consensus, as the rapporteur hoped.

The report has come just at the right time when you look at the latest events and see the Member States try, one by one, to adapt their legislation to cope as best they can with the influx of migrants.

In reality we all know that the scale of the migration phenomenon exceeds the capability of the countries concerned to control these events individually and that a global and coherent approach is therefore needed at European level, as the report rightly states.

The text sets out a number of priorities: combating the trafficking of human beings, respect for the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms when applying measures to prevent illegal immigration, strengthening cooperation with third countries, taking the firm steps that are required to combat illegal employment and, finally, the need for a responsible return policy.

For these reasons I supported the adoption of the report during the final vote in plenary.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) Despite containing certain points with which we agree, this report also assumes the repressive security-oriented view of ‘illegal immigration’.

Although less so with regard to certain aspects, the report advocates developing the main axes of the current EU guidelines and decisions on immigration, including: the so-called ‘European return policy’ or, in other words, repatriation; the activity of Frontex in terms of border patrol and control; the so-called ‘temporary reception centres’; the development of biometric tools, or the so-called ‘readmission agreements’. The report also proposes setting up ‘European patrols’, a ‘European monitoring system’ at the sea borders and even a system for ‘automated checks on persons entering or leaving Union territory’.

In other words, the report aims to reinforce the EU’s security-oriented policy of criminalising ‘illegal immigration’ by turning it into a common European policy which is repressive, involves sinister information systems and includes measures and infrastructure for the detention and expulsion of immigrants. We wholeheartedly reject this.

It was the application of a repressive policy like this which led to the authorities of a Member State prosecuting seven Tunisian fishermen for having saved 44 people at sea, despite this action complying with international maritime law.

  Carl Lang (ITS), in writing. – (FR) The official figures are evidence of it: Europe is being inundated with illegal immigrants. It has proved to be completely incapable of controlling its external borders. The annual report presenting the activities of Eurodac in 2006, which is the biometric tool that Europe uses for monitoring asylum applications, shows that the number of persons recorded as having illegally crossed one of Europe’s external borders is up 64% on 2005.

The report presented by Mr Moreno puts forward a number of approaches that are supposed to put an end to this phenomenon, which is growing exponentially. I think they are all as useless as each other, not to say counterproductive.

For example, how can we be happy with the idea that to encourage legal immigration, and to do so mainly by means of the European Blue Card, which would essentially be a European work permit for immigrants, will reduce the level of illegal immigration? That is idiotic. If you open the doors to some, you are opening them to everyone.

What is the point of setting up a biometric database to combat illegal immigration? Why plan to allocate more manpower and resources to the European border control agency, Frontex, when the borders in question, whether internal or external, are still not being properly protected by the Member States?

Once again the European authorities have succeeded in identifying a problem but have proved incapable of resolving it, carried along as they are by an ideology based on ‘immigrationism’ and internationalism.

  Janusz Lewandowski (PPE-DE), in writing. − (PL) Mr President, immigration, both legal and illegal, has been recognised as one of the main challenges confronting the European Union. Quite apart from the procedural and legal issues, the tragic human dimension of this phenomenon is becoming increasingly manifest. I have visited centres for African refugees in Malta, and discussed matters with the services patrolling the Mediterranean and the responsible officials. It was while I was there that the news of the tragedy that befell that Chechen family in the Bieszczady region came to light, confirming the universal nature of this phenomenon. Hailing as I do from a country that was for centuries a source of political and economic emigration, it is hard to remain indifferent to the tragedy of refugees for whom the Union is a promised land.

It is from that perspective that I consider the two reports on which the debate in the European Parliament is based. These documents provide an overview of the scale of the problem of immigration and of the current state of Community policy in this regard. I agree with the premise that because of its demographic situation, Europe needs controlled channels of immigration that could compensate for the shortfall in the labour force and also reduce the scope of the underground economy and its associated problems.

All these issues have been recognised by Frontex, the Union's specialist agency. The proposed solutions, namely the so-called 'burden sharing' merit serious consideration.

The advent of a Community immigration policy with a sound legal and financial basis is long overdue. Better late than never!

  Astrid Lulling (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) I voted for the report on political priorities in the fight against illegal immigration of third-country nationals and I want to stress that controlling the influx of migrants to Europe, especially from third countries, is one of the greatest challenges facing European policy-makers.

In this 21st century trafficking in human beings is totally unacceptable and we have to find a way to eradicate this appalling activity and end the personal tragedies that sadly accompany it. To do this it is essential to tackle the problem of illegal immigration on a European scale, for if one Member State is open to clandestine immigration then it puts pressure on all the others.

The implementation of a policy plan for legal migration has to include the fight against illegal immigration, for the two are closely linked.

What this report lacks are concrete proposals that would allow us to draw up a solution that will put an end to large-scale clandestine immigration and discourage the traffickers. In Italy, for example, the introduction of quotas for economic migration has not reduced the level of illegal immigration into that country. In fact quite the reverse, for the announcement of annual quotas has triggered an increase in the number of illegal immigrants who are prepared to risk their lives to enter the territory of the European Union.

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. − I welcome this report which in essence calls for a firm policy to fight illegal immigration based on solidarity between Member States and co-operation with third countries in full respect of the fundamental rights of the person.

  Andreas Mölzer (ITS), in writing. − (DE) Despite millions of euros in funding, the countries of origin are not willing to cooperate. However, taking back illegal immigrants must become an obligation at last. The EU is also acting extremely negligently, however, if it fails to provide adequate resources to secure its external borders or accommodate apprehended illegal immigrants in reception camps, in order to ensure that they do not go underground, until they can be returned to their home countries, to say nothing of a border protection agency which closes down during the main migration season!

Brussels has also slept through the potential threat posed by Islamic immigrants. If the EU does not wake up soon and put a stop to the influx of radical Muslims and the immigration and naturalisation of citizens from Islamic countries, we will not only be forced to live in permanent fear of terrorist attacks; we will soon be strangers in our own country.

The present report pay far too little attention to these issues, which is why – despite the sound approaches it contains – I am unfortunately compelled to reject it.

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. − (PT) Effective political intervention in the area of illegal immigration must act on two points of the problem, on the origin and on the destination: in other words, as stated in the adopted resolution, ‘the authorities of the countries of origin, as well as the strengthening of the criminal legal framework to fight trafficking rings, combating illegal employment and human trafficking’ form essential elements. Without firmness in these areas, the response will be inadequate, even though this response involves other dimensions, such as development cooperation and action in the area of legal migration.

Furthermore, as we stated in the report on the European maritime strategy, any immigration policy which aims to be effective within the European Union ‘requires’, as stated in this resolution, ‘that Member States abide by the principles of solidarity, shared responsibility, mutual trust and transparency’. We fully agree in this respect.

  Carl Schlyter (Verts/ALE), in writing. − (SV) I am voting against the report in the final vote because I am opposed to FRONTEX and an EU border police, for which it would be difficult to secure accountability. The report shows enthusiasm for expensive and ineffective biometric data in passports and visas, which are moreover a threat to personal integrity. The EU is cynically exploiting the difficult situation of refugees to gain power over our borders.

- Reports: Gruber (A6-0322/2007), Moreno Sánchez (A6-0323/2007)

  Philip Bradbourn (PPE-DE), in writing. − British Conservatives voted against the reports on migration, as the issue of migration is solely a matter for Member States and intergovernmental cooperation. References to the Draft Reform Treaty and the extension of qualified majority voting are the wrong way to deal with the problems the EU is facing. A ‘one size fits all’ approach does not work with immigration.

  Proinsias De Rossa (PSE), in writing. − By insisting that non-EU spouses of EU nationals must have lived in another EU Member State before being entitled to residency in Ireland, the Government is I believe in breach of the 2004 directive. Furthermore, singling out the spouses of non-Irish EU nationals for the issuing of deportation orders is contrary to EU legislation which bans discrimination based on nationality.

I would remind the Commission that they informed the European Parliament in 2006 that the 2004 directive on residency should be interpreted by Member States in accordance with the European Court of Justice decisions in July 2002 (Case No C/459/99 (MRAX)) and again in April 2005 (Case No C/157/03). These decisions established that the right of entry and residency in the Community of a third-country national who is a member of an EU citizen’s family arises from that relationship, and depends neither on the legality of their previous residence in the Community nor on the presentation of a residence permit or other permit issued by another Member State. Ireland’s actions clearly breach those court decisions. Consequently the Commission is obliged under the Treaties to take action against the Irish Government.

8. Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes

(The sitting was suspended at 1.15 p.m. and resumed at 3 p.m.)

IN THE CHAIR: MR PÖTTERING
President

9. Approval of Minutes of previous sitting: see Minutes

10. Secret detentions and unlawful inter-state transfers involving member states of the Council of Europe (reports Fava and Marty) (debate)

  President. − The next item is the Council and Commission statements on secret detentions and unlawful inter-state transfers involving member states of the Council of Europe (Fava and Marty reports).

  Manuel Lobo Antunes, President-in-Office of the Council. − (PT) Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, in December 2005 the European Parliament’s resolution requesting the formation of a Temporary Committee on the transportation and illegal detention of prisoners reaffirmed, and I quote: ‘its determination in the fight against terrorism but stresses that this fight cannot be won by sacrificing the very principles that terrorism seeks to destroy, notably that the protection of fundamental rights must never be compromised’.

Previous Council presidencies had the opportunity, in this House, to express their agreement with this sentiment. I cannot start my speech without underlining that the current presidency shares this same determination and resolution. I would reiterate that the fight against terrorism cannot compromise our values and principles on the protection of fundamental rights. This is, in our opinion, a crucial issue. In the fight against terrorism, we will only be victorious if we remain free: free from fear and any abuse or manipulation in the name of fear. Our most powerful weapon and our most effective protection are our values and principles on the protection of our fundamental rights.

Although the Council as such does not have the competence to express an opinion, there will not be a single Member State of the European Union that does not recognise the importance of the efforts made and initiatives taken to get to the truth. We should remember that we are talking about fundamental principles on which our European democracy rests. Discovering the truth will allow the climate of suspicion to be eliminated. It is therefore essential that the investigations in this area shed light on the issue and do not lead to further confusion. The previous presidencies that had the opportunity to come before this House, the Secretary-General and High Representative and the EU Anti-Terrorism Coordinator did not fail to cooperate with the European Parliament’s Temporary Committee in this respect.

I therefore believe that it would be totally unfair to suggest any lack of commitment on the part of the Council or the Foreign Affairs Ministers. In fact, I must highlight the numerous initiatives, both parliamentary and legal, that the various European countries took following these reports.

It was therefore absolutely appropriate to act in the spirit of the principle of subsidiarity. As you know, in many of the areas investigated by the Committee, the European Union does not itself have any power to act. I am thinking in particular in this respect of the supervision of intelligence services. This is a fact which the previous Council presidencies and the High Representative, Mr Solana, pointed out to this Parliament and its Committee. It may of course be regretted that this is the case, but the fact is that the current Treaties limit the Council’s scope of action in these areas.

However, for our part, I can assure you that the Portuguese Presidency will not fail to cooperate actively and constructively. I would remind you of the full and transparent cooperation offered by the Portuguese Government, both during the investigations made by this Parliament’s Temporary Committee, which completed its work in February of this year, and in relation to the initiatives of the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe under Article 52 of the European Convention on Human Rights in relation to the alleged CIA flights and illegal detention centres in Europe.

As is generally known, although the Council has not taken a position as such on the reports by Mr Fava and Mr Marty, respectively under the aegis of this Parliament and the Council of Europe, this does not mean that it is ignoring them. In fact, the Council has actively and positively defended human rights and international law in the European Union’s foreign policy.

We have consistently argued that the protection of the fundamental values of international law requires a serious and in-depth dialogue on human rights in the context of the fight against terrorism. In this respect, the EU has stressed that human rights, the rights of refugees and international humanitarian law must be respected and preserved. The Council will continue to monitor closely the developments occurring in respect of human rights in the fight against terrorism and will take appropriate measures to ensure their protection. The EU also continues to be firmly committed to the total ban on torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment.

Our actions are governed by this objective and we will always raise with third countries the concern that this problem causes. The EU and its Member States have clearly indicated that the existence of any secret detention centres where detainees are kept in a legal vacuum is not consistent with international humanitarian law. The EU Guidelines on Torture clearly stipulate that Member States must ban secret places of detention ensuring that all persons deprived of their liberty are held in officially recognised places of detention and that their whereabouts are known. The EU Guidelines on Torture also state that no one can be forcibly returned to a country where he or she risks being subjected to torture or ill-treatment.

It is generally known that the issues in question, which involve competence for airport control, inspection and intelligence services, essentially fall under the responsibility and control of the Member States. It is true that Sitcen conducts periodic analyses using information provided by the Member States but it has no operational jurisdiction over so-called ‘intelligence’ activities. It should be noted that the EU Member States were also faced with the complexity which, in this respect, typifies the system of sorting and processing requests for overflight, landing and on-the-ground inspection authorisations. This is a new challenge for everyone. For our part, the Portuguese Government has not only carried out this sometimes difficult and very slow process of data collection, but has also set up a working group to assess the numerous procedures and propose improvements, the importance of which was duly recognised by the final report adopted by this Parliament in February.

I must point out that we regarded the work carried out by the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe as particularly important and we took due note of the reports produced by Mr Marty. The questionnaire and recommendations developed by the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe under Article 52 of the European Convention on Human Rights also allowed, both in Portugal and I believe in other Member States, an unprecedented assessment of the national legal frameworks, guarantees and control mechanisms as a whole, including the analysis of procedures for sorting, verifying and inspecting requests for authorisation for aircraft overflights and landings on national territory.

In the case of Portugal, they have certainly led to institutional, technical and operational improvements. As regards the recommendations made by the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe on control guarantees, the predominant understanding of its members was that the initiatives in hand should not lead to unnecessary legislative duplication or the assignment of new powers to the Council of Europe.

On the other hand, it seems to be agreed that there is room for more effective application and more scrupulous monitoring of the existing mechanisms. I believe that if these investigations were conducted with more rigour and composure, their conclusions would be more effective. Despite rigour always being recommended and without confusing facts with allegations, but trying to observe some restraint in the language used for the importance of the values in question and the good name of the European democracies, the truth is that all these initiatives have scope and meaning. They must therefore be pursued, particularly at a time when it has become essential to analyse, in a serious and straightforward manner, the new dilemmas posed by the terrorist threats, for example the dilemma of security versus freedom. Furthermore, there is an increasing need for a response from international law to the difficult issues raised by the fight against an unprecedented threat.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, consolidating the area of freedom, security and justice, based on the Hague Programme and respective action plan, is one of the main priorities of the 18-month joint programme of the German, Portuguese and Slovenian Presidencies. The fight against terrorism is, in this respect, one of the main challenges for which the three Presidencies have defined the objective of intensifying cooperation in this area through continued implementation of the EU Counter-Terrorism Strategy. As you know, Mr Gilles de Kerchove was recently appointed as the new EU Anti-Terrorism Coordinator, and like his predecessors he will be available to give this House all the information it requires.

I must also take this opportunity to stress that the issue of respect for human rights in the fight against terrorism has been specifically raised in the transatlantic dialogue, notably at the last summit between the European Union and the United States in April, when the conclusions of the European Council of 11 December 2006 were raised.

Portugal, while holding the presidency of the Council, has clearly stated its commitment to continuing and expanding this dialogue, which it regards as key to both sides.

  Franco Frattini, Vice-President of the Commission. − (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I too would like to thank the Council representative. Ladies and gentlemen, the Commission – and I myself – have from the outset followed and supported the work of the European Parliament's Temporary Committee on this well-known topic and on the serious accusations and serious events concerned.

The seriousness of these events as such, even the very fact of imagining that they may have occurred, obviously makes it essential for all three institutions, Commission, Parliament and Council, to cooperate. We should of course repeat once again – and I am happy to do so – that the war on terror must be waged with full respect for fundamental rights and the rule of law. These are the two necessary conditions for democracy to function.

In this spirit, I believe that unlawful prisoner transfers, and the hypothesis that more or less secret places of detention exist – if such events were to be demonstrated in the appropriate manner – would undoubtedly constitute a serious violation of international law and fundamental human rights. We are all aware that the members of the European Union, all of them, are obliged to comply with the important principles of the Convention on Human Rights, especially Articles 5 and 6.

We hope of course that these events will be thoroughly investigated in the Member States. These investigations must obviously be conducted by the competent judicial authorities. One point must be clear, but it has been clearly stated several times, both in the report by Mr Fava and in the Council of Europe report: a parliamentary report can set out facts, but Parliament naturally has neither the power nor the duty to conduct a judicial inquiry.

Obviously, when evidence from unknown sources is cited, the rule of law – which we must respect – dictates that investigations be entrusted to free, independent courts. It is they that have a duty to reveal the sources lying behind an accusation. Clearly, accusing a Member State or individual without revealing the sources for that accusation is a principle which is admissible in a parliamentary report but not in a judicial investigation. That is why I hope the judicial investigations will continue, as is happening in some Member States, including my own country. However, the report evidently needs to be followed up, so I shall list the initiatives that I believe can contribute to its follow-up.

On 23 July I wrote to the Polish and Romanian Governments, reminding them of their duty to hold a full, in-depth investigation and asking them for detailed information about whether the investigations had begun and what the outcome had been. I hope that both governments will reply, and I shall of course inform you of their replies, especially because I believe that transparency and truth demand that when one is accused of something one must have every legal means of explaining and demonstrating that the accusation is untrue, or else of entrusting the inquiry to an independent court. It is in the interest of an accused party, in my opinion, for there to be a very clear answer.

My second point is this: I have drawn up a questionnaire on terrorism for all Member States, as I mentioned at the last part-session. The questionnaire asks each Member State what measures it has adopted to combat terrorism, what the results have been in terms of the effectiveness of national laws and, in particular, what level of protection for fundamental human rights is afforded by national legislation. My intention is to analyse the responses and then draw up a report for the Council and Parliament on the effectiveness of the Member States' counter-terrorism measures and their suitability and compatibility with the principle of respect for fundamental rights.

My third point relates to air traffic. I made a commitment to the LIBE Committee, promising to look into an extremely important legal aspect that is not covered at present: where does the borderline lie between the definition of a civil aircraft and a government aircraft, in other words one not subject to normal controls on civil aircraft? Well, this work is underway, as promised, and the European Commission is to produce a communication on general aviation. The communication will be adopted by the Commission before the end of this year, very soon therefore, and we shall of course put forward a proposal for a better definition of this concept of government aeroplane, which clearly is often interpreted in a way that circumvents the necessary controls.

However, there is another initiative concerning air traffic. It is part of a general solution introducing common rules for all Member States on every type of aeroplane that enters the European Common Aviation Area without a flight plan. You no doubt know that as from 1 January 2009 the rules implementing the so-called single European airspace will introduce common requests to all Member States for flight plans, so in this context we shall harmonise the rules on the flight plans of all aircraft whether they pass through or enter European airspace. This will be of enormous benefit because it will eliminate the differential treatment that we have noted in Member States concerning overflight and landing.

The other topic is ratification of the extradition agreement between Europe and the United States. If there had already been, as there should have been, a European agreement – which we have signed but not yet ratified – then the rules on the extradition of prisoners from and to the United States would have been a lot clearer. We are talking here about prisoners under investigation for, or suspected of, terrorism. This agreement has yet to be ratified by certain Member States, fortunately only a few. I have made another formal appeal to all the Ministers of Justice to ratify this European extradition agreement with the United States as soon as possible.

Then there is the subject of supervision of the intelligence services. This subject is covered in both reports, but it is a sensitive matter. I think what counts above all else here is the national response, although certain common requirements can be highlighted. The first requirement is to strengthen parliamentary scrutiny in the Member States. Some countries have adopted, or are adopting, national laws to tighten up substantially their national parliaments' powers of scrutiny over the activities of their secret services. This is the road along which we should be going, in my opinion, because, as you will appreciate, I cannot imagine a future common European law governing the secret services, though I do think it is extremely useful to discuss the topic.

To conclude, Mr President, I think that this is a topic that we must continue to discuss, bearing in mind the rule of law as a principle and of course respect for fundamental rights; but fundamental rights also include the right not to come under accusation except on the basis of evidence gathered according to the proper procedures.

  Jas Gawronski, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, my Group has expressed valid criticism of the Marty report and voted overwhelmingly against the Fava report. It is a shame, because at least on subjects like terrorism and human rights this House ought to be able to overcome its internal divisions and produce a common position. If we have not managed to do so, it is because unfortunately the Fava report started from a preconceived view: the United States is guilty! We thus wasted a year seeking not the truth, but proof of that guilt, omitting and even concealing any facts that would run counter to this view.

Let me give just one practical and, I may say, scandalous example. One reason why we went to Poland was to interview a journalist who had been among the first to report, a year before, on the existence of CIA prisons in Poland. When we met her, she had unfortunately changed her mind; when I say ‘unfortunately’ I mean it ironically. She was no longer certain; she told us that she would not have written that article today. Well, there is no trace of her change of mind in the report, whereas it is full of testimonies by journalists who share the rapporteur's thesis. We have wasted a year for nothing, spending taxpayers' money without discovering anything more than we already knew from the press and from official and unofficial US sources, and if President Bush himself had not revealed the existence of CIA prisons, we would not even have been certain about that.

You told us, Commissioner Frattini, that you have written letters to Poland and Romania asking for explanations but have not received replies. It is always bad form not to reply, but I am not surprised because the accusations are unfounded. You yourself refer in your letter to presumed information, not to concrete facts, and both countries have already stated at the highest level that they have investigated and that, in their opinion, no CIA prisons exist. That may or may not be true, and everyone can think what they like about it, but as you yourself said, Mr Frattini, we cannot make accusations until there is evidence.

The fact is that the Fava and Marty reports are too full of phrases such as ‘it is highly likely’ and ‘one cannot rule out’, on which basis firm conclusions are then drawn. Let no one come and tell me, to justify the lack of evidence, that we are not a court and that ours is a political document. It is no longer political when we are invited to consider whether or not circumstances are sufficiently extreme to invoke Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union.

Now, given that I sense a mood in this House in favour of putting together a new CIA report, I have a recommendation to make. Let us stop producing tendentious interpretations of the past; let us stop investigating this matter about which we have discovered nothing. Let us leave it up to the courts – as the Commissioner said – and to journalists who have the wherewithal to investigate, and can do so better than us. Let us concentrate on the future, on politics and on the ‘recommendations’ part of the Fava report, which is the only acceptable part.

The United States has undoubtedly made mistakes; in some cases it has violated human rights, but it is very easy not to make mistakes when one does nothing to combat terrorism. Terrorism is a new phenomenon not countenanced in our laws, and legislation now has to be adapted. Let us try to enact laws on conduct to prevent any further human rights violations, so as to avoid a repeat of past errors, and to adapt our rules and regulations to a new type of global threat.

It is fair that the Commission should attempt to carry out an overall assessment of measures adopted by the Member States; the other initiatives announced and launched by Mr Frattini are equally acceptable. Nevertheless, a good deal still remains to be done if the problem of terrorism is to be tackled in a global, forceful and coordinated manner. I am thinking of the Internet and measures to prevent and prosecute criminal offences, so as to avoid the paradoxical situation where, while governments operate separately at national level, terrorists for their part act at global level through the Internet and cells located all over the place.

Our future depends on our ability to defeat terrorism. Let us unite in order to win this battle.

  Claudio Fava, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, my report was adopted seven months ago, and since then the only signs of anything new happening have come from the United States. One such sign was recalled by Mr Gawronski: President Bush decreed on 20 July that his administration would continue to have recourse to unlawful CIA activity in the form of extrajudicial seizure and detention of suspected terrorists in willing third countries.

The other important sign is that the US Congress has opened its own independent inquiry into extraordinary rendition. This tells us that we are dealing not with a chapter of history but with current affairs.

Judicial inquiries are underway in four European countries: Spain, Portugal, Germany and Italy. Thirty-nine provisional detention orders have so far been issued against as many US secret service officials and agents. The inquiry by this House documented facts, not opinions. It is a fact, for instance, that some of our governments and security services cooperated with the CIA in carrying out extraordinary rendition. I would remind Commissioner Frattini that our sources in this case were not anonymous. Our sources, as the report says, were statements by the UK and German Governments.

We put forward 48 recommendations, above all to the Council, and we should like to know from the Council whether even one of those recommendations has been followed up over these seven months. We made two requests in particular: we invited the European institutions - including the Council - to shoulder their respective responsibilities under Articles 6 and 7 of the Treaty, and we expected the Council to exert pressure on all the governments concerned to provide full and exhaustive information, with the possibility of arranging hearings where necessary. This has not happened. It is not true that the Council has no powers, Mr Lobo Antunes; the Council has the powers conferred on it by Articles 6 and 7 of the Treaty.

Our request certainly could have been acted on by the German Presidency and now the Portuguese Presidency. We appreciate Mr Frattini’s initiatives, but we are not satisfied by these two six-month presidencies which have in effect consigned to oblivion a year of work by our committee of inquiry. Given that public opinion in our countries is calling for truth, the silence of the Council - and, I must say, of many of our governments - constitutes a missed opportunity for Europe.

Nevertheless, this House does not intend to give in. I am sorry for Mr Gawronski, but we shall come back to this topic. An own-initiative report in the Committee on Civil Liberties will be our contribution to combating terrorism in a way that is respectful of human rights always, everywhere and for everyone; the number-one human right, as Cesare Beccaria taught us centuries ago, being the presumption of innocence.

  Ignasi Guardans Cambó, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (ES) Mr President, Parliament adopted a resolution on this issue, the Council of Europe adopted another text on this same issue, clear and explicit in all areas, but those of us with some legal knowledge are aware, and it comes as no surprise to us – I say this with a certain amount of irony – that there is a rule of law, especially criminal law, whereby no one is obliged to make self-incriminating statements. This is what surprises us: that the Council and all the governments are applying it to themselves.

In this case, instead of taking action they have decided to remain silent, like the man in the dock who does not defend himself but refuses to accept the charges by simply remaining passive and silent.

It is shameful to see the Council as an institution and all its members acting in a collective fashion, collectively availing themselves of the law used by defendants in court. Institutional silence concerning responsibility, whether active or passive, through actions or through negligence, through conviction or the fear of causing problems following pressure from an ally nation: this silence is one of the major disgraces of the democratic context we live in today, and it affects all those involved.

It is likewise difficult to apply mechanisms of responsibility in the European Union, because the mechanisms are not intended to be used against all Member States acting to protect themselves in a reciprocal fashion.

Certainly no one imagined when the Treaty was drawn up, when Articles 6 and 7 were being drafted, that we would find ourselves in a situation where we would not be discussing infringements of fundamental rights, or passiveness concerning the defence of fundamental rights by a government, but by a European institution: the Council as such remaining a passive accomplice, with the complicity of all Member States. That situation was never envisaged, and this truly affords it protection.

We have no legal mechanisms to take action against this, but I wish to tell the Council representative that History will clarify matters, because History will always bring to light the shame of this time when, on the pretext of protecting our freedom, all the concepts on which this European Union was founded have been jeopardised.

  Konrad Szymański, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (PL) The Fava report was based on circumstantial evidence and instead of firm conclusions it simply created a feeling of suspicion towards Member States.

The Marty report was drafted in an even less responsible manner. All of its findings are based on anonymous sources and are therefore impossible to verify. This approach cannot provide any assurance that Mr Marty’s work was not the subject of manipulation by services and organisations reluctant to engage in transatlantic cooperation in the interests of overcoming terrorism. I am very grateful to Mr Antunes for pointing out that international law does not make sufficient provision for the problems associated with terrorism. None of the reports under discussion has contributed anything in this regard. The official investigations and explanations submitted by Poland comply with our principles of civilian control of the secret services. Furthermore, our principles comply with the relevant European standards in this regard. I therefore do not see the point of repeating this debate.

  Cem Özdemir, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Fava report was adopted by this House in February 2007, and it contains a long list of recommendations which relate both to the legal and the political aspects. I would have liked to see the Council refer to these recommendations and give details of what has happened since then. If the Council does not have Mr Fava's report available, we will gladly supply it with another copy. However, we would then be very keen to hear what has been done in respect of the recommendations made in this report, notably as regards the cooperation with the Member States but also with regard to the Council's own role, to which attention is drawn in this report.

Mr Dick Marty, the Council of Europe rapporteur, also presented a second report in July this year. I would like to confine myself to two points. In this report, he says that some European governments have not only obstructed the search for the truth but are continuing to do so by invoking the concept of 'state secrets'. This is nothing other than the abuse of secrecy in order to protect those who have broken the law. I am sad to say that he applies this criticism to my own country, the Federal Republic of Germany, and to Italy, in particular. On the other hand, he cites the positive examples of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Canada, which holds observer status with the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. In a second point, however, he makes explicit mention of Poland and Romania and refers to these countries in relation to the secret detention facilities. That is also a point on which I wish the Council would provide us with an account of what has happened.

Invoking the subsidiarity of Member States is not enough in this case, for we are dealing here with common European values. I draw your attention to Articles 6 and 7 of the Treaties. They apply in all Member States irrespective of subsidiarity.

  Sylvia-Yvonne Kaufmann, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (DE) Mr President, I would describe what we have experienced during the so-called 'war on terror' as a method of 'outsourcing' human rights abuses.

People are being detained in Guantánamo, where they are deprived of their most fundamental rights. People have been handed over to torture regimes because others obviously don't want to get their hands dirty. Secret prisons have been operated, as President Bush himself has admitted, and Europe's governments have simply looked away as the CIA has committed systematic human rights abuses on their sovereign territory.

The Council of Europe and this House have not remained silent in the face of these monstrous events; instead, they have gathered the facts, investigated the abuses and criticised them clearly and unequivocally. Dick Marty has worked with very great commitment here, and I would like to express my thanks to him. The report by our colleague Mr Fava, which was supported by my group, calls, as a matter of urgency, for a shift away from the practices which have now come to light, but what is happening instead?

In the case of Khaled el-Masri, for example, my own government kowtowed to the US Government only a few days ago. It is refusing to forward to the US administration the Munich prosecutors' request for the extradition of the 13 CIA agents accused of abducting Mr el-Masri. Why? Simply because merely submitting this request would annoy Washington.

I have no objection to my own country and the EU joining forces with the US to combat the threat of terrorism, but does this mean that kidnapping and torture are no longer crimes? Surely CIA agents cannot be given carte blanche to do whatever they want? Is this really the kind of transatlantic security zone that the German Minister of the Interior has just been talking about?

Our fundamental values – and above all the comprehensive protection of human rights – cannot be put up for grabs in this so-called war on terror. The European Parliament and the Council of Europe have rightly underlined this fact, and I expect the Council and the Commission also to uphold this principle without restrictions and, above all, to be guided by it in their actions. Let me say that what I have heard from the Council today is far from adequate. I really do expect the Council to act in accordance with the principles it itself has formulated and to follow up on the recommendations made by the European Parliament.

  Johannes Blokland, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – (NL) Mr President, it is almost two years since Parliament decided to set up a Temporary Committee of enquiry; a decision that was pushed through despite strong opposition and substantiated objections. Now, two years later, the objections of the time are being raised again. Today we are debating two reports: Mr Marty’s report and Mr Fava’s report. The latter report does not add anything new to the report by Mr Marty that we were already familiar with at the time.

The Council of Europe’s report was balanced and cautious in directing accusations at Member States. Unfortunately, that cannot be said of the report in this House. The fact that we are today debating both reports can be said to be progress. That progress in the field of cooperation is fortunately also taking shape in the agency for fundamental rights.

The Conference of Chairmen of the political groups has rightly called for good cooperation between Parliament and the Council of Europe. Where fundamental rights are at stake, cooperation is essential, because the protection of fundamental rights is extremely important. If that is the purpose of enquiries into the actions of the American security services on European territory, the Council must also address its efforts to that. Can agreements be made in transatlantic relations on combating terrorism or is it to remain at the level of unilaterally imposed measures?

With all measures against terrorism, the attention given to rights is often inadequate. After two enquiries, it is time to look forward and to work on restoring relations with the United States as equals. I would very much like to hear from the Council what it plans to do in concrete terms to restore relations. Are we going to continue to put pressure on the United States to clear up the question of whether there were secret detention camps on EU territory or are we going to try to prevent it from happening again?

Finally, I have a question for the President. In the debate on 14 February I asked whether we could be given an indication of the costs of the enquiries carried out by the Temporary Committee. To date no information has been forthcoming on that. Mr President, can you arrange for a financial report in addition to the enquiry report and is it also possible for the Council of Europe to also provide some information on the costs incurred by Mr Marty’s enquiry. Mr Gawronski is right: this is about spending tax payers’ money.

  Jan Marinus Wiersma (PSE). – (NL) Mr President, I wish to make a number of remarks on behalf of my group. It really is a pity to have to conclude today that the Council has not really responded to the questions that Claudio Fava’s January report raised partly on behalf of Parliament. What has the Council actually done with the findings, both our findings and the findings of the Council of Europe? Has there been no real consultation to prevent the practices described in these reports from happening again?

We are more positive about the Commission’s response. The Commission has embarked on an evaluation of anti-terrorism measures and how they are implemented. I am very pleased indeed with the Commissioner’s announcement just now about what can be done to prevent aircraft landing at European airports in the future, which are carrying people to be transported elsewhere unlawfully; we have to have a system of control for these so-called ‘State aircraft’.

The next point is that we are, of course, pleased that another terrorism coordinator has been appointed and we wish him great success. We were somewhat surprised at the sudden departure of Mr Gijs de Vries, who never gave the impression that he was really very keen on his job. Hopefully the new coordinator will be, his position as coordinator will be strengthened and in future the new coordinator will be able to answer questions from Parliament if required.

I now turn to Mr Marty’s report on the possible secret prisons in Poland and Romania. I agree with the remarks already made here about the fact that the last report was based on anonymous witness statements. Mr Marty still has to explain what the criteria are in the Council of Europe, when you can cite anonymous sources, and so we are not really satisfied with the way Mr Marty approached it. A number of people were put in the dock and no new facts emerged. I think that it is time for Mr Marty to say whether that list of names can be deleted, especially as two of our colleagues are on the list. I said this before some time ago, when we spoke to Mr Marty in the committee.

I have one final point. It is, of course, important to make clear to the citizens that the practices that have taken place in some EU countries, such as the abduction of people by secret services from outside the European Union, cannot happen again, that the CIA cannot be allowed to operate in Europe without any supervision by national authorities. The Americans seems to operate under different rules from us. Once again the recent examples of the refusal by the Americans to extradite people or to agree to deportation requests from Italy and Germany are a sign that we evidently operate under different standards. These two examples give us food for thought about the manner of cooperation between the European Union and the United States when it comes to the fight against terrorism. Do the Americans want to observe the same balance when it comes to security and human rights?

  Sarah Ludford (ALDE). – Mr President, the President of the Council threw up his hands and said the EU had no power to act, that torture flights and secret prisons are ‘nothing to do with us, Guv!’. Then he said that the Council had been involved in the active promotion of human rights outside the EU. I really am getting quite sick of hearing presidencies endlessly parrot European values but claim that they cannot deliver accountability for human rights abuses inside the EU.

Here are two things that you could do. Why have only 12 Member States signed the UN Convention on enforced disappearance, notable absentees from signature being the UK, Germany, Spain, Poland and Romania – a funny list that – as well, of course, as the US? Secondly, you could get EU Member States to volunteer to take Guantánamo prisoners who have been cleared for release. The UK had to be taken to court before it bid for five UK residents to come back to the UK. If the EU calls for the closure of Guantánamo, which we more or less did, then let Member States put their action where their mouth is.

I agree with Commissioner Frattini that a parliamentary inquiry is insufficient. We did not have the powers and the investigatory techniques of the police and judicial inquiry, but firstly I would say that the weight of testimony from victims and others that we received and published was weighty, consistent and persuasive. Secondly, it is a bit rich to reproach a parliamentary report when Member States refused to instigate police or judicial inquiries.

The UK Intelligence and Security Committee, which is appointed by and reports to the Prime Minister – not to Parliament – reproached British security services for not realising that information they passed to the CIA would be misused for abduction, disappearance and torture. Well, if we have such naive British intelligence services, it does not make me feel very safe.

It is certainly good to hear that Commissioner Frattini is shutting the stable door somewhat after the horse has bolted in terms of stopping abuse of European airspace, with private planes evading controls on state aircraft or not filing flight plans, but that is no substitute for accountability for past permission or tolerance for torture flights through, or secret prisons on, European territory.

  Mirosław Mariusz Piotrowski (UEN). – (PL) The Fava report and the report by Mr Marty for the Council of Europe share a common feature: they are devoid of all evidence. They amount to a series of vague irrelevant reflections by the rapporteurs on the rendition of terrorist suspects and the supposed secret CIA centres in Europe.

The Fava report has been discussed on a number of occasions and it would be a pity to waste time on further debate. I should, however, like to offer my sincere congratulations to Mr Marty. From the very beginning he set out to make his name known and he has certainly been successful in that regard. Both his reports are of a lamentable standard, and cast him into ridicule as a lawyer. Mr Marty obviously came to the conclusion that it was worth paying such a price in order to make his name known in political circles. Inter alia he did not allow individuals who had come forward voluntarily to be heard, including the Members of the European Parliament he slandered in the report but could not spare time for.

Mr Marty failed to respond to repeated invitations from the Polish authorities. He was unable to offer an explanation for such behaviour when he appeared before Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs. Mr Marty has serious difficulty distinguishing between facts and speculation. I can appreciate that to do so would endanger the tactical approach and strategic target he set himself from the outset, namely political self-aggrandisement. It is unfortunate that he exploited the good name of the Council of Europe to achieve his ambition.

  Hélène Flautre (Verts/ALE). – (FR) Mr President, Amnesty International has set the tone of our debate in a statement issued today. It says, in effect, that Germany is refusing to demand the extradition of certain US citizens, members of the CIA, who are suspected of having organised the abduction and detention of Mr Khaled-el-Masri, and of subsequently having tortured him.

Restrained by a political decision, the legal system therefore does not have the wherewithal to dispense justice in cases involving the alleged breach of human rights, committed in the name of the fight against terrorism. This is precisely the situation that is at the heart of this debate.

Mr President-in-Office of the Council, you tell us things and you make hypothetical statements such as: ‘the fight against terrorism has to be conducted with respect for basic human rights’. We agree with you. However, the debate we are having today shows that the real facts have now been confirmed: Member States of the European Union have been complicit in the programme of secret detention and return that has been set up within the territory of the European Union by the CIA and in doing so have broken the law. This has now been proven.

The question that we are now asking is this: what initiatives are you now going to take? What lessons are you going to learn from this situation? When are you going to condemn these illegal activities in clear terms and in the name of the Council? When are you going to start putting pressure on Member States to provide full and accurate details of what has been going on to the national parliaments and to the Members of this House? When are you going to get Member States to reject the whole business of giving diplomatic assurances?

I welcome the announcement by Commissioner Frattini that there is to be a report on the effectiveness of anti-terrorism measures and on respect for human rights. I believe that Parliament will be very interested in receiving this report and I look forward very much to being able to discuss it with you. I would like to invite you here and now to such a debate.

  Giusto Catania (GUE/NGL). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I think this House did a remarkable job of work in approving Mr Fava’s report. Similarly, I think the General Assembly of the Council of Europe made a significant contribution to ascertaining a truth that has now been proven: there have been thousands of flights, there have been dozens of kidnappings, and there has been direct involvement of European governments and EU intelligence services.

We have witness statements and we also have the minutes of the special European Parliament committee, testifying to the fact that European governments sat down with the US administration and discussed extraordinary rendition. This is a proven fact and public knowledge, which I believe deserves to be respected even by those colleagues who voted against this report.

There is only one black hole in this affair: the silence of the Council. It is rather embarrassing here, given that everyone else has spoken out. However, there is one anomaly: while the Council remains silent the governments are acting. It is not true that the governments are turning a blind eye; they are doing whatever they can to prevent clarification of the truth. For instance, the Italian Government is currently avoiding seeking the extradition of the CIA agents involved in the judicial measures and has even invoked official secrecy to slow down the judicial activity on the case of Abu Omar. Thus the governments are indeed acting while the Council maintains its silence. In my opinion this is wrong! The excellent work done by this House deserves respect, and surely a sign of respect should come first and foremost from the Council.

  Wolfgang Kreissl-Dörfler (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we in the Committee have done our work. It is a proven fact that the CIA has kidnapped and abducted people in Europe. The public prosecutors in Milan and Munich have established and proved this beyond doubt.

What kind of policy is in place, however, when responsible people in Berlin and Rome are now refusing to pass an arrest warrant – that is the correct term – to the US Government? The kidnappers – and that is exactly what the CIA agents who abducted Khaled al-Masri in Skopje are – must be handed over. In a state governed by the rule of law – which is what we have, surely – no one can be exempt from the law. This is true even if, as certain high-ranking security officials in Berlin claim, relations with the US Government are being soured by the work of the Munich public prosecutors, who are simply doing their job in the prescribed fashion: this speaks volumes about these people's mentality and their attitude to the rule of law.

Yes, international terrorism must be combated by every means, but please, with the means available under the rule of law, not with Wild West methods according to the country-of-origin principle, which is what the CIA has done here. It is all well and good for the Federal Chancellor, Angela Merkel, to urge the Chinese to respect human rights and for her to receive the Dalai Lama, but that is not enough. We have homework to do here in Europe as well. We cannot have a strong à la carte rule of law, a rule of law which is only permitted to be strong when it fits in with the system.

When I hear the questions about what the Committee cost, what democracy actually costs, let me just say this to those people: my dear people, a dictatorship is much cheaper, but tell me the price of that! It is a price we are not willing to pay!

  Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE). – (NL) Mr President, I agree with the previous speakers. The Member States acted collectively, both in the Council and in NATO, and so we must also account for our actions collectively as the Council; you cannot hide behind the argument of powers and subsidiarity; it is not a matter of making two particular Member States into scapegoats. People keep saying that there is no conclusive legal evidence. That is not necessary, firstly because we have a witness, Mr Bush himself, who said: yes, there are renditions, yes, there are black sites. I will go further than that: we think it is an excellent idea. Furthermore, the facts have been proven in court cases in both Germany and Italy, in addition to all the other facts on the table before us.

Besides, Parliament is not a court of law – Mr Frattini is right about that – but the Member States not only have a legal, they also have a political and moral duty to account for their actions, not only before the court but also to their citizens. Can the Council, can the ministers look their citizens directly in the eye and say that human rights violations in Europe will continue to go unpunished? Because that is what it amounts to. The allegations are extremely serious and if, according to the Council, there is no truth in them at all, then the Council must refute them. If, however, there is a grain of truth in the allegations, then the facts are serious enough to warrant an enquiry.

Finally, I also agree with those who say ‘yes’ to extradition between the United States and the European Union; not, however, just for those whom the United States considers to be suspects, but also when countries of the European Union request the extradition of CIA agents.

  Ryszard Czarnecki (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, the previous speaker referred to President Bush. I would point out that the latter made no mention of Europe and we should therefore not invoke him. I shall not refer to the Fava report, as much has already been said about it. Let us focus instead on the Marty report.

We might just as well be discussing abstract painting today. I say this because abstract painting exists, even though it is sometimes incomprehensible. There is no way of verifying whether the allegations concerning CIA operations and the presence of detainees in Poland have any foundation, just as the circumstantial evidence regarding the existence of the Yeti in the Himalaya and the Loch Ness Monster in Scotland does not provide grounds for belief in the existence of those two creatures.

Parliament’s report refers to the CIA prisons that might have been located in American military bases in Europe. Entire squadrons of UFOs might have landed on Parliament’s courtyard this evening. They might and could have landed but have not done so. Of course, if we were to set up an investigative committee, the latter might well find otherwise.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE). – (ES) Mr President, listening to the Council and some of our colleagues, I get the impression we are still in January 2006, as if nothing has happened since then, and yet since then we have had a committee of inquiry, a number of reports and, most importantly, we have had an admission by the US President that these practices did in fact occur.

What more do the governments and the Council need to issue a plausible response to the European citizens and chalk up a little prestige and credibility on this issue? It is obvious that there is a huge gap here between practising and preaching.

All due rigor is called for, and I agree, but it must be said that rigor commences with the facts and the evidence, facts that have been borne out time and time again, and here what we want to know is not merely who is responsible, but just how far this responsibility reaches.

Therefore I wish to ask Mr Lobo Antunes very directly indeed: what are you waiting for to demand that the European governments and the US Government put an end to this practice that we have condemned on so many occasions? What are you waiting for to retrieve the prestige and credibility that the Council and the European Union as a whole are losing on a daily basis?

  Jens Holm (GUE/NGL). – (SV) Mr President, as we all know, our report documents 1 245 cases of illegal CIA flights, 21 illegal abductions and numerous cases of torture and abuse. We demanded that prison camps such as Guantánamo be closed and that the EU guarantee that these abuses would never be repeated. What did we get? Very little unfortunately. The USA continues its abuses in the so-called war on terrorism. It was depressing to hear the Council’s response to our important demands.

I want to hear a European Council say that we are to put pressure on the USA, that their kidnappings must cease and that all prison camps must be closed. I want the EU – not just us in the European Parliament – to say that we are standing up for human rights. I want the EU to say that the fight against terrorism can never be waged by illegitimate means. It is clear that human rights must be fought for all over again every day. Let us continue to act as watchdogs and ensure that not a single innocent person becomes a casualty of the so-called war on terrorism.

  Ana Maria Gomes (PSE). – (PT) Before the day in September 2006 when President Bush confirmed the existence of secret prisons in third countries, the Portuguese Government had regarded as reliable the guarantees given by Washington that the sovereignty or legality of its European allies had not been violated.

However, after this date, once it had been proven that various renditions had taken place across Europe, it became essential to investigate whether Portugal or Portuguese agents had been involved and, in particular, to prevent their continued involvement. To my sorrow and shame, however, the Socialist Party, my party, the party in government, voted against the formation of a parliamentary committee of inquiry on 10 January 2007. However, it has now been proven that over 100 stopovers were made at Portuguese airports by aircraft involved in the rendition programme. The passenger and crew lists of the most suspicious flights that the SEF (Portuguese Foreign Nationals and Borders Service) has managed to identify have never been provided by the Portuguese Government to the national parliament or to this Parliament, despite repeated requests.

Nor did the Portuguese Government permit the director of the secret service or his predecessors from 2002 to be heard by the European Parliament mission that went to Lisbon in December 2006. The Portuguese Government did not provide the national parliament or the European Parliament with the oft-requested list of civilian or military flights to and from Guantanamo that passed over Portuguese territory. Until December 2006 the government denied the existence of such flights. However, they were recorded and the list compiled included 94 overflights and 17 stopovers specifically by US civilian and military aircraft between January 2002 and the end of June 2006.

There is evidence that several of these flights were carrying prisoners from the Incirlik base in Turkey to Guantanamo, including the ‘Bosnian Six’. Once the list reached the European Parliament, the Portuguese Government did not deny its authenticity, but instead alleged that the Guantanamo detention centre was not the same as the Guantanamo military base and that flights to this military base were supposedly ‘normal’ and under the auspices of the United Nations or NATO. The Secretary-General of NATO subsequently denied this in writing.

In January 2006 I obtained evidence that chained prisoners had been sighted at the Lajes base in the Azores during their transfer to US aircraft. This evidence was confirmed by journalists and reports were published including photographs of the buildings.

Mr President, a judicial investigation is currently being conducted in Portugal. Unfortunately this was not instigated by the Portuguese Government, but on my initiative. However, the truth must come to light given the worrying facts discovered by this Parliament dating from the time of Mr Durão Barroso’s Government to the current one.

  Janusz Onyszkiewicz (ALDE). – (PL) Mr President, in my speech I, too, would like to focus on the Marty report which has been frequently referred to in the House. This is because that report is characterised by a high degree of confusion between objective truth and subjective assessments.

I represent a party that is in opposition to the present government and was also in opposition to the previous one. Supporters of my party did not vote either for the present president or for his predecessor. Our party is a strong advocate of human rights and fundamental freedoms. We would find it extraordinarily useful to have ammunition of this sort available to us as we strive to overcome our political opponents in Poland. Unfortunately, however, we do not have such ammunition at our disposal, because it simply does not exist. Under the auspices of the Polish Parliament an investigation was also carried out by a permanent committee, on which the opposition is represented. It did not uncover anything; nor did the enquiry by the Ombudsman. We must not, therefore, confuse subjective assessments with facts. No such facts exist.

  Giulietto Chiesa (PSE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, many months have passed since Parliament's well-documented denunciation of the serious unlawful acts committed or condoned by various European governments in complicity with the US secret services. We noted at the time that those same European governments did little or nothing to cooperate with the parliamentary committee in seeking the truth and those responsible.

In the light of the statements made by the Commission and the Council, we can say that things have barely moved on from where they were at that time. Little or nothing has been done to make Member States provide adequate information about the activities of their secret services, apart from the commendable letters referred to by Commissioner Frattini. Nothing at all has been done to redefine the role and independence of some countries' secret services in view of the obvious supremacy and command exerted by those of the USA.

Given what we now know about Italy, Poland, the United Kingdom and Germany, for example, it has to be said that some of the vital nerve centres of European security are subordinate to the United States. Surely, not even if our principal ally were to respect European laws and principles could we agree to forfeit European sovereignty!

This becomes quite intolerable, however, once we discover that our principal ally is behaving towards us in an imperial fashion, ignoring or flouting our laws on our territory. I therefore wish to express my dissatisfaction with the statements made by the Council and the Commission. I believe that Parliament must keep up its good work.

  Proinsias De Rossa (PSE). – Mr President, turning a blind eye to torture and breaches of human rights by a state will not defeat terrorism. It will deepen a sense of grievance and create new recruits for terrorist activity. That is the bitter lesson from 30 years of strife in Northern Ireland. Turning a blind eye to breaches of human rights and to torture is not an option for a democratic state. On the contrary, in working to end terror, it is supremely important that we demonstrate the strength of our commitment to justice.

The lack of response by Member States to the recommendations of this Parliament is quite appalling. It is equally sad, I have to say, to see some on the Right of this House continuing, ostrich-like, to deny the obvious. The US has admitted illegal detentions, transfer and torture of suspects, and they may, in fact, still be under way. We do not know.

Some EU Member States connived with that breach of human rights. I regret to say that Ireland facilitated the landing of 147 CIA-operated planes in Ireland, some of which we know were involved in the rendition of prisoners. There has been no parliamentary inquiry in Ireland; there has been no parliamentary scrutiny of the security services in Ireland and there has been no inspection of CIA planes. The Irish Human Rights Commission has announced that it is reviewing its contacts with the Irish Government on this matter and is bringing forward proposals at the end of this year for dealing with it.

Finally, let me respond to Mr Blokland, who demanded to know the cost of the inquiry of this Parliament. It is a legitimate request, but could I ask him what price he puts on human rights? What price does he put on the prevention of torture? I believe we cannot put a price on those things. We have to spend whatever it takes to reveal what is going on and take action to stop it.

  Manuel Lobo Antunes, President-in-Office of the Council. − (PT) I will be as brief as possible, but this debate involved many contributions and various questions have been raised. As you will certainly understand, Mr President, some of these questions must receive my full attention and a response. Of course, during this debate, the Members of this House have expressed many points of view, not all of them uniform. They all of course deserve my full respect, even though I cannot agree with all of them. In particular I cannot agree with the speech made by one Member from my country who, in her speech, referred exclusively to the situation in Portugal. I cannot of course subscribe to this speech in any respect. However, despite these differences of opinion, I am sure that we are all agreed on the essential point, which is that we are engaged in a war against terrorism in the name of freedom and that we can only win this war in freedom.

As I said at the start of my speech, the fight against international terrorism can only be won through a joint effort and with respect for the values and fundamental principles shared by the European Union and the United States of America.

It is true that the Council was urged to act but, as I said and as previous presidencies have also said, the Council in itself does not have any competence in this area. You may lament this but that is the truth of the matter. Articles 6 and 7 of the Treaties have been invoked here today. As you know, these articles lay down principles and establish values but they do not assign competence. The institutions, in accordance with the so-called ‘principle of conferral of competences’, can only exercise those competences which have been effectively, clearly and expressly assigned to them by the Treaties. This is how the institutions of the Union function. However, the Commission has presented here today a series of proposals and initiatives, some of which have already been implemented and others which will be implemented and which naturally will merit the Council’s full attention and effort. The Commission’s proposals will of course be welcomed by the Council.

Furthermore, I should also like to say that numerous initiatives have been taken by the Member States, mainly through their parliaments, with investigations being conducted in line with the recommendations made by the European Parliament’s report. In this respect, with specific reference to what is happening in Portugal, I am here today representing the Portuguese Government, a government created by the Socialist Party, a party which in Portugal was famed for and exemplary in the fight for democracy and freedom in our country. Of course neither the Government nor the Socialist Party agreed, agrees or will agree with violations of human rights. As I have said to you, the efforts and initiatives to discover the truth of the matter are welcome. It is therefore essential to be rigorous and the basis for a rigorous analysis is not to allow any confusion or to accept mere supposition as fact.

As regards the transatlantic relations which have been mentioned, the Council reiterates that, in general, in the fight against terrorism, generalised internal security measures, not limited to one Member State of the European Union, can only be put into practice in the framework of very strict cooperation with the US. This cooperation must of course be developed, as noted, from the statement made at the last transatlantic summit that took place during the German Presidency.

  Franco Frattini, Vice-President of the Commission. − (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I do not think anyone in this House can have any doubt that these actions are unlawful. The added value that I see in Mr Fava's report is that it commits everyone, all three institutions, to ensuring that such events never happen again. This urgent entreaty comes across to me from the conclusions of the Fava report and is the political point that I believe needs to be emphasised.

Thus there are two aspects here, I believe. One is strategy, in other words looking to the future and seeing to it that such events never happen again on European territory, and then trusting our judges to investigate the past. As others have said, no one believes that we can replace our judges who, in accordance with the rule of law, have to investigate with all the evidence to hand and with due respect for the presumption of innocence, as Mr Fava has reminded us. The past and the future: these are the two levels requiring attention.

Ladies and gentlemen, Europe and the United States undeniably share a tradition and a constitutional background of guaranteed fundamental rights. I therefore believe that torture, unlawful detention and the seizure of individuals - even if suspected of terrorism - in themselves run counter to our shared transatlantic background of democracy and rights. So the political conclusion I draw is that we need ways of strengthening our Euro-Atlantic links in order to provide more security along with more rights.

It would be quite wrong to point the finger at the United States when, on the contrary, we should be seeking a way to wage a joint war on terror based on respect for the rule of law and fundamental rights. This is the lesson that I personally learn from many of these recommendations.

Then there is the question of how to bolster our sovereignty. This is a serious matter. How can Europe strengthen its own area of sovereignty so as to be a stronger ally, and no longer a weak one, in Euro-Atlantic cooperation? One preliminary example is the reference that I made to the single European airspace. Once we have, as from January 2009, a common rule valid for all 27 Member States on overflight rights, the definition of aeroplanes and powers of control over this single European sky, Europe will have bolstered its sovereignty. Moreover, at that stage the Commission will undoubtedly have coordinating and supervisory powers, because the rules will then no longer be national but European.

Finally, Mr President, this debate gives us one more reason to introduce the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the future constitutional treaty or institutional treaty, whatever it may be called. It is one more reason because that inclusion, that institutional reference to the Charter of rights, will give the EU institutions powers - including that of supervision and of taking action before the Court - in sectors which are absolutely crucial to all of us in our everyday lives.

  President. – The debate is closed.

  Claudio Fava (PSE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to know whether it is possible to have Articles 6 and 7 of the Treaty annexed to the minutes of our debate. We have just heard from the Council that Articles 6 and 7 are confined to a statement of principles. As you know, Article 6 sets out principles, while Article 7 sets out actions to safeguard those principles. I believe it would be worth reminding the Council and also my fellow Members of this fact.

  President. − We will check whether that is possible in procedural terms.

11. ESDP operation in eastern Chad and the north of the Central African Republic (debate)

  President. − The next item is the Council and Commission statements on the ESDP operation in eastern Chad and the north of the Central African Republic.

  Manuel Lobo Antunes, President-in-Office of the Council. − (PT) Thank you, Mr President. The Portuguese Presidency appreciates this opportunity to exchange thoughts on the possibility of an operation being conducted in the framework of the ESDP (European Security and Defence Policy) in eastern Chad and the north-east of the Central African Republic. The Darfur conflict remains one of the main priorities of the EU’s foreign policy. We are pleased with the recent progress made and, in particular, and firstly, the announcement that discussions will begin on 27 October, under the auspices of the United Nations and the African Union Special Envoy, to find a peaceful solution to the conflict that will increase the prospects for peace in Darfur. Secondly, we also regard as positive the unanimous adoption of Security Council Resolution 1769 creating the UNAMID (AU/UN Hybrid operation in Darfur), which will add a new dynamic to the efforts made to resolve the conflict in Darfur.

However, in order for these efforts to produce results, the Darfur conflict must be tackled within a wider regional perspective. The conflict’s negative impact on the humanitarian and security situation in neighbouring countries, in particular Chad and the Central African Republic, is cause for very particular concern. In our opinion, a lasting solution to the conflict in Darfur cannot be found without stabilising the situation in these neighbouring countries.

As you know, in its conclusions of 23 July the Council emphasised the urgent need to address the destabilising impact of the Darfur crisis on the humanitarian and security situation in neighbouring countries and reiterated its support for the deployment of a multidimensional UN presence in eastern Chad and the north-east of the Central African Republic.

The Council also decided to continue working on a possible decision on a bridging operation, in the framework of the European Security and Defence Policy, to support this multidimensional UN presence with a view to improving security in those areas.

Preparations for such an operation have been ongoing throughout the summer. On 12 September the Council adopted the crisis management concept that defines the main planning parameters of this bridging operation. Particular emphasis is placed on the objective of protecting civilians in danger, particularly refugees and displaced persons, and of facilitating the delivery of humanitarian aid by increasing security in the region.

With regard to the internal political situation in these two countries, the Council considers that the mission should maintain its independence, impartiality and neutrality. Planning based on this concept is in hand, in accordance with the EU’s crisis management procedures. The next steps to be taken will be the approval of a common action on the concept of the operation and the operational plan, including determining the composition of the force. The operation will last one year and it is expected that it will be replaced by a multinational UN mission. Any ESDP operation in Chad and the Central African Republic must be based on a UN Security Council resolution and will be conducted in strict consultation with the UN and our African partners.

We in the EU welcome the statement made by the President of the UN Security Council on 27 August in which he indicated the readiness of the Security Council to authorise the establishment of a multidimensional presence in eastern Chad and the north-eastern Central African Republic. Any EU operation to Chad and the Central African Republic must be complemented by political initiatives to tackle the regional dimension of the Darfur conflict. In particular, any efforts aimed at normalising relations between Chad and Sudan should be supported, in accordance with the Tripoli and Riyadh Agreements. Sudan, Chad and the Central African Republic should also be encouraged to respect the commitments they made in terms of not supporting the rebel movements operating from their territories against any of the other countries.

IN THE CHAIR: MRS ROURE
Vice-President

  Louis Michel, Member of the Commission. – (FR) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, with yesterday’s adoption by the United Nations Security Council of Resolution 1778/2007 on the deployment of an international force in the eastern part of Chad and in the north-east of the Central African Republic the door is now open for the Council of the European Union to give its approval, within the next few days, to an ESDP operation in these countries. This is clearly a major development and I believe it is to be welcomed. The regions targeted by the operation are currently in a state of general instability and insecurity that is affecting hundreds of thousands of civilians, who are forced to live in conditions of extreme vulnerability. As you know, this situation cannot solely be explained by the knock-on effect that the Darfur crisis is having on Chad and the Central African Republic. There are also endogenous reasons, peculiar to these two countries, especially in the case of Chad.

Stability in these areas of Chad and the Central African Republic can only be assured if international action, and especially that taken by the European Union, incorporates a number of factors. These include, firstly, the quality of the military and police presence in Chad and in the CAR, secondly the adoption of an approach that is not exclusively based on security but also includes the provision of aid and the establishment of political structures, and finally the capacity to confine and contain any interference by Sudan and the Darfur region in Chad and the Central African Republic.

Let me deal with the first point: this is an area that comes under the second pillar. Members of the Council have expressed their views on this matter and doubtless will have more to say in the days ahead. One important element that has to be taken into account in the deployment of such a European protection force is obviously the need to protect the humanitarian zone. This is why my staff at ECHO have been working closely with the Council’s military planners with a view to ensuring that the relevant mandates are respected and that there is a high level of cooperation between the military and the humanitarian agencies. We have in particular insisted that the liaison officers of the European protection force should be present on the ground in order to ensure close links and a permanent exchange of information with the humanitarian organisations.

I will now move on to the second point. The aid measures provided by the Commission cover three aspects. The first comprises a security backup for the Chadian police operation, under the direction of the United Nations. This essentially constitutes funding for the training of 800 Chadian police officers who will be responsible for maintaining order in the camps that have been set up for refugees and displaced persons. It is crucial that this police action is exemplary. It is also very important that it is well received by the local people. For this purpose, funding to the amount of some EUR 10 million is to be provided by the stability instrument before the end of 2007.

Now I will turn to the humanitarian measures. In 2007 the Commission allocated EUR 30.5 million for emergency humanitarian aid and for multisectoral aid programmes designed to help the refugees and internally displaced populations as well as the host communities in Chad. The Central African Republic received EUR 8 million in aid and similar amounts have been allocated for 2008.

The third element concerns reintegration and rehabilitation. Additional funding from the 9th European Development Fund of about EUR 13.1 million are to be mobilised in the short term for Chad and the Central African Republic. The programme is intended as a continuation of ECHO’s activities in pursuing a strategy for rehabilitation and the transition to development.

Ladies and gentlemen, these aid measures are necessary but must at the same time be linked to actions involving the political process. If lasting stability is to be assured, the actions being taken at international and European level need to be supplemented by various other activities associated with the restoration of the rule of law, the revival of economic governance, the reform of the legal and security systems, and the pursuit of political dialogue between the government and the opposition parties. It goes without saying that this is an important element, especially in view of the 2009 elections.

The Commission will continue to promote this global approach in Chad and in the Central African Republic. By the same token the Commission is fully active in trying to resolve the Darfur conflict, not only by providing humanitarian aid and help for reconstruction but also by lending support to the process of negotiation and mediation, in which we are obviously very much involved. In this regard I recently informed the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr Ban Ki-moon, and the Chairman of the African Union Commission, Mr Konaré, that the Commission would be contributing to the Darfur Trust Fund in support of the negotiations. Moreover, the Commission is also financing initiatives aimed at ensuring that Darfurian society is involved in and committed to the process of conflict resolution.

  Karl von Wogau, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the humanitarian situation in Chad, especially along the country's 1 360 km border with Sudan but also in the area bordering the Central African Republic, in my view makes intervention by the international community necessary.

I myself was in Chad a few days ago and was able to form an impression of the situation there. More than 400 000 refugees and displaced persons are hosted in camps in this border area. These camps are permanently under threat from bandits and marauding gangs but also from the Janjaweed militia from Sudan. The situation in the open country is even more difficult. Due to the lack of security there, more and more people are seeking refuge in the camps.

To help alleviate the plight of these people, the security situation in the region must be improved so that they can return to their homes. This is a difficult challenge, and in order to manage it, burden-sharing is essential. The United Nations has committed to helping to develop the police force, which can then partner the security forces. The European Union, on the other hand, was asked to provide troops with the capability to ward off the Janjaweed and the bandits and prevent attacks on the refugees, displaced persons and the civilian population.

With this draft resolution, the European Parliament endorses this operation, albeit subject to the following conditions: firstly, as you have pointed out, Mr President, Commissioner, political negotiations must continue, for ultimately we need a political solution. If we send troops, however, they must have a robust mandate which genuinely enables them to deter the Janjaweed and the bandits.

A very large area needs to be secured. The force must therefore also be large enough to achieve a genuine improvement in the security situation. It must be clear that this is a European force involving several European nations. EUFOR must also be adequately equipped to fulfil its mandate. In view of the relatively low troop strength and the size of the border area, this means that outstanding intelligence and transport capabilities are required, for the force must be able to determine quickly where there is a threat and must be able to reach the relevant location swiftly.

Under no circumstances should a situation arise in which, due to the mandate itself or to equipment deficits, a European force in Chad could only protect itself without being able to fulfil its real mandate. A further condition imposed by the European Parliament is that a clear exit strategy must be defined which should foresee how and by whom EUFOR is replaced after its intended operational duration of one year.

In the present draft resolution the European Parliament also emphasises that in the light of the complex political situation in the region, this European force in Chad should act as a neutral force for security and the protection of the civilian population. The deployment of EUFOR last year in Congo made it clear how important credible impartiality and independence can be for the success of an operation.

In the present situation, by deploying a force for a limited period of one year, the European Union can make an important contribution to improving the humanitarian situation and supporting the African Union as it takes on more responsibility in the region. Both these aspects are necessary, and so I ask you to vote in favour of the present resolution.

  Ana Maria Gomes, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (PT) Security Council Resolution 1778, which was adopted yesterday, determines that the situation in the region of the border between Sudan, Chad and the Central African Republic constitutes a threat to international peace and security.

This Parliament’s motion for a resolution recognises the urgency of the situation and the European Union’s responsibility to provide protection. An overwhelming majority of Members in this House agree with the humanitarian NGOs on the ground, with the refugees in the region who are living in miserable conditions and in a climate of permanent fear, and with the Secretary-General of the United Nations. All cite the urgent need for an international presence in that region, which must include a strong military component. There is no country or multilateral organisation that is better suited than the European Union to effectively fulfil the mandate given by Resolution 1778. The ESDP (European Security and Defence Policy) has come of age and exists for these very emergencies.

In this context, as regards sending an EU military force to the region, the Council and the Portuguese Presidency can count on the support in principle of Parliament. However, the European Parliament must express its concern about certain aspects of this mission. Firstly, we fear that the reluctance of Member States to provide the force with the minimum personnel and military equipment needed will greatly reduce its effectiveness. We would add that the smaller the contributions of the other Member States, the more noticeable the French component of the force will be. However, the perception of this mission’s impartiality is fundamental to its success and France is not regarded as a neutral player in the region.

Secondly, Parliament asks that this force be accompanied by a diplomatic offensive in the region in order to move forward the national reconciliation processes within Chad and the Central African Republic. The roots of the instability, although linked to the drama in Darfur, are also domestic and can only be overcome through internal political processes. As stated by Parliament’s motion for a resolution, without a genuine political reconciliation process in the region, the European Union operation, planned to last only 12 months, cannot sustainably contribute to peace in the region.

Finally, this Parliament welcomes the mandate of the force which will act under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations. It is essential that this mandate is correctly interpreted on the ground and that the European troops are proactive in protecting civilians in danger, creating a humanitarian area for the international organisations and protecting the United Nations Mission in the Central African Republic and Chad (MINURCAT). Recent history is full of tragic examples, from Kigali to Srebrenica, of defenceless civilian populations paying the ultimate price for the timidity and overscrupulousness of international troops.

We hope that one day this operation will be used as a model example of the ESDP and effective multilateralism in action and as due evidence of the European Union’s desire to strengthen the United Nations and contribute to conflict resolution in accordance with international law and the responsibility to protect enshrined therein.

  Annemie Neyts-Uyttebroeck, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (NL) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as you have already said several times, the UN Security Council yesterday voted unanimously to develop a multidimensional presence in east Chad and the north-east of the Central African Republic for one year. This will consist of a civil and police UN mission that we will call MINURCAT following the UN and a military mission of the European Union, EUFOR, which will support and protect it.

This European security and defence mission will operate under Chapter VII of the UN Charter and that is extremely important because it means that it will be able to use all means to fulfil its task and it means that it will have a robust mandate, which is what Parliament expressly wanted. That increases the chance of the mission succeeding but it also substantially increases its and our responsibility.

We have repeatedly expressed our concern in Parliament about the situation in Darfur and our alarm at the expansion of the lack of security and instability into neighbouring territories and the whole region. More than 1 million people have been forced to flee, either inside their own country or across the borders. They are exposed to all manner of hardship and acts of violence, with women and children usually suffering the most. In addition, this situation is threatening the fragile peace agreements reached both in Chad and in the Central African Republic, because as well as the political rebels, ordinary bandits see it as their opportunity to rob, abuse and murder the civilian population.

EUFOR’s task will, therefore, be anything but simple. However, before we can talk about that, we have to think about assembling those troops, as Mrs Gomes has said, and not only putting the force together but equipping it too. The moment of truth is dawning for every Member State, including my own: the moment when, as well as fine words and noble statements, we have to deliver the goods in terms of soldiers and material. That also holds good for Parliament. We insisted, rightly, on thorough information and we have used our powers to give documented and substantiated advice. We were able to do that partly because we had a lengthy exchange of views last week with General Leaky.

Our advice is positive. It will be our job and our responsibility to ensure that the mission can get underway as soon as possible and in the best of circumstances.

  Ģirts Valdis Kristovskis, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (LV) Madam President, on behalf of the Union for Europe of the Nations Group I would like to stress that we support the ESDP military mission within the largest peace-keeping mission in the world, in Chad and the Central African Republic. We are talking about the most serious cross-border humanitarian crisis in the world. In fact, the UN Security Council ought to have taken action much earlier. The four-year delay has cost the lives of 200 000 people, 2.5 million people have been driven from their homes, and brutal attacks are being carried out on providers of humanitarian aid. We can predict that the scale of the crisis triggered by the Darfur conflict will make it possible to test the European Union’s political will, as well as its military capacity. A few days ago General D. Leakey assured Members that, regardless of funding problems and the difficulties in anticipating all possible threats and risks that could arise during the operation, in military terms the European Union was capable of carrying out this operation no worse than in Bosnia, and from a military viewpoint the operation would be less intense.

  Angelika Beer, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, here are some more figures relating to what we are talking about: 230 000 refugees, plus a further 170 000 internally displaced persons and an estimated 700 000 people who are indirectly at risk from attacks.

We are here to close this gap, this vacuum, in the protection. That must be the focus of the European mission. Since yesterday, the condition of a robust mandate has been in place. The issue of neutrality is not resolved. At the moment, it looks as if the French troops already deployed in Chad will merely be boosted by a few countries. This puts both the neutrality and the success of the mission at risk.

What I want particularly from the Foreign Ministers who have to decide on Friday, however, is for them to ensure that the operational area of the EUFOR mission is clearly defined. This is still not the case at present. It would be a disaster if this mission were not permitted to operate where the help is most urgently needed, namely in the border area. I expect the European Union to negotiate with the regime in Chad and ensure that it has the right to operate along the 35 km border as well. Otherwise, this is a fig-leaf operation which could even put more people at risk.

  Tobias Pflüger, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (DE) Madam President, to clarify, this is an ESDP mission in Chad and the Central African Republic under Chapter VII of the UN Charter; in other words, it is a military operation. It is not about Sudan and Darfur. The French Government wants this EU mission at all costs. It wants to provide the Force Headquarters and the Operation Headquarters itself. The German and the British Governments are very sceptical. French troops are already deployed in Chad. It is quite clear that France is acting as a protection force for the governments in Chad and the Central African Republic and now simply wants to embellish its engagement there with the EU logo. The French troops are not neutral; on the contrary, they are obviously biased. For example, they have bombed rebels operating in the country. The rebel leaders have announced that if the EU force is not neutral, they will wage a war against these troops.

I have now heard that the Nordic Battle Group is not available, and the UN resolution calls for open cooperation with the military and the police in Chad. It is obviously the case that Chad and the Central African Republic are not democracies. Refugee return is not part of the mandate of this EU force and this mission is – to be frank – extremely dangerous. As a group, we will be voting against the resolution tabled, because we believe that the situation will not improve but will deteriorate further as a result of this operation.

  Hubert Pirker (PPE-DE). – (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, let me clarify for the benefit of Mr Pflüger and the others: the mandate of the EU force is humanitarian in nature and consists of ensuring the safety of refugees from Chad and Darfur, also by military means. The UN Security Council has endorsed the deployment of a UN-mandated European force and the consequence is that the European Union is immediately under international scrutiny to determine what it is actually capable of achieving in foreign policy and military terms.

This operation entails both a risk and an opportunity: it is a risk due to the extremely difficult political parameters in this conflict-laden region, but on the other hand, it also offers the opportunity to show that the European Union has developed foreign policy and military capabilities and can genuinely act to protect refugees in this region.

At present, however, and this view is shared by many, the risk is greater than the opportunity. That is why the European Parliament has drawn up a list of conditions, which have already been outlined: from the time-limited mandate to precise definitions of targets and tasks, the proper preparation and technical equipment for EUFOR troops, and the granting of an operational mandate including an exit strategy.

Naturally, we must expect this operation not only to be approved but also supported by the local governments so that it is successful. However, and I believe we all agree on this point, if all these conditions which the European Parliament has set are fulfilled, the prospects of success are greater than the risk, and we can approve the mission.

  Michel Rocard (PSE). – (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I am satisfied with this draft resolution and with the decision that it upholds and I would also like to say something else: when man’s brutality leads to tragedy and suffering on the scale that we have seen in Darfur, then our conscience demands solidarity. I am profoundly pleased that the European Union is responding to the appeal made by the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Many Members and diplomats, including my friend and colleague Mrs Gomes just now, have stressed that this operation must under no circumstances be allowed to look like an opportunity to support French interests or to extend France’s military presence in the region. I hope that I am surprising no one when I too give my vigorous support to this view.

Speaking as a former Prime Minister, may I say with some conviction that if France is still present in this region it is simply because of her significant historical heritage, where the burden of colonialism has been such that a policy of solidarity with the people is needed to try to help them regain peace and stability and to herald the start of effective governance. France no longer has any strategic or economic interests in these regions and I am one of those who would have preferred to see us withdraw a long time ago: that would have saved a lot of money and would really have been in our own interest. Even the uranium resources of the Niger do not constitute a strategic interest of kingly proportions, but simply require sufficient peace and stability so that these deposits can be made accessible to everyone and a competitive market can be established.

This then is essentially a European peacekeeping operation, not a French one, and that is the way it should be. I would add a word of warning, however: this vision will only be made reality if a large number of European Member States agree to send troops. It would be damaging if the spirit of solidarity, which for historical reasons has placed greater demands on France than on others to the extent that we have the largest contingent, were to be turned by your absence into a climate of post-colonial suspicion. That would be senseless and I would take great exception to it.

Let me end with the following remark. The oral amendment tabled this morning by our fellow Member Mr Gahler is for once – sadly for him – not relevant. The Republic of Chad, by way of its Foreign Minister, gave its agreement in principle to this operation in a written communication that was sent to the Security Council several days ago. I have a photocopy of this document here and I will be happy to make it available to Mr Gahler.

  Eoin Ryan (UEN). – Madam President, I too support the decision to send 4 000 EU troops to Chad in the form of a peacekeeping force. The reality is that there is a wholesale political instability in Chad and in the Central African Republic. We know that genocide is taking place in the Darfur region of Sudan. If peacekeepers are not sent to Chad, we run the risk of an even greater level of instability and violence breaking out in this region of Africa.

It is estimated that there are as many as 400 000 refugees from the Central African Republic and from Darfur in refugee camps in Chad, but there are only 250 guards from the army of Chad manning these camps. Refugee camps in Chad are an enormous humanitarian crisis and the international community, including the European Union, must help the Government of Chad to deal with what is an escalating and growing problem. The stories that we hear from people who have visited the area recently are really awful and, as I said, we have to do what we can to try and relieve the human misery that is going on there at the moment.

I very much support the decision to deploy 26 000 UN peacekeepers in Sudan. The European Union must be at the forefront in participating in this peacekeeping force. I also welcome the decision taken by my own Government today to carry out an immediate and in-depth assessment of the future role that Irish peacekeepers could play in the UN and EU peacekeeping missions in Sudan, the Central African Republic and Chad.

  Michael Gahler (PPE-DE). – (DE) Madam President, the situation in Chad and the Central African Republic is difficult for the people affected, and I therefore support, in principle, engagement by the EU to stabilise the situation and improve the real conditions of life for the people concerned.

In his statement of 27 August the President of the UN Security Council described the international community's intentions to deploy an EU operation for 12 months with the goal of bridging the time gap until the deployment of a UN-led mission. That is why the EU has also clearly limited the operation to a period of one year. I am convinced that we need a robust mandate here; that means not limiting ourselves purely to self-defence, but being able to pursue our objectives, if necessary, in the face of opposition from those who wish to stop us doing so.

The text of yesterday's Security Council resolution points in this direction: it refers to a ‘multidimensional presence intended to help create the security conditions conducive to a voluntary, secure and sustainable return of refugees and displaced persons’. We are authorised ‘to take all necessary measures’.

I urge the Council to ensure that this force is not simply a cosmetically enhanced French force. In terms of the nationality of the commander, too, local sensitivities should be respected. Unfortunately, France has not been neutral so far in the conflicts in Chad and the Central African Republic, but has traditionally supported the government. For that reason, the language chosen for the command and operation at local level should be English, so that the people at least understand that these Europeans are obviously different from the ones they are accustomed to seeing.

Indeed, while I am on the subject of Britain, the UK has prevented the EU's Command Headquarters in Brussels from leading the operation, and in my view, this warrants considerable criticism. Not participating yourself but denying others the use of joint structures: that is something that we should not accept from those who drop out in future!

As regards the achievability of the goals, I still have doubts. Have we set ourselves clear objectives? How many of the internally displaced persons should be back home by the end of the year? How many refugees from Darfur should have returned to Darfur? We would not have achieved enough if we handed on the baton after a year with the same number of people still in the camps.

The costs are also considerable: I hear that it will cost EUR 100 million just to build a suitable runway and headquarters. Then there are the ongoing costs of the troops. Can the Council give us any specific details of the overall financial framework?

I have one final, but to my mind crucial, point: before deploying the force we must have an explicit assurance from the Government of Chad that it will subsequently endorse the deployment of a UN-led force, whatever the composition may be. I have heard what our colleague has said. I would like to have that confirmed in writing, in the form of an official document from the Government of Chad, not verbally from the Minister in the UN Security Council. When I have this assurance, I can vote for the project. Otherwise, we really will face the alternative, after a year, of either having to extend the operation or withdrawing and leaving a military vacuum in which an identical situation to the present one could very quickly arise. In that event, we would literally have allowed hundreds of millions to run into the sand.

  Alain Hutchinson (PSE). – (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I am delighted that we are today able to discuss and vote for a resolution on an issue that in my view does not get enough attention, for the situation facing the border communities of Sudan, Chad and the Central African Republic is quite simply intolerable and it is something that must never be forgotten in this House.

I for my part do not forget and I have no intention of passing over in silence the fact that this whole affair is one of the many consequences of the Darfur genocide, an event that has been masquerading as something else. Since 2003 the Darfur crisis has created two and a half million refugees, including 125 000 in Chad. There have also been several hundreds of thousands of deaths.

Moreover, to date the humanitarian agencies of the United Nations and the NGOs have had to move their camps 31 times in order to escape the violence, though this has not prevented the arrest of a number of their officials by the Sudanese police, the massacre of 12 humanitarian workers and the disappearance of five others.

The resolution that we are tabling today is clearly intended as an effective contribution to the objective of ending the situation that exists in the border areas. This situation is unacceptable, but it is of relative magnitude when we see the scale of the disaster currently unfolding in that part of the world.

In this respect, I would like to point out that our responsibilities should not be limited to supporting or heading isolated and narrowly-defined operations as an emergency reaction to conflict situations. This responsibility calls for action to be taken in the wider context to which such conflicts belong. It also requires measures to be taken ahead of events, in other words making every possible effort to ensure that such conflicts do not happen in the first place.

The second part of my speech concerns the situation of the humanitarian organisations operating in the region. The manner in which methods have evolved for the intervention of armed forces and for the role played by humanitarian agencies in conflict situations has meant that the boundary separating these two parties is becoming increasingly blurred.

As the confusion that exists between military and humanitarian personnel tends to act to the detriment of those missions traditionally assigned to the humanitarian agencies, we now find that the very survival of the humanitarian aid workers is being put at risk and, with it, the safety of all those people who are supposed to be benefiting from these services.

It is therefore absolutely vital that our protection force is not implicated in any way in the operations being undertaken by the various humanitarian groups that are working in the region. I am pleased to see that the document before us today includes this point, which is so important for the future of our development policies both in this region and everywhere else in the world.

  Colm Burke (PPE-DE). – Madam President, I strongly support the sending of an ESDP mission to the Chad/Darfur border and I welcome the opportunity today to debate this proposition.

The conflict in Darfur has had dire cross-border consequences on neighbouring Chad and the Central African Republic, with a huge refugee spillover and the creation of thousands of internally displaced persons.

According to high level expert advice, this mission is doable despite some considerable operational and security challenges. The infrastructure in this area is poor, water shortages subsist and logistic lines are difficult. Such a mission will also face threats from rebel groups holding out against the government, but it appears based on a thorough assessment recently carried out in this region that all these challenges are surmountable.

So there is no reason to further delay deployment. We have the military capacity; what is now required is the political will.

I call for Irish troops to form part of this ESDP mission. There is a sincere sense of urgency in this crisis region of the world, and Ireland could be part of a noble European effort to stabilise this border area.

Troops could be pulled from the Nordic battle groups for this operation. Like these battle groups, this present ESDP mission is also intended to be a bridging operation. Alternatively, Irish troops currently in the Lebanon could also join this mission.

This force has many worthy objectives. It would improve the security situation in this region prior to further deployment of the United Nations/African Union mission in Darfur. It would also be of assistance to relief organisations as it would open up previously impeded humanitarian corridors. Thirdly, it would eventually facilitate the return of Sudanese refugees.

I believe this mission should have a robust use-of-force mandate with reference to Chapter VII of the UN Charter enabling it to have a deterrent effect when necessary, especially in the case of attacks against civilians, camps, villages, humanitarian workers, UN police officers and for self-defence.

The rainy season is abating. The frequency of attacks on refugee camps is likely to increase as the militia and rebel groups become more mobile now that the rains have subsided. The time for the UN to act is now. Inaction is costing lives. The EU is the most acceptable organisation to carry out this mission, and it is, based on several accounts, well-set to undertake this task.

I urge the Council to adopt a joint action immediately and to set the final stages in motion so that we do not miss the boat on getting EU troops in where they are urgently required.

  Geoffrey Van Orden (PPE-DE). – Madam President, well, we do seem to have a lot of armchair generals in the House this afternoon! The desperate humanitarian and security situation in Darfur and neighbouring regions of Chad and the Central African Republic certainly cry out for international action, but I have to say that is a separate matter from the issue before us today, which is really about ESDP, as we have heard from so many speakers.

I have long argued against the waste of resources, the duplication, the divisions, indeed the sheer duplicity involved in the EU’s attempts to develop a military capability. There are no EU troops, Mr Ryan. Our nations have troops and there are already well-tried structures for organising international military intervention by that small number of states that have capable armed forces and an expeditionary capability. This is primarily through NATO and the UN. The EU institutions have little to contribute to military matters.

It is clear that the motives of the ESDP enthusiasts are essentially political. Indeed, one has said that Chad should be seen as a political opportunity. The EU offered itself to the UN; it was not the UN that invited the EU. The EU is desperately keen to pin its institutional label on another military operation but, not surprisingly, national military staffs do not share the enthusiasm of the Eurocrats. With extended lines of communication, over a thousand miles to the nearest seaport, lack of water resources and infrastructure, and a reluctance to take on rebel groups with offensive military operations, the Chad mission is precarious from every point of view. Britain, Germany and Italy have already said that they will not be sending any troops.

What is this force going to do? Certainly not take on the armed hostile elements that have created the mayhem in this vast area of Africa. Undoubtedly, therefore, most of its effort will go into protecting and sustaining itself in a very difficult logistical situation. We really must stop playing around and using human tragedy as a political opportunity.

  Manuel Lobo Antunes, President-in-Office of the Council. − (PT) I must very briefly highlight that this proposal to send a force under the ESDP (European Security and Defence Policy) to Chad and the Central African Republic is supported by a vast majority of the Members who have spoken on this issue. As you will know, and as already mentioned here today, in the meantime – I believe just yesterday – the Security Council authorised the European Union to deploy this operation. As mentioned, this authorisation was essential for the European Union so that the operation could go ahead. All the military preparations and planning, in fact the whole exercise, can now go ahead and at a later date the Council will of course give an opinion on this issue through a joint action.

I consider that, by committing to this process, the European Union can now, as should be the case, move on from mere statements of intent and mere promises to practical steps and action. This corresponds to what the European Union always says is, and what must be, its commitment to Africa and the African people. We must help Africa and the African people in a close and complete partnership so that they can achieve peace where there is conflict, progress where there is poverty, health and education where there is disease, and something where there is nothing or very little. In this way we will ensure respect for our values and our principles in our foreign policy as well. The Portuguese Presidency therefore welcomes these latest developments and naturally also takes due note of the great support of many Members for this operation which has become clear in this debate.

  President. – To conclude the debate, I have received five motions for resolutions pursuant to Rule 103(2) of the Rules of Procedure(⁽¹⁾).

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Thursday, 27 September 2007.

(1) () See Minutes.

12. Situation in Burma (debate)

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

  Manuel Lobo Antunes, President-in-Office of the Council. − (PT) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this debate and our discussions are highly topical and, of course, the Council and the Portuguese Presidency are monitoring events in Burma (Myanmar) with extreme concern.

It has been almost 20 years, in fact since the events of 1988, since Burma has witnessed the kind of demonstrations that are occurring at the moment. There is no doubt that what many commentators are saying about these latest events is true: namely that the country is at a crossroads which we regard as critical.

From the start the situation has proved to be highly volatile and, although we have made every effort to prevent the Burmese authorities from resorting to violence, today’s events demonstrate that, very unfortunately, the military junta in Rangoon is still deaf to the appeals of the international community, as it has been for many years to the constant and repeated international appeals.

If well managed, the situation in recent days could have presented an unprecedented opportunity for the first steps to be taken along the road to urgent political reform and national re-evaluation of the country. We hoped that the junta would listen to the unequivocal message being sent by the demonstrators that its policies have failed.

What was in the beginning an ad hoc protest against the disproportionate rise in the price of fuel has become a vast public protest movement against the general policies of a highly dictatorial government.

Aware of the growing tension in the country, the European Union has not just stood back and watched the situation. Immediately in August it vehemently condemned the detention of various opposition leaders, in particular the so-called ‘88 Generation’ group, which was protesting against the almost 500% rise in fuel prices. It called for the release of all political prisoners and highlighted the need to start a process of opening up, reconciliation and political reform. Just yesterday we sent a clear message of solidarity and support to the Burmese population through the Joint US-EU Statement adopted by the 27 Foreign Affairs Ministers who are meeting in New York.

We call on the authorities to respect the right of the monks, nuns and ordinary citizens to demonstrate peacefully and we stress that this situation represents a new opportunity to try and solve Burma’s highly complex problems.

In another statement, also issued yesterday, the High Representative, Mr Solana, called on the Burmese authorities to continue exercising restraint and stressed that genuine peace, stability and development can only be achieved through political reform, the granting of fundamental rights and freedoms, and full inclusion of all stakeholders.

We have also discussed the situation with some of our partners in bilateral conversations on the margins of the UN General Assembly in New York. In our continuing dialogue on Burma with partners in the region, including China, India and ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) countries, we are encouraging the latter to talk regularly to the regime, placing particular emphasis on the following points: first, the long-term stability of Burma requires a genuine transformation, especially political; second, the opening-up of the country is crucial to the development of Burma and is also in the interests of its neighbours and the international community as a whole. We have also noted that Singapore, the current Chair of the ASEAN, has at least responded with a national statement in which it hopes that the current protests can be resolved peacefully.

The EU Foreign Affairs Ministers discussed the developing situation in Burma during the Gymnich meeting held at the beginning of September, and yesterday in New York, when all 27 met, they again tackled this issue, as I have mentioned. In addition, this issue has been discussed by the Political and Security Committee in Brussels and was debated in more detail this morning within the Asia-Oceania Working Group. We are obviously assessing all possible options for another European Union reaction and, although we hope that the situation will not deteriorate even further, we must be prepared for all eventualities. We are also preparing for additional action through diplomatic channels and will remain in contact with the United Nations, in particular with Ibrahim Gambari, Special Envoy of the Secretary-General, who met with the presidency and institutions of the European Union in July, in other words immediately before the summer recess. We also remain in close contact with our colleagues in Geneva where an incisive statement was made yesterday in the Human Rights Council.

Last night, due to the worrying news reaching us from Rangoon, we felt obliged to make another appeal to the Burmese authorities, asking them not to react violently to the people’s peaceful demonstrations. We clearly mentioned the possibility of increasing the existing sanctions so that the message was precise and direct. Finally, Coreper (Permanent Representatives Committee) will discuss this issue of Burma in more detail tomorrow.

  Louis Michel, Member of the Commission. – (FR) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, like the other European institutions the Commission is obviously very concerned about the situation in Burma/Myanmar. We are keeping a very close watch on the dramatic events of recent weeks, and even of the last few hours, following the movement for resistance and peaceful protest that has been launched by the Buddhist monks.

As you know, Mrs Reding presented the Commission’s analysis of the general situation on 6 September: repeated human rights violations, political repression and a general deterioration in economic conditions. I should also add to this the violations of international humanitarian law committed by the government of Burma/Myanmar against civilians and prisoners, together with the increasingly severe restrictions imposed on the ICRC as it goes about its work. In recent weeks the regime has been reaping the bitter fruits of the explosive social and political situation that it has to some extent created itself.

What should be done in the face of such events? We are entitled to think either that the situation has an air of déjà vu about it, heralding a repetition of the violent repression of 1988, or that we have reached a historic turning point. Whatever the case, events in Burma/Myanmar seem to be taking an unpredictable turn. The fact that the massive protest movement – with some 100 000 people taking to the streets of Rangoon last Monday – does not have a political agenda or any declared demands, obviously renders the situation more unstable and more precarious.

We clearly cannot rule out the possibility of the regime losing control of events as it takes action against the demonstrations. There is no doubt that the intimidation, arrests and roadblocks that we are now seeing all point to the fact that a much harder line is being taken. The arrests carried out this morning, the brutal manner in which the authorities have intervened and the fact that victims have been reported only serve to heighten our concerns. Under such circumstances our primary objective must be to prevent any violent reaction on the part of the government and to urge those in charge to show the utmost restraint. The safety and wellbeing of Aung San Suu Kyi is obviously one of our main considerations.

However, the protests have, to some extent, also provided an opportunity. They show the regime, or at least those members of it who still have some perception of reality, that poor political and economic management has meant that people are no longer frightened of taking to the streets to express anger born out of despair that has existed for far too long.

The Commission’s second concern is therefore to urge the international community to persuade the government to make the gestures that are needed to restore a minimum of confidence and in this way to create the conditions under which the way can be paved towards national reconciliation. The regime has to listen to the people’s aspirations for openness and democracy. Any solution to the current crisis must of course involve a participative and transparent process that will allow all the parties that are interested in national reconciliation for Burma/Myanmar to contribute fully to the country’s political and economic future. This is the message that my colleague Benita Ferrero-Waldner gave to our partner countries in meetings held alongside the United Nations General Assembly.

It is also vital that the states bordering Burma/Myanmar are made aware of their particular responsibilities. I believe that China has already realised that its own long-term interests will not be served by such an explosive situation and it for one can exert a decisive influence. However, we must also persuade India, Japan and South Korea, countries that have contributed significantly to the economic needs of the Burmese regime, to do more to help resolve the present crisis. The ASEAN member states also have to be firmer in expressing their views. Any deterioration in the situation in Burma/Myanmar can only have dire consequences for the entire region.

Finally, the Commission welcomes the special role being played by the United Nations, and more specifically the good offices of its special envoy Ibrahim Gambari, whose forthcoming visit to Rangoon will be of the utmost importance. If the authorities in Burma/Myanmar again choose the road of repression, this will inevitably plunge the country into even greater international isolation, with further intolerable suffering for its people. If, on the other hand, the authorities opt for open and democratic dialogue, they will then have to clarify their future roadmap for the country, give firm commitments as to a definite date for free elections and begin a sincere dialogue with their partners. Under such circumstances the authorities in Burma/Myanmar will then be able to count on the support of the European Union and other partner nations.

  Geoffrey Van Orden, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – Madam President, the European Union prides itself on its attention to human rights and yet it seems incapable of acting effectively against tyrannical regimes across the globe that continue to oppress and abuse their people year after year. There is a mindset that seems to think that a statement and a common position are all that is needed. The President-in-Office said in the previous debate that we should live up to what we say. I agree with him.

Throughout my time in this Parliament I have fought against two particular odious regimes: Mugabe in Zimbabwe and the military junta in Burma. Both have been the object of EU attention, but nothing has happened. We should be ashamed.

Today our attention is focused on Burma where, for the past week, the Alliance of All Burmese Buddhist Monks has courageously led massive street protests in Rangoon and many other parts of Burma. We are all shocked to see that a desperate situation has now turned to tragedy. Pictures have been flashed around the world of injured monks, smoke-filled pagodas and battered civilians as the security forces begin their crackdown. There are reports of at least five deaths, and hundreds more have been injured. We were warned almost a week ago by the radio station Burma Democratic Voice that the Government had authorised the use of firearms, and prepared for a violent conclusion to the peaceful demonstrations.

It is high time that we stopped wringing our hands and got serious. I am under no illusions. As with Zimbabwe, the key to change in Burma lies with her neighbours, China in particular. China is Burma’s biggest investor, trading partner and arms supplier. There is a high-level Chinese parliamentary delegation in Parliament today, led by Mr Wang Yingfan, an influential member of the National People’s Congress. I made a strong plea to him this morning for China to take action against the Burmese regime. He reiterated China’s commitment to non-interference in the internal policies of other countries, but, at the same time, he assured me that China would continue to play a quiet but serious role and urge flexibility and a more positive approach on the Burmese regime. We shall see what effect this has.

Yesterday, the Presidency of the European Union announced that tougher sanctions would be imposed in the event of a violent reaction. That violence has come and those tougher sanctions must now follow if the EU is to retain any credibility on the world stage. We must also make it clear that this time we will keep our word and stick to our sanctions. There must be no repeat of the disgraceful episode in May when the Burmese Foreign Minister was allowed to attend an ASEM summit meeting in Germany in flagrant violation of the EU’s own travel ban.

We cannot ignore the fact, when considering sanctions, that TOTAL Oil is one of Burma’s few remaining foreign investors. TOTAL is directly helping to prop up the military junta, supplying hundreds of millions of dollars every year for the regime to maintain one of the largest armies in the world.

The Burma crisis is one that we have discussed for so long, and it is now upon us. We should remember that the men who were instrumental in the massacre of protestors in Burma 20 years ago now hold key positions in the regime. It is a pity that the Council and the Commission did not listen more closely to Parliament on these matters over the years.

Today, once more, we are tabling a strong resolution; it is short and very clear. We say to the Burmese authorities: release Aung San Suu Kyi immediately, leave the protestors alone and convene a fully representative National Convention to include the National League for Democracy. We say to the UN Security Council: meet now to address the situation in Burma and then immediately despatch your special envoy to that country. We say to the Council and the Commission: talk to the US and to ASEAN to prepare a coordinated series of measures against the Burmese regime, including economic sanctions, if it responds violently and does not respond in the way that we are saying.

  Barbara Weiler, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Europe, indeed the whole world, is looking at Burma. Today, for the first time, blood has been shed, as my colleague from the UK has already mentioned, for nothing else can be covered up and that is a new situation in the debate.

The Socialist Group is appalled by the brutal methods deployed by the military junta against the peaceful demonstrators. We expect the UN Security Council, which is now meeting in parallel, to take immediate measures and bring its influence to bear, and that means its influence over and with China.

The second message to be sent out today must be the European Parliament's solidarity with the people of Burma: our solidarity, support and, yes, our admiration for the courage of its citizens. The Buddhist monks are not a small elite minority. They are part of the citizenry and are supported by thousands of people. Clearly, the demonstrations were triggered by the arbitrary price increases, but violations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and specifically of International Labour Organisation standards, torture and forced labour have been practised by the junta for years.

In the age of globalisation, isolationism is no longer an option, and that is a good thing. Democratic basic rights and the universal value system apply on the Asian continent as well. We expect the long-planned constitution in Burma to be put on the agenda straight away, and that Burma – like Thailand, interestingly, relatively soon – will hold democratic elections. It is possible to establish and implement democratic regimes in these regions.

Besides the UN and Europe, the ASEAN countries must of course also play a more active role, especially since they aspire to be something akin to an EU. The demonstrations in the Philippines today are a positive sign of solidarity in the region.

There is no turning back on the road to democracy, even in Burma.

  Annemie Neyts-Uyttebroeck, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (NL) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me begin by humbly bowing my head before the incredible courage of the Burmese population who are peacefully protesting en masse against the military dictatorship in their country.

Today that regime embarked upon violent repression and our hearts go out to the fate of the Burmese people. The European Union must protest against this more forcefully, not only in words, but also in deeds. If the regime persists with the repression, sanctions must be stepped up and all European companies still operating in Burma called upon, if not forced, to cease their activities there. The ASEAN countries should also tighten up their position with respect to Burma, and India and China should use their influence over the regime to urge it to enter into serious dialogue with the Burmese democratic opposition.

The Burmese regime does not only repress the population in the political sphere, it has also plunged the people into abject poverty and destitution, while it is a country that has everything necessary to be prosperous. The mass demonstrations of the Burmese people provide abundant evidence that Aung San Suu Kyi certainly does not stand alone, but that she carries the hopes of the vast majority of Burmese. The Burmese regime should give her back full freedom of movement immediately and release all political prisoners, including those rounded up today.

Finally, I want to call upon the European Union to make maximum use of the instrument to promote democracy and human rights that is now at our disposal.

  Brian Crowley, on behalf of the UEN Group. – Madam President, I would like to thank the President-in-Office and the Commissioner, as well as my colleagues, for their comments so far.

The national movement for democracy in Burma said 18 years ago: What will it take to make the international community persuade the authorities in Burma to take on board democracy? Do we have to be gunned down in the streets and this to appear on television cameras before the international community will respond?

Unfortunately, that prediction is now coming true. We can see that one section of Burmese society, the Buddhist monks and nuns who live a life of non-violence and of pacifism, who give to others of their time, are now being slaughtered in the streets and intimidated by the military regime. It is incorrect for people to think that any words that we speak here will achieve the ends we want to see. However, likewise it is incorrect that the world has stayed silent for so long; we can no longer remain silent. And, as colleagues have said, it is up to us to use our influence, not just against the Burma regime but also our influence with China, India and Bangladesh to ensure that there is coherence and adherence to the sanctions that are in place and the demands for democracy.

Let us act to condemn the violence against peaceful protest but let us also ensure that we can give support to those protesters.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (ES) Madam President, it is obvious that recent events in Burma are increasingly leading us to a point of no return. I feel that the large-scale demonstrations, not only by monks and nuns, but by thousands upon thousands of people who have supported and continue to support these protests, are sending a clear message to the military junta in Burma, but also a clear message to the world, stating that the Burmese people have had enough, that they are weary of the situation and that they want change.

It is exactly that desire for change that we in the EU and the international community in general ought to support. It is obvious that after 30 years of sanctions with negligible results, the policy applied must take on a radical tack, and thus international policy must involve the countries in the same region: not just China and India, as has already been said, but also Japan and Singapore, which currently holds the ASEAN Chair. This is why we ought to welcome not just the gestures made by the Council and the Commission, but also those being made in the UN to send a firm message of freedom for political opponents, particularly Aung San Suu Kyi, and in particular, a move towards democracy. I trust that at this time we cannot and must not abandon this aspiration.

  Bastiaan Belder, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – (NL) Madam President, the State Peace and Development Council: that is the official name of the military regime in Burma. Now in the present crisis in which the country finds itself, more than even before, that rings out as a cruel lie.

The junta has stood for the abuse of power and misrule for decades. It makes sense that it is extremely economical with statistics. Incidentally, the vast majority of the Burmese population are victims of two-fold exploitation. Yes, indeed, two-fold exploitation: internally by the country’s military rulers – anyone doing business in Burma has to operate almost exclusively through the army – and externally by the People’s Republic of China, which is engaged in an extreme form of exploitation of the natural and rich agricultural resources of this south-east Asian state. Diplomats in Rangoon even go so far these days as to say: ‘Burma has become a quasi-Chinese province’. In schools in the north, built by China, Mandarin is the first language and Beijing time is the official local time.

Madam President, all in all the Burmese and Chinese rulers are almost indistinguishable. I therefore call upon the Council and the Commission to be among the first to tackle robustly the Burmese rulers and Beijing about their shared responsibility for the suffering of the Burmese people.

  Luca Romagnoli, on behalf of the ITS Group. – (IT) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, when our resolutions and statements do not remain a dead letter or a feeble voice in the great ear of the Council, they are caught up in the flurry of events which certainly do not coincide with or await our plenary schedule.

A few days ago we voted almost unanimously in favour of a resolution on Burma. Its recitals detail the numerous human rights violations being perpetrated in that country today, but they omit to recall that a Marxist-inspired and then military regime has been oppressing its people for decades, with support from China as is well known. Not only is there oppression; it is worth recalling that the Burmese regime is a system that bases a large part of its power and its budget on drug trafficking.

Concerning the repression, censorship and widespread harassment that have characterised the Burmese regime for years, I would point out that there is not only the much-acclaimed Mrs Aung San Suu Kyi, not only journalists such as U Win Tin and actors such as Mr Zaganar or the well-known civil rights activist Win Naing. Let me tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that there are also the Buddhist monks, as you know, but above all else there are many sizeable minorities. These include one cultural and ethnic group in particular that was not mentioned in the resolution approved two weeks ago: the Karen people. This people has for decades refused to fall into line with a system where subsistence depends on child prostitution and the cultivation of drugs.

Merely deploring the repression with which the State Peace and Development Council crushes popular protest, while simultaneously calling for democracy in Burma, is of no more use than the forceful condemnations, the requests for immediate and unconditional release of detainees - which, I emphasise, is crucial - and everything else that we do our utmost to write, beg or threaten without much practical effect.

Even US President Bush, despite his many vacuous remarks before the UN Assembly, has one point in his favour. He has gone so far as to call for UN intervention and spoken of a country which has imposed a reign of fear, where basic freedoms are severely restricted, where ethnic minorities are persecuted, and where forced child labour, human trafficking and rape are commonplace. Mr Bush went on to announce a tightening of sanctions, as has the Presidency-in-Office of the European Union.

Well, let us hope they serve some purpose, because if they do not we will certainly not hear any threats of bombing, neither of Burma’s military bases nor - still less - those of its partner, China. The situation for the Burmese opposition is like that of the decades-old struggle of the Karen people: a lot of noise in Europe and the United States, but let that country sort out its own affairs. For the time being there are no transnational interests at stake there; for the time being the usual empty words are enough for the European Union.

  Manuel Lobo Antunes, President-in-Office of the Council. − (PT) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I tried very briefly in my speech to give this House detailed and comprehensive information on all the political and diplomatic measures being taken and contacts being made in relation to the Burma (Myanmar) issue, on how we have been monitoring the situation and on what we have done. I should now like to reaffirm the Portuguese Presidency’s absolute determination to continue monitoring closely the events developing in Burma and also to assure you that the Presidency will of course propose any measures which, in its opinion, prove our unequivocal solidarity with the people of Burma and which, at the same time, also unequivocally demonstrate to the Burmese authorities that there will be a price to pay for any further deterioration in the country’s situation.

  President. – Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr Lobo Antunes, I would like to thank you, on behalf of the European Parliament, for having spent the entire day with us. I want you to know that we have taken note of this.

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

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Thursday, 27 September 2007.

(The sitting was suspended at 5.40 p.m. and resumed at 6.00 p.m.)

Written statements (Rule 142)

  Richard Corbett (PSE), in writing. – Burma is one of the worst and longest-lasting military dictatorships in the world. It has kept its people in abject poverty, in stark contrast to the economic success of many of its neighbours. Repression has been brutal. Contact with the outside world is severely restricted, and the situation would have been forgotten were it not for the heroism of Aung San Suu Kyi in providing a focal point for the hopes and democratic aspirations of the people of Burma. I hope that the next few days will see the end of the military regime without further bloodshed and I call on the Council and the High Representative to bring whatever pressure they can to secure that outcome.

  Glyn Ford (PSE), in writing. – As Parliament’s rapporteur on the free trade agreement between the EU and ASEAN, I have made it clear in all my meetings with ASEAN trade ministers and officials that Parliament would strongly resist any concessions to the current Burmese military dictatorship.

The events of the last few days, where peaceful protest led by Buddhist monks has been met with teargas and bullets, have made an awful situation worse.

I had the privilege of visiting Aung San Suu Kyi in Rangoon almost a decade ago, when her house arrest was sufficiently relaxed for her to receive rare visitors. She made it absolutely clear that she, as the representative and leader of the democratically elected National League for Democracy, overthrown by the military regime, wanted the EU to impose the strongest possible sanctions.

Now the EU and Member States should lead the demand for global UN sanctions through the Security Council. Neither we, nor the people of Burma, can wait any longer.

  Jules Maaten (ALDE), in writing. – (NL) A new drama is playing out in Burma. The junta has chosen confrontation with thousands of peaceful demonstrators. This is extremely regrettable, because it is wonderful that the population has had the courage to come out in resistance without help from outside. I support the unconditional release of Aung San Suu Kyi, U Khun Htun Oo, Ko Min Ko Naing and all other political prisoners and I support rapid democratic reforms.

The European Commission should make optimum use of the emergency funds, provided for in objective 1 of the Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights budget, so that sufficient support can be given to independent media, human rights activists and NGOs in Burma.

Further tightening of all the existing economic sanctions also seems unavoidable. I am in favour of joining with the British and American measures and imposing strict restrictions on trading activities and financial transactions with Burma.

Parliament should send a delegation to Burma to assess the situation for itself.

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. – The situation in Burma is extremely worrying. Those demonstrating against the military regime (including the monks) are showing immense courage. The regime has brutally repressed previous demonstrations and shown scant regard for the welfare of its people. International pressure must be maximised on the regime, including a commitment to hold those responsible for any atrocities in the coming days responsible before the International Criminal Court. The EU must speak to China and India, who are in a better place to pressurise the regime, asking them to intervene to protect the demonstrators and help return Burma to democracy.

IN THE CHAIR: MR DOS SANTOS
Vice-President

(1) See Minutes.

13. Council Question Time

  President. − The next item is Question Time (B6-0316/2007).

The following questions are addressed to the Council.

Question No 1 is inadmissible (Annex II, Part A, paragraph 2 of the Rules of Procedure).

Question No 2 by Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (H-0597/07)

Subject: Prospects for the Galileo project

The Galileo project is an extremely important project for the European Union, as it is the result of space-related research and cooperation between the Member States and can be applied to numerous areas, including that of transport.

Given the current deadlock in the financing of this project, I should like to ask the Council of the European Union what measures it intends to take to resolve this situation and what kind of cooperation with third countries, such as India, does the European Union have in mind for this project?

  Manuel Lobo Antunes, President-in-Office of the Council. − (PT) As the honourable Member knows, during its meeting from 6 to 8 June 2007 the Council analysed in depth the situation of the Galileo project and adopted a resolution. In this resolution, the Council invited the Commission to submit proposals on various aspects of the Galileo project. The Commission has since then adopted these proposals (on 19 November) and we now hope that the competent Council bodies will analyse these with a view to taking an integrated decision on the implementation of the Galileo project, including the public funding and modalities of public participation, before the end of this year.

As regards cooperation with third countries, it should be recalled that the Council attributes the greatest importance to cooperation with countries that do not belong to the European Union. Since 2001, as you know, various cooperation agreements in relation to Galileo have been signed with non-EU countries such as China, Israel and Ukraine. These countries are making contributions to the Galileo programme in terms of system definition, research and industrial cooperation.

In the specific case of India, a cooperation agreement was signed by the Commission and Indian negotiators in New Delhi on 7 September 2005. However, the Commission has decided to continue consultations with the Indian authorities in order to bring that agreement into line with the standard EC cooperation agreements on Galileo and to take account of the latest developments in this project. In terms of the applicable rules, the Council must wait for a Commission proposal before making a decision on this issue.

In order to better define the position of third countries, on 22 March of this year the Council adopted a decision authorising the Commission to negotiate with non-EU countries with a view to signing agreements on their associated membership for participation in the European GNSS (Global Navigation Satellite System) Supervisory Authority (GSA).

The main objective of this decision is to provide for a harmonised approach concerning all non-EU countries by clearly defining the modalities of their participation within the GSA.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (PSE). – (RO) Mr. President, I would like to thank Mr. Secretary of State for the information provided. However, I would like to come back to the first part of my question, namely the financing of the GALILEO project. I would like Mr. Secretary of State to tell us more about the actual manner of financing this project and about the way in which the Commission’s proposal was examined and what will the actual decision of the Council be in the next period.

  Manuel Lobo Antunes. −(PT) I cannot predict what the Council’s decision will be on the issues that are on the table, in particular with regard to funding. This issue must of course be discussed by the Council, together with the other issues set out in the Commission’s most recent proposals. I can assure the honourable Member of two things: first, that the presidency understands that the Galileo project is a strategic project for the European Union and that it will therefore deal with this issue in that light, in other words as a project of strategic interest to the European Union; second, that the presidency will do everything possible to reach a conclusion on the main aspects of the Galileo project during the Portuguese Presidency.

  Josu Ortuondo Larrea (ALDE). – (ES) Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I agree that Galileo is an urgent priority project for the EU, but farmers are extremely concerned because the Commission has come up with the idea of using surplus CAP funds to finance the Galileo project. Since 2007 did apparently produce a surplus, they are worried about their future.

My question for the Council is this: do the various governments, the 27 EU governments, agree that this ought to be a priority project and that funds should be applied either by means of extraordinary contributions or by using funds left over every year from the Community budget?

  Manuel Lobo Antunes. − (PT) Thank you, Mr President. I believe that I have already answered this question in my previous answer. The issue of funding is still on the table. The Council must discuss this as no decision has yet been made on this matter. It is of course expected that the Member States will have differing points of view on this issue as well. However, I consider that there is in fact a consensus among us on the strategic nature of this project.

  President. −

Question No 3 by Bernd Posselt (H-0599/07)

Subject: Constitutional reform in Bosnia and Herzegovina

What is the Council’s opinion of the current state of the reforms, in particular the constitutional reform and the reform of the Dayton Agreement, in Bosnia and Herzegovina and what action is it planning to take to further the renewal and integration of this country?

  Manuel Lobo Antunes, President-in-Office of the Council. − (PT) Ladies and gentlemen, the European Union will assess the current reform process in Bosnia and Herzegovina in the annual report on the progress made, which is scheduled for November as usual.

The Council has reiterated on numerous occasions the importance of the rapid implementation of the four essential conditions for the conclusion of the negotiations on the Stabilisation and Association Agreement, as set out in the Council conclusions of 12 December 2005, in particular the implementation of police reform. However, as you know, the political situation has remained tense in recent months due to the radicalisation of the positions assumed by the main Bosnian political leaders. At the moment it seems as if it will be extremely difficult to reach a consensus on the reform agenda, particularly with regard to restructuring the police force.

The High Representative, Mr Solana, met with Miroslav Lajčák, EU Special Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina, on 10 September. During this meeting, which took place in Brussels, Mr Solana expressed his full support for the work of the EU Special Representative and his efforts to find a compromise on police reform with the political leaders of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The Secretary-General and High Representative, Mr Solana, urged the Bosnian leaders to engage constructively in the latest initiative presented by the Special Representative so as to remove the last obstacle preventing Bosnia and Herzegovina from concluding the Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the European Union. He also called on the authorities of that country to act responsibly in order to finally deliver for the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The Council, too, has expressed its support for the efforts that have been made in Bosnia and Herzegovina on constitutional reform, with a view to creating more functional State structures that are more capable of reaching European standards. Further effort is needed to continue improving the efficiency of the executive and legislative bodies and we must also reinforce the capacity for administration and coordination between the State and its bodies.

In terms of the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance, the European Union has reserved EUR 1 million for constitutional reform in Bosnia and Herzegovina. As you will know, the Council also adopted on 7 February 2007 a joint action amending and extending the mandate of the EU Special Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina. Under this amended mandate, the EU Special Representative will provide political advice and offer his services in the process of constitutional reform.

  Bernd Posselt (PPE-DE). – (DE) Bosnia and Herzegovina will only have a future if it is transformed into a federation comprising all three of its nations on an equal basis, which must include not only the Herzegovinian but also the Central Bosnian Croats. My question is quite specific: what can be done when an entity such as Republika Srpska blocks police reform and refugee return from within, but the EU only brings external pressure to bear on the state as a whole? Do you also speak to the individual entities and exert pressure on them, or can this only be done via the central state? If so, it becomes very difficult.

  Manuel Lobo Antunes. − (PT) Very well, Mr President, honourable Member, what I can say in this respect is that the European Union will do everything possible, through the diplomatic instruments available and particularly through the actions of its Special Representative, to ensure that the current deadlock in the constitutional reforms, particularly in the police reform, can be successfully overcome and to ensure that the obstacles encountered can be removed. That is our commitment.

The Council will of course take account of the proposals and suggestions that may be made by the Special Representative as a result of his presence on the ground. As the honourable Member may imagine, the Council is aware of the complexity of the situation and in particular of the urgent need to overcome the deadlock that we are currently encountering.

  Richard Seeber (PPE-DE). – (DE) As the Secretary of State knows, potential EU membership is a powerful driving force for political and economic reform in all the Balkan countries. Very intensive negotiations are under way with Croatia, after all. Can the Council offer an overview of the precise state of negotiations with Croatia, and above all, how the association agreements with the other countries are being implemented and whether they are working well?

  Manuel Lobo Antunes. − (PT) Mr Seeber, as you know, the Council has repeatedly and systematically presented its point of view and opinion on the accession processes and on the European prospects of various countries, in particular the Balkans. The Council has clearly stated that there is a European prospect for the Balkans. In fact, for one of these, namely Croatia, we are already in the process of negotiating this country’s accession to the European Union.

As I have already stated, in November, as usual, the Commission will submit a communication to the Council reporting on the state of the negotiations, in particular the state of the negotiations with Croatia, and will make its proposals.

That will be the right moment for us to carry out a detailed and up-to-the-minute review of the state of the accession negotiations. However, even though there may be certain difficulties, problems or delays here and there, it seems to me, according to my personal assessment of the state of the negotiations, that these are progressing at a good rate.

  President. −

Question No 4 by Marie Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou (H-0604/07)

Subject: Measures to increase innovation

What specific proposals does the Portuguese Presidency intend to put forward to achieve 3% investment in innovation?

In what way will SMEs participate, particularly those in mountainous, island and very remote regions, in action that will be funded to promote innovation and research?

  Manuel Lobo Antunes, President-in-Office of the Council. − (PT) As the honourable Member knows, the European Union has not at present agreed any quantified target for investment in innovation. Such a target would be virtually impossible to define and put into practice as innovation covers a wide range of activities which are very difficult to define and measure.

The European Union therefore opted in 2002 to adopt a guideline quantitative target for spending on research and development, otherwise known as R&D. This is the well-known Barcelona target of 3%. It was possible to set this target as R&D actions, which are internationally defined in the OECD’s Frascati Manual, are easier to measure and quantify.

It should be noted that this objective has recently been used as the preferred reference indicator, given the difficulties encountered in recent years in increasing the private R&D effort in significant segments of the business sector.

However, action to promote innovation and research is a very high priority in the European Union’s policy. It is being carried out through various instruments such as the Framework Programme and the CIP, otherwise known as the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme, and also by using the Structural Funds.

The Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) and the CIP were conceived bearing in mind the needs of SMEs, which are the main beneficiaries of the CIP. A minimum quota of 15% has been introduced in the Seventh Framework Programme for the participation of small and medium-sized enterprises in research activities covered by the thematic priorities set out in the Specific Programme on ‘Cooperation’.

It should be noted that the support in the Seventh Framework Programme for small and medium-sized enterprises may help to increase their competitiveness and innovation potential. Mountainous, island and very remote regions receive support from the Structural Funds. They are also supported through the relevant thematic priorities of the Specific Programme on ‘Cooperation’ in FP7, particularly with regard to improving their transport, information, communications and energy supply situation.

Under the Specific Programme on ‘Capacities’, the research potential of the EU’s convergence and outermost regions must be unlocked. In addition to the current programmes and incentives, innovation will also be promoted through a series of initiatives which are currently being negotiated within the European Parliament and the Council. These include the proposal to create the European Institute of Innovation and Technology, the EUROSTARS initiative, which will actively involve innovative small and medium-sized enterprises, other initiatives under Article 169 of the EC Treaty and joint technological initiatives provided for in Article 171 of the EC Treaty.

It should be added that the Commission is currently preparing its proposal for a strategic action plan for the SETs or strategic energy technologies, based on a wide-ranging public consultation. It is aiming to present this proposal by the end of 2007. Along the same lines, I should also like to highlight the new industrial policy approach, which, in the context of sustainable development, is focusing on climate change in which innovation and the role of small and medium-sized enterprises in the European economy are fundamental aspects.

In all these initiatives, small and medium-sized enterprises will play a very important role. Some of these initiatives will also be targeted at particular interests in the regions mentioned by the honourable Member, such as the ‘bonus’ initiative which is already planned and through which marine research in the Baltic Sea area will be coordinated.

The Portuguese Presidency has borne in mind the pursuit of the 3% target for R&D spending and must highlight the discussions held within the informal Competitiveness Council in Lisbon in July, when the role of public and private investment in R&D was analysed, together with public policy measures capable of contributing to the achievement of that target.

The informal Council to which I refer also considered the policy on small and medium-sized enterprises with particular impact on innovation and financing, internationalisation and energy efficiency.

Furthermore, by highlighting the need for specific measures in the area of human resources in science and technology and the reinforcement of measures in the area of the information society, the Portuguese Presidency also hopes to bolster the favourable conditions for an increased research, development and innovation effort across the European Union.

  Maria Panayotopoulou-Kassiotou (PPE-DE). – (EL) Mr President, I should like to ask the Council representative, whom I thank for his reply, whether the infrastructure of the Member States and the state of preparation of good governance enable this ambitious programme for innovation to be developed. Are the Member States subject to controls when they implement any support scheme within the programme for innovation?

  Manuel Lobo Antunes. − (PT) I hope that I have correctly understood the honourable Member’s question. If not, I should of course like to be corrected or enlightened as to the exact meaning of her question.

I would say as follows: as the honourable Member knows, all these issues very directly relate to the Lisbon Strategy and in particular the Lisbon Strategy in its ‘economy’ aspect.

At the moment we are obviously assessing various aspects in relation to the new cycle of the Lisbon Strategy. One of the issues that we must assess and debate is precisely the role of the Member States in achieving the targets or objectives proposed in this area. In particular, this concerns measures relating to innovation and development in small and medium-sized enterprises and also, of course, in the chapter on their governance, the way in which they can achieve these objectives.

We believe that governments and Member States have a fundamental role to play in this and it is also of course useful for the Commission to closely monitor how the Member States are developing and adopting their policies in order to meet the objectives set.

  Justas Vincas Paleckis (PSE). – President-in-Office, in answering that question you mentioned energy efficiency, and I believe it is the right approach. Yesterday Commissioner Potočnik also stressed that priority number one is energy efficiency and fighting climate change. I would like to ask you, what additional measures can the Council take in order to mobilise all their resources and attention to solving this vital problem of efficiency and climate change?

  Manuel Lobo Antunes. − (PT) As the honourable Member knows, in March the Council adopted a programme which is regarded as world leading on both energy issues and climate change issues. We in the European Union will have an almost historic responsibility, I would say, at the Bali Conference, which will hopefully set new targets for CO2 emissions for post-Kyoto 2012. The European Union will clearly have a responsibility to support and/or encourage the international community to set itself as ambitious targets as we have proposed for ourselves.

We therefore already have, Mr Paleckis, a highly ambitious programme to implement across the European Union. Among the specific energy issues, the issue of energy saving is on the agenda at both EU level and within the individual Member States. I can tell you that in Portugal – and I have direct experience of this – this is an extremely important issue to which we have dedicated a great deal of effort. However, the issue of investment in new energy technologies and in sciences relating to alternative energy sources has also been mentioned.

We have much to do. We hope that what we have to do can be done quickly and well. We must of course now concentrate on the ambitious programme for energy and climate change that we have agreed.

  Paul Rübig (PPE-DE). – (DE) We have voted on the EIT here in the European Parliament today and we agree de facto that it must have absolute priority. When do you expect the Portuguese Presidency to be able to put forward a funding proposal which will then be implemented, in conjunction with Parliament, as swiftly as possible? Do you think that the EIT will play a role in the mid-term review and the Health Check as well?

  Manuel Lobo Antunes. − (PT) Mr Rübig, I must tell you – Mr President, with your permission – I must tell you that the European Institute of Technology, its effective launch and its effective entry into operation are a priority for the Portuguese Presidency. We will therefore strive to ensure that this Institute is set up before the end of the Portuguese Presidency.

Of course, while it is the Presidency that is taking action and making proposals, it is up to the EU institutions to adopt the Presidency’s proposals in this respect. I can guarantee that the Presidency will try to act as quickly as possible. There are other subjects and other issues which are of course the responsibility of the Council as a whole and of the institutions and we cannot ignore this fact.

  President. −

Question No 5 by Dimitrios Papadimoulis (H-0605/07)

Subject: Developments in Kosovo

The Secretary-General of the Council, Javier Solana, at a meeting with the UN Secretary-General on 10 July 2007 said, with regard to Kosovo: ‘… any further delay of this issue will not be beneficial’. In addition the French news agency, quoting diplomatic sources, said that Brussels was considering very seriously the possibility of recognising Kosovo but ‘in the most organised way possible’.

What are the Council’s comments on these developments? Can it categorically deny the possibility of unilateral recognition, particularly if it anticipates UN procedures in this regard?

  Manuel Lobo Antunes, President-in-Office of the Council. − (PT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as you know, on 18 June 2007 the Council reiterated its position that the comprehensive proposal drawn up by President Martti Ahtissari, UN Special Envoy, provides the basis for the settlement of the Kosovo issue by a new resolution of the United Nations Security Council. The European Council expressed its support for intensified efforts to ensure that the UN Security Council can adopt such a resolution in a timely manner.

As you are aware, the UN Security Council consultations on a new resolution are currently suspended, but the UN Security Council is very alert to this issue. In a statement in August the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon, highlighted the initiative of the Contact Group for new negotiations between Pristina and Belgrade to be led by a Troika comprising representatives of the European Union, the Russian Federation and the United States. The UN Secretary-General asked the Contact Group to report back to him by 10 December. The intention behind this new period of negotiations is that the Troika will play a facilitating role, with the parties being responsible for proposing new ideas.

As you know, on 29 July 2007 the Secretary-General and High Representative, Mr Solana, appointed Ambassador Wolfgang Ischinger as the EU’s representative in the Troika. So far the Troika has met separately with the parties on 10 and 11 August in Belgrade and Pristina, on 30 August in Vienna, and on 18 and 19 September in London. At the ministerial-level Contact Group meeting, which will take place on 27 September in New York alongside the UN General Assembly, ministers will discuss the state of the negotiations and must issue a statement aimed at giving significant impetus to this process. On 28 September, also in New York, further separate meetings will be held between the Troika and the parties, possibly followed by an initial direct meeting between the parties on the same day.

As Mr Solana has highlighted, it is now essential that the parties cooperate constructively in this process and conduct substantial negotiations. On the conclusion of the Troika process, the UN Secretary-General must present a report to the UN Security Council on this issue. As you must realise, at this stage it is still too early to predict the results of these processes.

  Dimitrios Papadimoulis (GUE/NGL). – (EL) Mr President, only yesterday Condoleezza Rice said that Kosovo will become independent. The US scenario is clear: a unilateral proclamation of independence by December and immediate recognition by the USA.

What position is the Council adopting with regard to this method of operation? Are you concerned by the worsening destabilisation of the wider region by Albanian nationalism? Does the Council finally intend to act in a unified, perceptive and uniform way?

I have read in the New York Times that European diplomats are hastening to pre-empt the Council’s position, which will slavishly follow that of the United States. Why do you not tell us what the diplomats at the Council are saying? We would like a clear answer.

  Manuel Lobo Antunes. − (PT) I have not read or heard the statements by Mrs Riis-Jørgensen and I would not therefore like to comment on them directly. However, I would say the following: we now have a process to follow, a process which is being led by a Troika comprising representatives of the European Union, the Russian Federation and the United States.

We should leave the Troika to carry out its work, which should properly occur in a climate of tranquillity and confidentiality. As far as the European Union is concerned, the work of this Troika naturally has our full support. In addition, this Troika has a very clear mandate to present a report in December which will form the conclusion, which will contain the conclusions and in all likelihood recommendations resulting from its work over the next few months. We therefore hope, as I have said, that this work will be concluded, that the report will be published and that any recommendations made by this Troika will also be made known to us.

In particular, it is fundamental for the European Union that, whatever these conclusions or recommendations may be and whatever the prospects for the future of Kosovo are, as indicated in the Troika’s report, in any decisions that may have to be taken, the European Union remains united and cohesive. This has been the constant call of the Portuguese Presidency and we are confident that this call will be heard.

  Bernd Posselt (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President-in-Office, do you know that Mr Papadimoulis is completely isolated here? Are you familiar with the resolution adopted by this House in which a 75% majority of Members said that we were in favour of the Ahtisaari-Rohan plan and that we were clearly in favour of sovereignty under international monitoring? Do you know that we unequivocally ruled out the option of a division of Kosovo? I would also like to ask you what you think of these rumours and the talk of a division of Kosovo, which was actually ruled out by both the Contact Group and this Parliament.

  Manuel Lobo Antunes. − (PT) The issue of the division or partition of Kosovo is not in any way on the agenda, nor does it form part of the Troika’s work.

  President. −

Question No 6 by Philip Claeys (H-0611/07)

Subject: Kazakhstan’s candidacy for the OSCE Chairmanship

It is reported that Kazakhstan is putting itself forward as a candidate to hold the Chairmanship of the OSCE in 2009. The Foreign Affairs Minister of the country holding the Chairmanship represents the organisation and coordinates all the activities of the OSCE.

Kazakhstan is well known to be a country which has never held an election meeting international standards, and where human rights are in a very poor state.

The EU Member States very often act together as a block in the OSCE. Unanimity is particularly to be expected on an issue as fundamental as this, in which an undemocratic country is pushing itself forward to be Chairman-in-Office of the OSCE. This difficult decision is to be taken in November.

Is there a consensus within the General Affairs Council that the candidacy of Kazakhstan is unacceptable? Will the Member States present a united front?

  Manuel Lobo Antunes, President-in-Office of the Council. − (PT) Thank you, Mr President, honourable Member. The European Union has not yet made any decision on the candidacy of Kazakhstan for the OSCE Chair in 2009. As the EU sees it, this candidacy will underline the need for Kazakhstan to pursue reforms and respect the OSCE rules and obligations in all their dimensions. The Council has repeatedly affirmed that any country holding the OSCE Chair must set an example of respect for the principles of that organisation.

In meetings with the political authorities of Kazakhstan, the European Union, the Council and the Commission have emphasised that Kazakhstan must show that it is ready and able to commit to full compliance with the OSCE’s rules and obligations in all their three dimensions, namely the human dimension, the political and military dimension, and the economic and environmental dimension.

  Koenraad Dillen (ITS), deputising for the author. – (NL) Thank for your reply, Minister. May I assume that you imply that Kazakhstan does not meet those conditions at the present time?

  Manuel Lobo Antunes. − (PT) I must comment because the honourable Member has inferred something from what I said that was not exactly what I said. What I said was that no decision has been made on Kazakhstan’s candidacy and that a decision on Kazakhstan’s candidacy will take into account, at the appropriate time, Kazakhstan’s compliance with the conditions I mentioned. This analysis and debate will take place at the appropriate time and in the appropriate place.

  President. − As the author is not present, Question No 7 lapses.

Question No 8 by Robert Navarro (H-0616/07)

Subject: Bluefin tuna fishing in the Mediterranean

On 11 June 2007 the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 643/2007⁽¹⁾amending Regulation (EC) No 41/2006 as concerns the recovery plan for bluefin tuna recommended by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas. However, the text does not respect the principle of equal treatment for bluefin tuna fishermen in the European Union. The rules governing the minimum weight of fish caught and the fishing periods differ according to the geographical areas of the catches.

What are the reasons for such disparities in the way Mediterranean and East Atlantic fishermen are treated?

The restrictions imposed on French bluefin tuna fishermen in the Mediterranean could seriously disrupt the sector’s socioeconomic balance. Above the 30 kg limit imposed by the new Regulation, tuna are hard to sell. A two-week reduction in the fishing season means a significant drop in turnover for fishermen. Around one thousand fishermen and their families are directly affected by these measures.

In what way is bluefin tuna fishing more harmful in the Mediterranean than in the East Atlantic?

  Manuel Lobo Antunes, President-in-Office of the Council. − (PT) Thank you, Mr President, Mr Navarro. On behalf of the Council, I should like to thank the honourable Member for his question on the bluefin tuna recovery plan. This plan was drawn up following an opinion from scientists at ICCAT (International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas), which recommended immediate and extensive action to prevent the current collapse of bluefin tuna populations in the Mediterranean and East Atlantic. ICCAT adopted the recommendation aimed at implementing a 15-year recovery plan at its annual meeting in November 2006 held in Dubrovnik. As a result, the European Community, as a member of ICCAT, accepted the international obligation to transpose said recovery plan into Community law.

In commercial terms, the consequences of total non-compliance with this obligation would be seriously prejudicial to the European Community’s position in the Asian markets. This obligation was met for 2007 through the adoption of Council Regulation (EC) No 643/2007 amending the Regulation on TACs (total allowable catches) and quotas. Based on a Commission proposal, the Council is currently assessing the regulations needed so that the plan can be permanently applied for a further 14 years as from 1 January 2008. Different rules apply to the various areas in order to reflect the respective differences in terms of types of fishing, levels of activity and situation of the population units. It should be recalled that these fisheries range between high-technology industrial fishing and non-industrial traditional fishing.

The ICCAT groups decided on the plan based on scientific opinions which made certain distinctions between the Mediterranean and the East Atlantic. The Council is therefore of the opinion that ICCAT tried to follow this scientific advice while differentiating the elements of the recovery plan in order to attenuate its socioeconomic consequences.

The Council is fully aware that this important recovery plan has socioeconomic consequences for the fishing communities in question. These consequences would also be felt if the bluefin tuna populations were to collapse again. During the negotiations with a view to adopting Council Regulation (EC) No 643/2007, the Council and the Commission agreed to introduce a provision ensuring that the recovery plan would be recognised as such by the European Fisheries Fund. This will enable Member States to use part of their resources from the Fund to mitigate the economic effects on the fishing communities affected. It is planned that this provision will remain in force until 31 December 2014.

  Josu Ortuondo Larrea (ALDE), deputising for the author. – (ES) Mr President, I now wish to speak on behalf of Mr Navarro, and then ask a question of my own, or rather repeat a question.

My question on behalf of Mr Navarro is as follows: Article 23(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002, which provide for the establishment of a bluefin tuna recovery plan, allows any surpluses produced by a Member State with respect to the yearly quota to be deducted from future fishing possibilities. What I wish to ask the Council is: what will happen to those who have caught less than their quota this year, since the Commission closed the fishing grounds last week?

  President. − Mr Ortuondo, I cannot give you the floor as I already have two speakers listed. However, I will give you a further 15 seconds if you wish to ask your question immediately because, under the Rules of Procedure, I cannot allow three supplementary questions. As an exception, and with the forbearance of all those present, I therefore allow you to continue for a further 15 seconds.

  Josu Ortuondo Larrea (ALDE). – (ES) Mr President, I also wish to beg your indulgence to ask the Presidency of the Council how Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 can be applied if the Member States have failed to cooperate with the Commission by not sending it the compulsory documentation on catches during this fishing year.

  Manuel Lobo Antunes. − (PT) The honourable Member has asked me certain questions, one of which is very specific and detailed. I will try to answer as best I can but I very sincerely believe that the first question directly relates, and would be better put, to the Commission. I feel that the Commission is certainly in a better position than the Council to give you the clarification you want.

With regard to your second question on the alleged lack of cooperation by Member States with the Commission, of course if this is true then it is up to the Commission itself to analyse the situation and find the best way of, shall we say, forcing the Member States to comply with what they themselves may have laid down. This is clearly why I consider that the question would be better put to the Commission than to the Council.

  Richard Seeber (PPE-DE). – (DE) I would like to ask the Presidency how it is dealing with the phenomenon of climate change in relation to fishing quotas. We all know that climate change is currently buffered by the strong heat absorption of the oceans; 80% of the energy is still being absorbed here. However, it must of course be assumed that in future there will be massive warming of the marine environment as well. How is the Presidency ensuring that appropriate account is taken of these new scientific findings and that consideration is given to the aquatic environment when setting fishing quotas?

  Manuel Lobo Antunes. − (PT) I feel that this is another question that would be better put to the Commission, rather than the Council, as the Commission naturally has a leading and fundamental role in this respect. I can tell the honourable Member, as I have already said, that the environmental issues, particularly those relating to climate change, are on the Presidency’s agenda and on the Council’s agenda as a priority item. We will be facing a major challenge after the Bali Conference at the end of this year and, following this whole process, we hope to be able to decide in 2009 on new targets for CO2 emissions.

  Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE). – (ES) Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I also wish to make some remarks on the bluefin tuna issue, and more specifically on the closure of fishing grounds decreed by the Commission recently since the quota allocated to the European Union had been exceeded.

From the information supplied to us by the Commission, it may be inferred that when the fishing grounds were closed certain Member States, including Spain and Portugal, had not yet caught their quota, although others such as France and Italy had exceeded theirs, and had in fact doubled it, thus placing the European Union in, at the very least, an embarrassing situation of having infringed the international rules.

My question, which is directed at the Council, is as follows: what measures can the Council take to compensate states that have not exhausted their catches through deductions from those that have used up more than their quota? Can the Council do that?

I also have another question: what does the Council intend to do? What measures will it take to ensure that this kind of situation does not happen again?

  Manuel Lobo Antunes. − (PT) Mr President, Mrs Miguélez, once again I must say that you will have to put these questions to the Commission. It is the Commission which is naturally in a position to properly answer the questions that you have just asked me.

  President. −

Question No 9 by Chris Davies (H-0617/07)

Subject: Making EU laws in public

Is the Council aware of any negative consequences resulting from its decision in June 2006 to transmit on the Council website the proceedings of its meetings at which legislation is debated by ministers?

  Manuel Lobo Antunes, President-in-Office of the Council. − (PT) In answer to the honourable Member’s question, the Presidency would refer you to the report on the implementation of the overall policy on transparency presented by the previous Finnish Presidency to the Council on 11 December 2006. This report contained the Council’s latest review of the impact of the new transparency measures on the effectiveness of the Council’s work. According to the preliminary conclusions of this report, which is also preliminary, a more thorough evaluation should be made, before the end of 2007, of the effects of the new transparency measures when more practical experience has been gained of their implementation and impact on the Council’s work.

I can tell you that in the first half of 2006 a total of 98 deliberations and debates were open to the public, in accordance with the European Council Conclusions of 15 and 16 June 2006 and Article 8 of the Council’s Rules of Procedure.

  Chris Davies (ALDE). – I welcome the President-in-Office’s response and I am very pleased that the Council took the decision to arrange for the transmission of these proceedings in advance of any provisions that may be found in the Reform Treaty.

I note the President-in-Office’s response that, before the end of 2007, a review will be undertaken and published, which, I hope; will indicate how the principles of openness and transparency in this area may be extended. Can the President-in-Office confirm that, before the end of his presidency, such a review will indeed be published?

  Manuel Lobo Antunes. − (PT) What I can confirm and assure you of is that this is a subject dear to the Portuguese Presidency and we will do everything possible to take this process forward. I cannot, at this moment in time, guarantee specific dates for this review, but I can guarantee that the Portuguese Presidency is keen to take forward this issue of transparency and is committed to this.

  President. −

Question No 10 by Ryszard Czarnecki (H-0620/07)

Subject: Situation in Afghanistan

What role does the Council see for the EU in stabilising the situation in Afghanistan, where troops from a number of EU Member States are stationed?

  Manuel Lobo Antunes, President-in-Office of the Council. − (PT) The European Union’s approach is essentially based on strict coordination. Internally, particular attention has been paid to ensuring complementarity and mutual reinforcement of the actions of the European Community, Council and Member States. Externally, the European Union has been one of the main members of the Joint Coordination and Monitoring Board set up under the 2006 Afghanistan Compact.

The Council Decision of 12 February 2007 to move forward with the ESDP (European Security and Defence Policy) mission to Afghanistan must be understood in the context of this wider strategy. The EU Police mission (EUPOL) is currently in the planning stage. Through this mission, the European Union is indicating its intention to play a more active role in the field of policing with linkages to the wider rule of law. This mission will of course dovetail with the Commission’s commitment to reform the justice sector. All these efforts have the common objective of reinforcing the sovereignty of the Afghan institutions.

Since 2001 Afghanistan has made very significant progress in terms of setting up representative political institutions, freeing the press, creating institutions in the security sector, making improvements in health and education and in human rights and the status of women, appointing a functional supreme court and setting up a consultative panel for the appointment of senior officials. The European Union has played a fundamental role in this process and has already contributed EUR 3.7 billion since 2002. The European Union is continuing to intensify efforts to ensure that its development aid reaches Afghans in all parts of the country.

The greater emphasis now being placed on governance and the rule of law is intended to reinforce the action in other areas. The Commission has been developing programmes in the areas of rural development, health and governance, and will financially support any civilian activities carried out by Member States through provincial reconstruction teams. The European Union firmly believes that, as stated by the European Council of 14 December 2006, the security and development of Afghanistan are interdependent. That is why the European Union has always been committed on a long-term basis to Afghanistan through a strong and balanced strategy.

  Ryszard Czarnecki (UEN). – (PL) Thank you very much, Mr Antunes, for this clarification. I simply wished to refer to one key issue that also relates to the statements by representatives of the European Commission active in Afghanistan before Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs.

I wanted to enquire whether the Council intends to increase humanitarian aid to Afghanistan and intensify efforts to rebuild civil society there. In my view, much more than military presence is needed in Afghanistan. My country is, however, committed on the ground in Afghanistan, which is indicative of a certain desire to achieve stability in that region.

  Manuel Lobo Antunes. − (PT) I agree with the honourable Member: promoting security and stability in military terms in Afghanistan is fundamental, but that is only one part of what we have to do in that country. We also have to work on strengthening the democratic institutions in Afghanistan and we must also concentrate on the ‘Afghan civil society’ component. We must invest in health, education and training. We must also of course continue to win the hearts of the Afghan people.

That is why we have a strategy with two aspects to it, one of which is the military aspect involving security and stability on the ground. Without security, without stability on the ground, there can be no peace and there can certainly be no economic and social development. We therefore need to guarantee this aspect and, at the same time, work on, and invest in, Afghan civil society and the Afghan democratic institutions, which we refer to as rebuilding the administrative capacity of the Afghan State.

  Paul Rübig (PPE-DE). – (DE) Economic stability in Afghanistan is the key prerequisite for a functioning democracy and peace in that country. In the European Union, we have the Oslo Agenda for Entrepreneurship Education for SMEs to promote business start-ups, foster entrepreneurial mindsets and promote exports and imports. Can you envisage this Oslo Agenda being implemented in Afghanistan as well?

  Manuel Lobo Antunes. − (PT) Mr Rübig, I believe that we have to invest in all areas of Afghan society, as I have just mentioned. Clearly, in a country such as Afghanistan, with its current security difficulties, economic difficulties and its particular social structure, I believe that a very important role can be played by small and medium-sized enterprises.

It therefore seems to me that this is truly a sector in which, in terms of forming the economic and social fabric of Afghanistan, we can and must invest. Of course we can discuss how to specifically use the financial instrument, but clearly no one is currently expecting, at least not at the moment, large enterprises to set up in Afghanistan. It is not the time for that.

In order to revitalise the Afghan economic fabric, I believe that we must, in particular, concentrate our efforts on qualification, on training and, at the same time, on small and medium-sized enterprises.

  President. −

Question No 11 by Eoin Ryan (H-0625/07)

Subject: EU response to stop organised crime in Europe

Can the European Council make a statement as to the level of organised crime within Europe at this time and what coordinated initiatives are being put in place at EU level to combat the growing threat of organised criminal activity?

  Manuel Lobo Antunes, President-in-Office of the Council. − (PT) The Council refers the honourable Member to the Organised Crime Threat Assessment (OCTA), which is annually produced by Europol for the Council’s attention and a version of which is published and submitted annually to the European Parliament.

On 13 June this year, in its conclusions on the OCTA 2007, the Council restated its conviction that the fight against organised crime should focus on reducing the threat and the harm caused by it and, in particular, on tackling the following problems: the obstacles to dismantling organised crime groups stemming from their international dimension or influence, the level of infiltration of organised crime into society and the economy, especially the misuse of legitimate business structures and the transport sector in particular, and, finally, the misuse of technology by organised crime groups.

The Council also stressed that the European Union’s priorities for 2007 should be the following criminal markets: drug trafficking, especially in synthetic drugs; smuggling and trafficking in human beings, especially in relation to illegal immigration; fraud, especially in the area of highly taxed goods and Value Added Tax carousels; euro counterfeiting, commodity counterfeiting and intellectual property theft, and money laundering.

As was the case with the OCTA 2006, these conclusions highlighted the need for a multidisciplinary intelligence-led approach in order not only to disrupt criminal activities but also to dismantle criminal organisations, bring the offenders to justice and deprive them of the proceeds of crime.

This implies drawing on dedicated (specialised) resources and organising structures with a view to using all information that is available to law enforcement and thus identifying and tackling the most threatening criminal groups.

The Council also calls in its conclusions for the further development of a new, intelligence-led control strategy covering the entire national – and possibly EU – territory, complementing external border controls with checks, en route or at destination, monitoring financial movements and expanding the analytical capabilities of national and EU law enforcement agencies.

  Eoin Ryan (UEN). – There are two parts to my question. The first you have answered in the sense that you have given me the initiatives that have been put in place, but you have not answered the part about the level of organised crime. Many people would feel that is grossly underestimated at the moment and organised criminal gangs are infiltrating huge numbers of countries, if not all countries, in the European Union. This is a problem that is not going away and many people feel that it needs to be tackled in a far more coordinated manner than it is at the movement. I suppose what I am asking you is about the levels of organised crime within Europe.

  Manuel Lobo Antunes. − (PT) Mr Ryan, as I have already mentioned, I feel that it would be, or rather that it is useful and in fact essential, to review or consult the Organised Crime Threat Assessment for Europe. I am not disputing whether or not there is more or less crime as I do not at the moment have any information to give you on this, but it is often the case that there is a psychological perception of an increase in crime when the facts do not actually support this.

However, there is one thing that cannot be disputed: we do need a greater concerted effort by, and more cooperation between, the Member States, especially cooperation between the European institutions and the Member States, in order to eliminate the threats posed by organised crime, which are wide-ranging and varied. As I indicated, due to the new technologies that are available, organised crime groups have extraordinarily sophisticated means of operation that are extremely difficult to combat. I believe that all our Member States are aware of these new technologies and the new opportunities offered to criminals by these technological developments, which are definitely causing specific problems in the fight against organised crime.

Of course the Portuguese Presidency, as it should, will consider all proposals and suggestions made by the institutions in order to more effectively fight the threats posed by these criminal groups which, due to the type of crime perpetrated, cannot fail to have a major impact on our societies.

  Jim Allister (NI). – I expect the President-in-Office would be appalled by any link between organised crime and any government within the EU. Yet, sadly, that is exactly the situation in Northern Ireland, where Sinn Féin, a lead party in government, is inextricably linked to the IRA, whose illegal Army Council controls a portfolio of hundreds of millions of euros accumulated from the IRA’s organised crime activities. This is one of the reasons why its Army Council has not been disbanded. Will the Council join in condemning this obscenity and call upon IRA/Sinn Féin to disband its illegal Army Council forthwith?

  Manuel Lobo Antunes. − (PT) My response to the issue of fighting organised crime and the Council’s assessment and response are contained in my initial speech. I have nothing further to add on this issue.

  President. −

Question No 12 by Seán Ó Neachtain (H-0627/07)

Subject: Road safety

Can the European Council outline what measures it is pursuing so that a greater level of road safety takes place within the territories of the European Union?

  Manuel Lobo Antunes, President-in-Office of the Council. − (PT) Mr President, Mr Ó Neachtain, as the honourable Member is certainly aware, following the presentation by the Commission of the Mid-Term Review of the European Road Safety Action Programme in March 2006, the Council adopted conclusions at its meeting on 8 and 9 June 2006. In these conclusions the Transport Ministers of the European Union and the European Commission agreed on the need to strengthen road safety measures and initiatives at Community or Member State level.

As a result, in October 2006 the European Commission adopted two legislative proposals on the issue of reinforcing road safety and, thanks to excellent cooperation between the European Parliament and the Council, the two co-legislators quickly reached agreement on a proposal for a directive on the retrofitting of mirrors to heavy goods vehicles. This entered into force in August 2007 and will be implemented by 31 March 2009.

The Commission estimates that this new legislative measure could save up to 1 200 lives on the Community’s roads between now and 2020. The Council is currently assessing the proposal for a directive on road infrastructure safety management on which, pending the opinion of the European Parliament, it hopes to adopt a general approach at the Council meeting on 1 and 2 October. The Commission estimates that around 7 000 injuries and 600 lives could be saved every year if the measures proposed in this draft legislative instrument were applied.

I must also say to the honourable Member that he can be assured of the Council’s intention to positively assess all road safety measures and initiatives proposed by the European Commission in the context of its current efforts to reduce the number of deaths and injuries on the Community’s roads.

  Seán Ó Neachtain (UEN). – I thank you for the reply but I just want to ask you if, in your opinion, a more coordinated approach is needed now in view of the number of Member State nationals who travel from one country to the other, especially as is the case in my own country, Ireland, where many people from Eastern Europe come in and bring their cars. I do not think that the Council, or indeed the Commission, has made adequate provision for this type of travel at the present moment.

  Manuel Lobo Antunes. − (PT) Being Portuguese, I too have noticed very dramatic developments in my country in terms of road safety. Portugal has a problem, or has had a problem, in this area and so we have made very significant efforts. These have, in recent years, resulted in a very significant reduction in what was a plague of deaths on Portuguese roads, particularly in road accidents. This reduction has been due to systematic and persistent action by the government.

This is a problem of which we are well aware, which affects us very directly and to which we are alert and highly sensitive. I said at the end of my speech that the Council, in this case the Portuguese Presidency, will pay close attention to, and will be totally ready to assess and take on board, any proposal that the Commission may make to the Council aimed at further improving the current efforts being made to reduce the number of deaths and injuries on the Community’s roads. As I have said, the Presidency, in other words the Member State holding the Presidency, is particularly sensitive to this issue because it, too, has to deal with this problem in Portugal. As a result, as I have said, it is therefore willing to pay particular attention to any proposals made by the Commission to the Council in this respect.

  President. −

Question No 13 by Brian Crowley (H-0629/07)

Subject: The accession of Croatia into the European Union

Can the European Council make a comprehensive statement outlining how Croatia’s efforts to join the European Union are proceeding at present?

  Manuel Lobo Antunes, President-in-Office of the Council. − (PT) Mr President, Mr Crowley, I have already had the opportunity here today to briefly mention the process of Croatia’s accession. I will now go into slightly more detail while still being as brief as possible given the time constraints.

I can tell you, Mr Crowley, that the accession negotiations with Croatia are well on the way and significant progress has made been this year. Overall we have opened and provisionally closed two chapters: Chapter 25 – Science and Research and Chapter 26 – Education and Culture. In the meantime, another 10 chapters have been opened. These are: Chapter 3 – Freedom to Provide Services; Chapter 6 – Company Law; Chapter 7 – Intellectual Property Law; Chapter 9 – Financial Services; Chapter 10 – Information Society and Media; Chapter 17 – Economic and Monetary Policy; Chapter 18 – Statistics; Chapter 20 – Enterprise and Industrial Policy; Chapter 29 – Customs Union and, finally, Chapter 32 – Financial Control.

In addition, the Council intends to hold the fifth meeting of the Accession Conference with Croatia at ministerial level on 15 October in order to open Chapter 28 – Consumer and Health Protection. Other chapters will follow at the end of the year. There is still a lot of work to do, particularly in areas critical to the success of any candidate country, such as reform of the judicial system and public administration, the fight against corruption and economic reforms. The Council is also continuing to urge Croatia to improve its administrative capacity and to effectively transpose and implement the acquis so that it can meet its membership obligations in due time. In order to maintain this dynamic and ensure a quality process, we must point out that further efforts are needed to meet the requirements of the Negotiating Framework, including Croatia’s obligations in respect of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement, and also the implementation of the Accession Partnership.

  Brian Crowley (UEN). – Could I just say before I ask my question that I think it is wonderful that the President-in-Office has spent so much time in the Chamber today and participated so well in so many debates. Thank you on behalf of the House.

With regard to the time-frame for Croatia, we know the difficulties that there have been in a number of chapters in getting agreement with the Croatian Government, but could the President-in-Office give a time-frame for when he sees these negotiations being concluded? Are we talking about a two-year time-frame or a three-year time-frame? Is there an exact time-frame that can be given, taking into account the difficulties that may arise?

Secondly, with regard to the areas that still have to be opened – the whole area of judicial independence and the police services in Croatia – what specific actions have been taken on those areas?

  Manuel Lobo Antunes. − (PT) Mr Crowley, many thanks for your kind words. I must tell you that it has been my great satisfaction and honour to be here with you today, discussing, debating and not always agreeing on such important issues for the European agenda and the European Union.

However, the honourable Member is asking me to do the impossible: to give him a date for Croatia’s accession. I cannot do this because this accession, or this date, will in all likelihood depend more on Croatia than on the European Union itself. In fact, Croatia would probably be better placed than the European Union to determine this for the simple reason that, as you of course know, becoming part of the Union, entering the Union, depends on or corresponds to the progress made in complying with the criteria and conditions. What I can say absolutely unequivocally is that Croatia has a solid European prospect and a solid prospect of entering the European Union and that the Portuguese Presidency is committed to taking this process forward during its Presidency and is naturally also committed, together with the Commission, to overcoming any obstacles that may arise.

In November, as I have just said in answer to another question, there will be a review of the state of negotiations with Croatia. This review and a proposal will be submitted to us by the Commission. These, as I am sure you will realise, will have a fundamental role to play in reporting on, and monitoring, the work being carried out. They will be produced under the competence, and with the detail to be expected of, the Commission and what the Commission will say and what it will propose and recommend in its review will be very important in terms of what the Council will decide for the future and for the continued negotiation process with Croatia.

It is true that very often it is the administrative and judicial issues that are more difficult to resolve, in essence those issues relating to the specific internal organisation of Member States. It is those areas in which Member States, in terms of their specific organisation, must make greater investment and possibly also more extensive and, shall we say, more painful and more difficult reforms. We are confident that Croatia will be able to overcome any such difficulties and that, in line with its own desires and also those of the European Union, in the not too distant future it will become a member of our Union.

  President. −

Question No 14 by Liam Aylward (H-0631/07)

Subject: Climate change

Can the European Council make a comprehensive statement outlining what structures are being put in place at EU level so that a greater level of coordination can take place between Europe and America in our efforts to ensure that the target to reduce CO2 emissions by 20% by the year 2020 can be achieved?

  Manuel Lobo Antunes, President-in-Office of the Council. − (PT) Mr President, Mr Aylward, there can be no doubt that climate change is a global challenge requiring global solutions. For their part, the European leaders have decided to send the international community a clear signal of their determination to combat climate change by making the following commitments with a view to launching negotiations on a global post-2012 agreement. Until such an agreement is reached, the European Union makes the independent and firm commitment to achieve, by 2020, a reduction of at least 20% in greenhouse gas emissions in relation to 1990 levels. Secondly, the Union intends to commit to up to a 30% reduction if other developed countries make comparable reductions and if those developing countries that are more economically advanced make an appropriate contribution.

The European Union considers that it is time to assess the steps to be taken post-2012 and to establish a global approach involving the participation of a large number of countries. Pursuing a more permanent dialogue with the United States will be essential in preparing for the post-2012 negotiations which must begin at the Climate Conference to be held in Bali at the end of this year and to which I have already referred in my answer to a previous question.

Within this framework, two important meetings are planned before the Conference, the results of which will certainly give very positive added value to the Bali negotiations. The first is the high-level meeting of the General Assembly of the United Nations on climate change, which actually took place in New York on 24 September. The second is the meeting of the main economies on 27 and 28 September in Washington, at which the European Union expects to make an important contribution to moving forward the international process within the United Nations. In addition, the European Union and the United States agreed at the Vienna Summit in June 2006 to set up a high-level dialogue on climate change, clean energy and sustainable development. The aim is to move forward based on existing bilateral and multilateral initiatives and to pursue the implementation of the Vienna Summit Statement and the Gleneagles Plan of Action on climate change, clean energy and sustainable development adopted by the G8 leaders.

  Brian Crowley (UEN), deputising for the author. – I should like to thank the President-in-Office for his response.

However, the purpose of the question was that the difference of outlook between the US Administration and the European Union, with regard to finding solutions and building partnerships around the world, seems to have got greater; the distance between the two seems to have got greater in the last number of years. Obviously, no matter how good we are in the European Union, we need other people to follow what we are doing and, in particular, we can see now, with China and India and other concerns that they have, that America may lag further behind again.

So what we are really looking for is specific action on behalf of the European Union to encourage our cousins across the water in America to join with us, so we can stand up to the power of India and China in these negotiations.

  Manuel Lobo Antunes. − (PT) Mr Crowley, I totally agree with you. We must convince our cousins and, as they are our cousins, we expect them to be convinced or at least to be open to being convinced. I must tell you that the road to Bali and the road after Bali will be complicated and fraught with difficulty. No one can have any doubt about this, but it is clear that, through persistent and concerted action, we can, I hope, be successful. In any event, I consider that, thanks to the permanent dialogue that has been established specifically with our cousins on the other side of the Atlantic, despite everything, any differences, any different views of this climate issue can be overcome.

In this respect, I feel that the conclusions on climate change reached at the G8 meeting in Germany and the possibility created there or the agreement reached there on the fundamental role of the United Nations in the issue of climate change were positive evidence of the possibility of further progress and further agreements on this issue of climate change. As I have already said, it is essential that the European Union maintains, shall we say, its role as a leader and as an instigator paving the way for others in order to protect the environment and our planet.

  President. − Ladies and gentlemen, you will have noticed that the next three questions all relate to Pakistan. Unfortunately, I cannot use the Rules of Procedure to invite the Council to answer all these questions together as the Council has structured its work otherwise. I must draw your attention to the need for the reform of Parliament and, in particular, to what you, ladies and gentlemen, need to do in relation to the essential reform of Question Time, on which I believe we are all unanimous. However, unfortunately, we cannot apply more flexible rules as we have Rules of Procedure by which we must abide. I therefore have to put these questions one by one, which probably means that not all three will be answered. Depending on how our work goes, we will see whether we are more or less productive.

I will start with Question No 15 on Pakistani military assets. This question is by Mr Rutowicz and I urge the Council to answer this question directly.

Question No 15 by Józef Rutowicz (H-0637/07)

Subject: Pakistani military assets

It is widely known that Pakistan’s army dominates the country’s economy and administration. Does the Council intend to draw up an analysis to assess the total assets built up through military-related business while Pakistani society has suffered impoverishment?

  Manuel Lobo Antunes, President-in-Office of the Council. − (PT) The multiple instances of dialogue between the European Union and Pakistan on that country and the role played by the armed forces form part of the comprehensive analysis on which the Council’s policy with regard to Pakistan is based.

The general situation of the Pakistani economy and its level of development are another two parts of this same analysis. Of course both are taken into account in the general definition of our policy towards Pakistan and this will continue to be the case in the future.

  Leopold Józef Rutowicz (UEN). – (PL) I should like to thank the President and Mr Antunes for this response. As I understand it, the purpose of the question was essentially to enquire whether some kind of humanitarian support will be offered to these poor people in Pakistan. I would be grateful if Mr Antunes could provide some information in that regard.

  Manuel Lobo Antunes. − (PT) Mr Rutowicz, as you know, the issues of humanitarian aid, cooperation aid and development aid are priority issues for the European Union. Wherever people are suffering or in poverty, the European Union, the Council and also this Parliament do everything in their power to try and help resolve these situations. The European Union is one of the biggest, if not the biggest, donor of international aid and this fact cannot be forgotten.

  President. − As the authors are not present, Questions Nos 16 and 17 lapse.

Question No 18 by Mairead McGuinness (H-0639/07)

Subject: European Union Solidarity Fund

Could the Council make a statement on the effectiveness of the European Union Solidarity Fund?

  Manuel Lobo Antunes, President-in-Office of the Council. − (PT) Mr President, Mrs McGuinness, as the honourable Member knows, the Commission is responsible for applying the Regulation on the Solidarity Fund and the effectiveness of this Regulation must be assessed in terms of the criteria laid down therein.

As far as the Council knows, in cases of disasters provided for by the Regulation, its application has been effective. The European Commission periodically produces reports that set out in detail the use of the Solidarity Fund.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE-DE). – Thank you for your brief answer. I presume the Council has a view, because the Member States would have a view of how it is being impacted upon their own countries. Do you think that the budget of one billion is sufficient and that the Fund reacts quickly enough to the various crises that it has to deal with?

  Manuel Lobo Antunes. − (PT) Mrs McGuinness, as I said, the Council’s assessment is that the application of this Regulation, in other words the use of the Solidarity Fund, has been effective. It was certainly an excellent suggestion to set up a fund to help Member States deal with any natural or other disasters as this was something that did not exist before. This fund is certainly helpful as such disasters put Member States in a very particular situation of difficulty and need.

There should always ideally be the possibility of asking and applying for more. We must of course look at this issue realistically, but also ambitiously. I am sure that the Council, at the appropriate time and if proposed by the Commission, will not fail to assess this possibility. However, for the time being we have the legislative framework that we have and, by using this, we can work realistically, welcoming the creation of this fund and the effective role that it has played, which in fact proves that this initiative is justified.

  President. −

Question No 19 by Bill Newton Dunn (H-0641/07)

Subject: Making peace in the Middle East

Is the Council making enough use of the eponymous talents of the British Consul General in Jerusalem, Mr Makepeace?

  Manuel Lobo Antunes, President-in-Office of the Council. − (PT) I will answer the oral question although I am sure it has been asked previously by Mr Newton Dunn. Very well, I should like to say that the diplomatic and consular missions of the Member States and the Commission delegations in third countries cooperate to ensure that the common positions and joint actions adopted by the Council in the context of the common foreign and security policy are observed and implemented as specified in the Treaty on European Union. This naturally also includes the British Consul General in Jerusalem to whom the honourable Member refers in his question.

  Bill Newton Dunn (ALDE). – In the interests of my colleague, who wants to ask Question No 20, I will waive my right to a supplementary.

  President. −

Question No 20 by Gay Mitchell (H-0644/07)

Subject: Member State seat allocations in the European Parliament

Will the Council be proposing changes to the allocation of seats in the European Parliament to each Member State?

  Manuel Lobo Antunes, President-in-Office of the Council. − (PT) Mr President, Mr Mitchell, I am delighted to answer your question, all the more so as questions relating to the Reform Treaty are, in my personal opinion, starting with the question of a new Treaty for the Union many years ago, particularly interesting and important. I am therefore delighted to try to answer your question. I would remind you that, in accordance with the mandate of 22 June given to the 2007 Intergovernmental Conference, the provisions on this issue to be included in the Reform Treaty provide for a decision establishing the composition of the European Parliament to be adopted by the European Council on the initiative and with the agreement of the European Parliament.

As the honourable Member is certainly aware and so as not to waste time, the European Council in June asked the European Parliament to put forward a draft of this initiative by October 2007. We are aware that a report is going to be presented on the future composition of the European Parliament at the part-session in October, i.e. on 10 October of this year, for which the rapporteurs are Mrs Lamassoure and Mrs Severin.

  Gay Mitchell (PPE-DE). – I would like to thank my colleague for waiving his supplementary and thank the President-in-Office for taking the question.

The reason I am raising this is that in Ireland we have already gone down from 15 to 13 seats. It is an island off the west coast of Europe. It is the furthest point before you go to the United States. There is a proposal now to reduce us further from 13 to 12, at a time when our population has gone up by 12% and is due to increase again dramatically.

All I would say to the President-in-Office is this: since there are 16 additional seats to be allocated, would you please bear in mind Ireland’s case for retaining the 13 seats? I think if you look at the figures you will see that we do have a very good case, and I would ask that this should be taken into account.

  Manuel Lobo Antunes. − (PT) Mr President, I should like to point out that the westernmost point of Europe is in Portugal, at Cabo da Roca or Cape Roca. Perhaps, as a result of this assertion, I will be challenging the honourable Member’s statement as to the geographical location of his country but, in truth, the westernmost point of Europe is in my country.

With regard to the question raised, specifically the second part, the honourable Member will of course primarily obtain the answer to this from the European Parliament and his fellow members. However, I of course take note of his point.

  President. − Questions which have not been answered for lack of time will be answered in writing (see Annex).

Question No 31 is inadmissible (Annex II, Part A, paragraph 2 of the Rules of Procedure).

That concludes Question Time.

(The sitting was suspended at 7.35 p.m. and resumed at 9 p.m.)

IN THE CHAIR: Edward McMILLAN-SCOTT
Vice-President

(1) OJ L 151, 13.6.2007, p. 1.

14. Membership of Parliament: see Minutes

15. Obligations of cross-border service providers (debate)

  President. − The next item is the report by Lasse Lehtinen, on behalf of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, on the obligations of cross-border service providers (2006/2049(INI)) (A6-0294/2007).

  Lasse Lehtinen (PSE), rapporteur. – (FI) Mr President, first I wish to express my thanks to the shadow rapporteurs for their encouragement and excellent cooperation: to Mrs Wallis, who is here today, and especially to Mr Hatzidakis. He was so competent that he was immediately chosen to join my own country’s Cabinet. I am grateful and glad that both Mr Harbour and Mrs Kauppi are also here today.

The internal market, as we know, is based on the four freedoms, one of which, however, the cross-border movement of services, is not working very well. The Services Directive, which was decided on in this House a year ago, will improve the situation, when the Member States have to implement it in two years’ time, but that will probably not be enough either.

Services, of course, cannot be compared to products in all respects, but services will one day be more important than they are now. High-quality and cross-border services in particular are this continent’s future. The problem is that the acquis communautaire does not protect consumers who purchase services as well as consumers who purchase goods. European consumer confidence in cross-border consumption is low because the standard of services and level of protection varies from one Member State to the next.

The Union has Community legislation in given areas, but has no common rules for services. Consumers, like service providers, are not always able to say which Member State’s legal regime is applicable when there is a dispute. It is partly because of this that consumers are afraid to use foreign service providers.

In my view, the Union should agree common rules and obligations which should be binding on service providers. These would benefit not only consumers but also the service providers themselves. If the Commission should at any time look into the matter of the service providers’ obligations, it should not distinguish between private and public services. Both should equally come under the scope of application of directives on consumer protection.

In 1990 the Commission made a proposal on the obligations of cross-border service providers. It had to withdraw it, however, for lack of political will. There is, however, political will once again. The Commission should, if this report is adopted, submit, within 12 months, at least a work programme which reassesses the need for a horizontal instrument.

We need to settle on basic general rules enabling the consumer to obtain, if he or she so desires, relevant information on pricing, contract terms and remedies in the case of defective or delayed services.

The Commission should also take into account the impact of any initiative on operating conditions for small and medium-sized enterprises. Not all these matters were raised in the Green paper on consumer protection but they are in this report.

I hope I will receive the greatest possible support for this report.

  Viviane Reding, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, I am pleased to be here tonight to represent the Commission in this very important discussion on consumer confidence in the internal market. I would like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Lehtinen, and the shadow rapporteurs of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection for their very ambitious work in drafting this report.

I should stress at the outset that the Commission agrees with the report regarding the need to increase consumer confidence in the internal market; in particular, the consumer internal market for services demands our attention. So, one of the Commission’s priorities is to bring the benefits of the internal market closer to our European consumers and I am grateful for the support of the Parliament in this endeavour.

The Commission has already undertaken a number of initiatives in order to boost consumer confidence in the internal market. I would like to mention two: European consumer protection legislation and the Services Directive.

Now, the consumer acquis already sets out a number of obligations for cross-border service providers. For instance, it regulates the information obligations for traders who sell services long distance or on the consumers’ doorstep. It also provides consumers with protection against unfair terms in services contracts. And, with the ongoing review of this acquis, the Commission will elaborate if there is further need to address the obligations of service providers and the rights of consumers in these areas.

Then, the Services Directive: you know it very well, you discussed it not long ago. It improves the position of consumers within the internal market for services. And it ensures that consumers will be better informed by businesses, better assisted by public authorities, and it establishes a number of clear and substantive obligations on service providers.

The Commission of course is very keen to ensure proper implementation of this Directive in all Member States and we believe that those two initiatives are very far-reaching because we can, from both of those initiatives, expect a real change in the consumer internal market for services once the implementation of the Services Directive is complete and the review of the consumer acquis delivers its results.

Having said that, I have also to underline that the Commission takes a different view to Mr Lehtinen’s report on the need for a separate horizontal instrument to cover obligations of cross-border service providers at this stage for the simple reason that we believe that we should first accomplish our ongoing initiatives before coming, if necessary, to a separate horizontal instrument. That is why I would like to thank you for your commitment towards helping us implement these two instruments; in also helping European citizens to enjoy the full benefits of the internal market for services. And I know that my colleagues, Commissioner Kuneva and Commissioner McCreevy, look forward to discussing with you, working with you, to establish this internal market together with Parliament, which is the real representative of the European citizens.

So, thank you for your collaboration, thanks for this openness and I am sure that my two colleagues – and, indeed, the whole Commission – will, in a very deep way, continue to work together with Parliament.

  President. − Thank you, Commissioner. I would just remind you that all remarks should be addressed through the Chair. It is late at night and there are few of us but it is a small point of protocol. But I am sure Mr Lehtinen took on board your remarks.

  Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE), Draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs. – Mr President, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur, who seems to be losing his voice like I am. It seems to be the case that most colleagues have sore throats in Strasbourg this week.

I represent the Committee on Legal Affairs, for which I was draftsman of the opinion. I would like to say that, first of all, we fully agree with the assessment of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection on the importance of the services sector for the development of the European Union. It would be an absolute kamikaze mission for the European Union and the competitiveness targets if we do not let the services sector flourish and allow the internal market to be completed in this respect. I really think, out of these 11.7 million jobs created over the last eight years in the European Union, almost 100% of the net growth of new jobs in Europe has come from the services sector, and everyday statistics prove this. But I have to be – in Finnish, a fakkijuristi – a ‘dull lawyer’, and bring the Legal Affairs Committee’s point of view to this debate.

First of all, we really share the Commission view that at this point it is maybe too early to have a far-reaching new horizontal tool to solve the liability issues. We have already pending several legislative initiatives, which are all aimed at ensuring legal certainty, such as Rome I, Rome II and also the Green Paper on the Review of the Consumer Acquis.

Also, I would like to say that Article 5 of the contractual obligations (Rome I) proposal is essential in order to determine whether the consumer protection legislation of the country of origin or of the country of the client applies. This is especially important for smaller Member States, where we might lack a supply of new services if Article 5 is not correctly solved.

We also regret the present mix of legislative instruments. Sometimes it is not very clear which legal regime is applicable to each aspect of the activities of the services sector: whether they have to obey the civil law of the host or home country or the regulatory regime of the host or home country. It is necessary that we also get some case-law from the European Court of Justice on these issues.

Also I would like to stress that cross-border services are provided in many different ways. Some of them sell online, some travel to another country for services, and sometimes the service provider visits the customer’s home country.

I think that the internal market for services, the legal framework which is based on the country of origin principle, depends on the relevant measures being clear both from the legal and practical perspective, and maybe it is too early now to really do something. As the Commissioner rightly said, now it is time to implement all the good work we have done during recent years.

  President. − If colleagues want to place something on the record, they can always do so in writing during the course of the voting procedure.

  Malcolm Harbour, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – Mr President, I speak on behalf of my friend and former colleague in this Parliament, Mr Konstantinos Hatzidakis, who, as Mr Lehtinen says, has been elevated swiftly to the position of Minister of Transport in the Greek Government. I want to pay tribute to him for the work he has done on the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection. I am essentially picking up the work where he left off, right at the conclusion.

I want to thank Mr Lehtinen because it has not been recorded so far that this is his first report, I think, as a rapporteur. Some of you may know that he is a distinguished author in his own right, though I think this is probably not his best work. I do not think he will mind me saying that. I have a copy of his book Blood, Sweat and Bears, which he gave me to read, and I think he has put a bit of blood and sweat into this. It is an important report, but I have to say, from our side, we agree very much with the line that Ms Kauppi and Commissioner Reding have taken.

There is some useful material in here but I just want to reassure the Commissioner that, if she reads Article 22, which in my view is a masterpiece of compromise drafting, where it calls upon the Commission to continue work and to submit a work programme for an assessment, you will be pleased to hear it does not actually ask you to produce a horizontal instrument but to do a work programme to assess whether we need one. You already confirmed, I think, what many of us feel – that with all the work that is currently going on to implement the Services Directive, the Green Paper on the consumer acquis, which we have just considered and which will result in a horizontal instrument in that area plus the other work that is going on – which my colleague from the Committee on Legal Affairs, Ms Kauppi, and I know Ms Wallis will cover later – I think it is much too early to contemplate any further detailed provisions at this stage. It is absolutely clear that we do need to monitor this, but of course within the Services Directive itself, with all the work we put in it, there are a very substantial number of provisions.

One of the amendments that we hope the House will agree to delete tomorrow does actually call upon the Commission to draw up voluntary codes of conduct. In my view that is not the Commission’s role. I think we will have support to delete that. But in fact, if you look at the Services Directive, in Article 37 it actually says quite clearly that Member States, in cooperation with the Commission, shall take measures to encourage codes of conduct to be drawn up at Community level. It is not as if we did not already have that. So I think that we will take that out, so my summary of it is this: I think that this is a very useful contribution to the debate. I think it will add to the corpus of information that we are building up to ensure, above all, that the Services Directive is fully implemented and is implemented on time, with all the accompanying provisions – particularly the issues like the single point of contact for service providers, which will give them the sort of requirements and information that they need to provide services plus, we hope, the sort of work on codes of conduct. With those, I think we can look forward to a really effective and thriving services market that works to the benefit of consumers.

  Anna Hedh, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (SV) Mr President, let me first thank my colleague Mr Lehtinen for a very good piece of work. With the adoption of the Services Directive, the internal market for services has clearer rules on the way freedom to provide services can be used. On the other hand, there is a lack of clear rules on the obligations of service providers. This means that, even after the Services Directive has been implemented in all Member States by 2009, we may be left with an open market in which consumers do not have confidence.

Only 6% of consumers made cross-border purchases on the internet in 2006. The rules for goods purchases are much better established. Businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, also need clearer rules since they often choose not to provide a service or make a sale across borders, which leads to reduced competition and higher prices for the consumer. Clear rules will encourage both businesses and consumers to venture across a border and provide or purchase services in another country with peace of mind.

We must ensure that consumers have a well-founded sense of security when shopping on the internal market and that, even when they end up in dispute, they can easily get help and redress. For this to be achieved, many different measures must come together. Some examples which are mentioned in the report are voluntary codes of conduct for service providers and the possibility of collective action on a cross-border basis against fraudsters or businesses which do not honour their commitments to consumers.

It is not reasonable for consumers to get less protection when they purchase a service across a border than when they buy goods from another Member State. Hence the broad horizontal instrument which the report proposes is another important element in the consumer protection we want to develop in the provision of cross-border services. Consumers must know their rights when a service is provided too late or in an incorrect manner.

If freedoms are complemented by clear obligations on suppliers and strong consumer protection, we can strengthen consumer confidence. Once again, our consumers must be given priority. Without contented and secure consumers we shall not have a flourishing internal market.

  Diana Wallis, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, this is, of course, unfinished business from the Services Directive, and, although I agree with much of the Commissioner’s analysis, we do have a problem. We have a problem of confidence. It is a bit like the Northern Rock bank in the UK over the past few weeks. Whatever it said, the customers were still queuing outside, wanting their money back. It is a bit like that with us and cross-border services. Whatever we say, consumers still are not confident enough to use those services. We have to find a way of addressing that.

Those in this House that sat on the Temporary Committee of Inquiry into the Crisis of the Equitable Life Assurance Society also saw only too clearly that there is this problem of confidence. But we will not be able to address that by going back to old proposals that dealt with problems perceived some 20 years ago. We have got to deal with the problems and situation that we have now.

What we are basically dealing with, in looking at service providers’ obligations, is looking at basic contract law and basic contractual obligations. In this regard, we currently have on the table Rome I, which Ms Kauppi has referred to; if we get that right, it will help. We also have the whole review of the consumer acquis; if we get that right, it will help. We have the preparation of the Common Frame of Reference on contract law; if we use that, and if the Commission puts a great deal more effort into getting the Member States to take it up, that would also help.

So there is much that can already be used to help us get right the relationship between private international law and regulation. What we do not need – I agree with Mr Harbour – is the Commission writing soft law codes of conduct.

Let us use what is already being done at the moment and what is in preparation. We can keep a weather eye on whether or not we need yet another horizontal instrument, but, at this stage, I really doubt it.

What we also need to address is the possibility of giving our consumers the right to cross-border access to justice where they can act together as a group. This would be a balancing of arms against providers. It would make good the current lack of cross-border access to justice, which we saw all too clearly with Equitable Life. People do not like to use the words ‘class actions’, and neither do I, but a European right of collective redress might help give us the confidence for consumers that is currently lacking on this continent.

  Leopold Józef Rutowicz, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (PL) Mr President, the development of the Union’s internal market is very significant in terms of forging links between the countries and citizens of the Union.

Increasing cross-border exchange of services on a competitive basis requires an increase in mutual trust, which should be supported by a consumer-friendly policy. This policy aims to improve the legal framework for cross-border services whilst also simplifying procedures, which will increase competition. It will also improve access to services and raise their standard whilst reducing costs, thus benefiting European consumers.

The report contributes to improving this policy by indicating a range of issues impeding the dynamic development of the market. These include the lack of a single system regulating the obligations of cross-border service providers and the need to supplement Union documents in this regard. The report also highlights the lack of clarity in implementing provisions resulting in mental barriers concerning foreign suppliers, the poorer legal protection for service users than for service providers, the failure to regulate public and private services under the same provisions, the diversity of provisions concerning the obligations of cross-border service providers, and the lack of the necessary transparency for the protection of these services.

Consideration should be given to the introduction of quality certificates for service providers in order to improve the recipients’ confidence. The conclusions and proposals emerging from the report coincide with the findings of the Committee on Legal Affairs. I would like to thank the rapporteur for a business-like report.

  Heide Rühle, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Mr President, I would also like to thank the rapporteur, although sadly I have not yet had the pleasure of reading one of his books. However, I have made a note of it and will make good the omission at the next opportunity.

Many thanks for the good cooperation, and many thanks, too, for your efforts to address important issues in your report. Admittedly, legal frameworks are already in place for services in the internal market, such as the Services Directive or the Directive on the recognition of professional qualifications, but the implementation of these Directives – both of them – sadly still leaves a lot to be desired. I therefore think it is regrettable that the Council is not present this evening, as we could have made it clear once again that we expect both Directives to be implemented by the deadline and the work in the Member States to be pursued accordingly.

However, we also need more initiatives – as the rapporteur has rightly pointed out – to increase consumer confidence in cross-border services in the internal market. Here, too, previous reports have addressed important issues. In her report, Mrs Roithová has pointed out that there are still very many deficits in relation to Internet sales in particular, and that consumers still lack the requisite confidence in cross-border services here. Similarly, Mr Lehtinen, in his report, draws attention to the obligations of service providers and to the issue of legal protection for consumers. I would like to come back to a topic which has already been mentioned by two previous speakers today, namely the right of collective redress in cross-border cases. We urgently need initiatives in this direction, so that consumers have confidence in cross-border services, and that can only be achieved by strengthening their legal position.

In my view, both reports – the Roithová report and the Lehtinen report – give important indications of the deficits that still exist. The Commission should take both these reports seriously in its work to genuinely overhaul, modernise and update the consumer acquis.

  Jens-Peter Bonde, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – (DA) Mr President, we have adopted a Services Directive through which we have handed over to the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg the power to decide what we have decided! We do not yet know if the Member States’ agreements are to be respected. We do not know the extent to which the establishment of national quality requirements will be permitted. We do not know whether it is lawful for the Member States to decide which services they would like to have under private or public control. The report is therefore just as unclear as the legal situation. We are waiting to hear from the judges in Luxembourg whether we can retain our hospitals and a long list of other core services that together constitute our welfare state.

In Denmark all citizens have social rights, which we finance through high taxes that only 7% of Danes would like to see reduced. It would seem that this 7% will be rewarded by the judges in Luxembourg, but what about the majority? Who will safeguard the decisions and our democracy? We also have a flexicurity system, which is based upon voluntary agreements between parties within the labour market. How can they be protected? It is the nerve centre of the Danish social model that is being threatened by the uncertainties and judicial activism of the Services Directive.

The June Movement would very much like to contribute towards the creation of clear rules for a common market for all services that are suitable for the market, but we do not want to prevent the Member States from also having a democracy to set limits on what should be decided by the electorate and what should be decided by the capitalists.

  Petre Popeangă, on behalf of the ITS group. – (RO) Mr. President, the free movement of services is, as we know, one of the four fundamental freedoms decisively determining the functionality and efficiency of the single market, an important element of the first pillar at the basis of the European Union construction.

This is one of the reasons why I believe that an analysis of the progress in achieving this single market instrument is both important and necessary. It is important because the consistent economic and social development of the European Union equally depends on the area of services, the 70% weight of services in the Union’s GDP being significant in this regard. It is necessary because the volume of cross-border trade in services is very low as compared to the trade in goods, a situation that also generates the lack of confidence of European Union citizens in the consumption of such products. Based upon these arguments, I support and I will vote for the approval of the report.

Nevertheless, I consider that, in relation to the pertinent and, at the same time, valuable solutions proposed by the Rapporteur, a more substantial analysis would have been required regarding the situation of some newly acceded countries, such as Romania, whose markets are far less developed than those of most of the other Member States of the Union. From this perspective, I believe that the report should also have contained a set of objectives for leveling the degrees of national markets development, a condition required for the development of the single market and, consequently, of the segment of border services.

  Andreas Schwab (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would of course like to thank the rapporteur as well. The discussions in advance of this report were always very fruitful and interesting. Much of what came out of these discussions has been incorporated into the report, although not everything, which is unfortunate, at least from my point of view, as the report emphasises in some places that the completion of the internal market for services in the European Union is trailing far behind the internal market for goods. From my perspective, there is actually no real scientific or indeed objective evidence of that, given that we have not only the Services Directive but also the Directive on the recognition of professional qualifications as well as other Directives in the services sector.

Secondly, the services sector in the internal market is far more heterogeneous than goods. It ranges from subordinate services to medical or legal services and finally large-scale services such as major banking and insurance services. Lumping all these services together, which is what repeatedly happens in this House, is risky, in my view. I believe – and a number of previous speakers have already pointed this out – that a differentiated approach would certainly be useful.

The third point which has been raised repeatedly, namely collective redress, is unlikely to become more relevant simply by being the frequent subject of discussion. I think what we can say, clearly and unequivocally, is that Parliament expects the Commission to undertake a study to review which of the diverse models that already exist in Europe would genuinely be best for the European Union. I think that is all that needs to be said on this subject.

The liability systems in the individual Member States – and this is my fourth point – are still highly diverse. That is why we need a unified system of obligations for service providers. Clarifying the legal system governing these obligations will generate more competition and create more choice for the consumer, but I believe – as some of the previous speakers have said – that it would be wrong to ask the Commission to produce a horizontal instrument at this stage. In any case, I am very sceptical about the creation of this type of liability law at European level.

  Małgorzata Handzlik (PPE-DE). – (PL) I should like to congratulate the rapporteur on his report, which highlights many problems consumers encounter on the internal market.

This report rightly draws attention to the lack of legal clarity and certainty regarding safety and the quality of services. It also refers to the general lack of confidence in cross-border consumption felt by European consumers. This is confirmed by the statistics. In 2006 only 6% of European consumers made cross-border purchases over the Internet. This situation has a negative impact on competition and on the activities of small and medium-sized enterprises. It also contributes to the expansion of illegal trade. Dishonest entities often exploit the differences between the legal systems within the European Union to defraud people. Swift action is called for once such situations have been identified, hence our response.

I would like to remind the House of the many months of work devoted to the Services Directive, that is to say, to a review of consumer legislation. As Members will be aware, the Services Directive must be implemented in all Member States by December 2009. A substantial proportion of the problems referred to by the rapporteur will certainly cease to exist after the transposition period. It should be borne in mind that the Services Directive will significantly improve consumers' rights. Thanks to this Directive, service providers will have to offer consumers better information regarding the services proposed. This will enable consumers to make better and more informed choices. Consumers will also be more effectively protected by the relevant institutions.

The Services Directive also imposes a series of clear obligations on the service provider, including ones related to conflict resolution. I believe there is no need to introduce further legal instruments until the provisions of the Services Directive enter into force. In my view, it is premature to call on the Commission to present a horizontal instrument. The same applies to the entire review of consumer legislation. The Commission has already presented a Green Paper on consumer legislation and will in due course present legislative proposals in that regard. Ladies and gentlemen, there are times when more legislation does not mean better legislation. We would do well to keep that in mind.

  Zita Pleštinská (PPE-DE). – (SK) The Service Directive, which is to be transposed into national law in all the Member States by 28 December 2009, will have a significant effect on cross-border services.

This Directive and even the Green Paper on the Review of the Consumer Acquis do not lay down the fundamental obligations of service providers and therefore I welcome the report by Mr Lehtinen on this issue. The report seeks to ensure that not only consumers but also small and medium-sized businesses buying and selling cross-border services can benefit from additional legal certainty, simplicity and reduced costs.

I believe that European standardisation is key to the success of craft, small and medium-sized enterprises and the introduction of European standards at European Union level is thus a means of supporting the safety of services and guaranteeing consumer rights with regard to cross-border services provided by Member States. Where consumers feel uncertain about the safety and quality of services, they tend to build up psychological barriers towards foreign suppliers, which dissuade them from using cross-border services. If a consumer has a negative experience, that experience will often wrongly have repercussions on all foreign service providers.

Consumers have an opportunity to resolve problems arising predominantly as a result of the different procedures in force in the individual Member States within the European Consumer Centres Network, ECC-Net, and the cross-border Consumer Complaints Network for Financial Services, FIN-NET. Where a consumer has enough information about his internal market rights but attempts to exercise them in vain in another EU Member State, he can seek help from SOLVIT.

Ladies and gentlemen, I welcome the fact that this report focuses primarily on consumers since they, in particular, are a fundamental and important element of the internal market. Our common objective must therefore be to create the conditions for consumers that allow them to have the same confidence when making a purchase in another country as they have when doing so at home.

  Zuzana Roithová (PPE-DE). – (CS) Mr President, although the EC Treaty guarantees its citizens free access to services beyond their national borders, only a handful of service providers and consumers make use of this advantage of the common market. A low level of competition thus makes services in the border regions more expensive and not always easily accessible, compared with services within a country.

Surveys show that the problem lies not in language barriers but in legislation. It is not always clear when to apply the legislation of the country of origin and when to apply national legislation. Unfortunately, thanks to the opponents of the country of origin principle, we lost out on the opportunity to provide a better definition in the Services Directive. Here in Strasbourg this report is also accompanied by an irrational fear of mentioning the country of origin principle, notwithstanding the fact that in many professions service providers do not have to know the neighbouring country’s legislation in order to provide cross-border services.

Soon we will see case-law that will end the disputes about when the issue of consumer protection is governed by national legislation or the legislation of the host country. I consider Mr Lehtinen’s report to be an excellent contribution in this respect because, in my opinion, our definition of providers’ general obligations should be based on agreed European standards.

I agree that when it comes to consumer protection, the same obligations should apply to the providers of private and public services. I also support the financing of communication networks between Member States. This will lead to effective control and to progress in solving disputes out of court.

Commissioner, we owe the European citizens a lot when it comes to the conditions governing the free movement of cross-border services. This report settles one part of this debt. The European Parliament gives the Commission the political support to clearly define providers’ obligations regardless of their origin. Mr Lehtinen’s report is testament to the excellent work of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection.

  Viviane Reding, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, I have been listening very carefully to the discussion on Parliament’s report on the obligations of cross-border service providers. I would like to thank the honourable Members for their comments. Now allow me to stress a few key points.

First, the Commission supports the aim of the report on which Parliament will vote tomorrow. We are indeed concerned with the lack of consumer confidence in the internal market for services. Let me stress that, as Commissioner for the Information Society, this lack of confidence in internet business is very important indeed and we will have to have a look at that.

Second, as I mentioned earlier, the Commission has already undertaken a number of initiatives which aim to remedy the current situation. I have quoted the Services Directive and the review of the consumer acquis. The latter, by the way, is one of the key priorities of my colleague Commissioner Kuneva.

I would like to say that we are very grateful for the support of Parliament and we would like to encourage Parliament to continue to contribute to the review process, and we would like, together with Parliament, to be able to deliver results as soon as possible.

What are we going to propose in a concrete way for the coming weeks and months? First a summary of the responses to the consultation will be published on the Commission’s website at the beginning of October. Then there will be an impact assessment carried out with a view to a possible Commission proposal in the second half of 2008. The Members having had a look at this problem carefully will certainly be interested in this.

Third, the Commission agrees on the need to promote the safety aspects of services because it is very important to better ensure the health and the physical safety aspects of services provided within the internal market.

With the Member States, we will draw attention to possible shortcomings in national systems, or necessary enforcement of the assessment. We will promote consumer education and awareness-raising initiatives. We will facilitate access to existing information on accidents and injuries related to the safety of services offered to consumers, and one of the very important elements which has been stressed by several Members relates to collective redress. The Commission is carrying out studies and concerting stakeholders in order to assess the opportunity of an initiative in this area but one thing is certain, and I would like to underline it – this will not be a US-type class action.

Finally, I would like to thank the rapporteur for his work and Parliament for the importance it attaches to this issue. We are sure the parliamentary report will be instrumental for our future work in the interests of the consumers.

  President. − Thank you very much indeed, Commissioner, for an interesting debate, in which more than 50% of the speakers were women, which is just as it should be.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Thursday, 27 September 2007.

Written statements (Rule 142)

  Bogdan Golik (PSE), in writing. – (PL)

I should like to thank Mr Lehtinen for a well-prepared report.

The freedom to provide services is one of the four fundamental freedoms of the internal market. Over the years, the services sector has become increasingly important for the economic and social development of the European Union and has undergone substantial change.

Despite the provisions of the Treaty establishing the European Community and the ongoing process of transposition of the Services Directive into national law, in practice the free movement of services continues to be hampered by administrative provisions and differences between the legal systems of Member States.

Bearing in mind the threats and challenges stemming from globalisation, together with the shortcomings in the services sector identified in the report, it is particularly important to take action aimed at eliminating obstacles to the supply of cross-border services.

Lack of confidence on the part of consumers and the reluctance of companies to operate outside their home country limit access to the internal market. As a matter of urgency, the Community should introduce mechanisms making it easier for companies, especially SMEs, to benefit from the internal market. Community provisions on the supply of cross-border services should therefore be rationalised, and a minimum period for the harmonisation of quality standards introduced, so as to protect users' interests.

Strengthening cooperation between Member States, limiting administrative procedures and appropriate control of cross-border services will promote an increase of cross-border activity. Harmonisation of quality standards will strengthen consumer and supplier confidence in cross-border services.

Facilitating the provision of cross-border services will lead to a properly functioning single market for services, thus laying the foundations for an economically cohesive internal market.

16. i2010: Digital libraries (debate)

  President. − The next item is the report by Marie-Hélène Descamps, on behalf of the Committee on Culture and Education, on i2010: Digital libraries (2006/2040(INI)) (A6-0296/2007).

Once again, more than 50 per cent of the speakers in this debate are women, the first of which is Marie-Hélène Descamps, the rapporteur.

  Marie-Hélène Descamps, rapporteur. – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the idea of a European digital library originated from six EU Heads of State and Government who wanted to allow universal access to the European cultural heritage and to preserve it for future generations. This federal project for Europe will strengthen the expression of a true European identity and help spread our cultural and linguistic diversity across the world. The project, which is without precedent for Europe, combines the past with the present and links the cultural with the digital dimension. It is the perfect response to the various issues now affecting our fellow citizens in the form of new information and communication technologies. The Internet, which is the third favourite medium of Europe’s young people, is in effect one of the main means of access to knowledge and learning.

While some real progress has been made, the digitisation of our cultural resources and their bringing online nevertheless remains very fragmented and relies on the various mechanisms that have been put in place by the Member States. If they are to be effective and reach the greatest number of people the initiatives for promoting and disseminating our cultural heritage need to be well coordinated. This is the intended objective of the European digital library, which the Commission is supporting through its beacon initiative ‘i2010 digital libraries’.

The first part of this initiative, namely the communication of 30 September 2005, was based on three main aspects: digitisation, online access and preservation of digital content. The Commission has set out to analyse the main technical, legal, organisational and financial challenges that a project of this scale would pose. At the same time, an online public consultation has been launched and a high-level expert group has been set up. On the basis of these different elements the Commission adopted a recommendation on digitisation, online access and digital preservation on 24 August 2006, in which it calls on the Member States to accelerate the pace of digitisation and to coordinate their efforts in order to achieve real synergy. On 13 November 2006 the Council adopted these recommendations unanimously. It is now up to the European Parliament to send a strong signal so that this exceptional project can become a reality.

This undertaking is such that we need to proceed in stages. While working on the conceptual and technical organisation of all categories of cultural material, we therefore have to concentrate initially on the potential provided by the out-of-copyright text material held in libraries and to do this via a single, direct and multilingual access point. Our libraries offer the advantage of already being coordinated at European level through the TEL, the European library that was set up in 2005 by the national libraries, which holds a large stock of digital works that are in the public domain and therefore can be used immediately.

As a second stage, and in order to promote the success of this tool, the library must also provide access to works of a more contemporary nature in addition to those documents that are in the public domain. Any decision in this area will inevitably have to be taken in consultation with all the parties involved. Indeed, the protection of copyright and other creative rights is vital for maintaining and protecting creativity in Europe. If this project is to achieve the success that is expected it will have to be based on a coherent economic model. The report therefore proposes, with the agreement of the copyright holders, that in the European digital library users should be able to browse the Internet to find any kind of digital documents, whatever their status, and to consult works in the public domain freely and in their entirety, whereas only short extracts would be accessible for copyright works. Beyond that, users wishing to scan through a certain work or access a protected document in its entirety would be directed to private sites specialising in secure digital dissemination, where a number of options would be open to them in return for payment of a fair remuneration to the copyright holders.

Moreover, such a library needs to be organised so that it can provide access to content that is reliable and of a quality that is intended for all ages. To this effect the report calls for a steering committee to be set up in which the cultural institutions would play a major role. This committee would determine the priorities for, and the guidelines of, the European digital library, while ensuring the coordination, management and monitoring of its activities.

Finally, in order to provide access to all European cultures, the other cultural institutions and sectors, including archives, museums, cinema, audiovisual arts and universities, have to be involved at each stage of the project. In this way we will shape the face of a Europe that is unified in diversity.

I would like to conclude by thanking all my colleagues in the Committee on Culture and Education, especially Mr Weber and Mr Graça Moura, for their support and contribution to this report. I also wish to thank the Commission for having cooperated so effectively throughout the preparation of this document.

  Viviane Reding, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, this is a great report and Ms Descamps has done excellent work, together with her colleagues in the Committee.

The digital libraries initiative is an example of how Europe can contribute, through concrete projects, not only to economic growth but also to quality of life. By bringing Europe’s cultural and scientific heritage online, we can disseminate it through into different cultures. By using modern technologies, we can break down the walls which exist today.

I am very happy that this initiative, taken by the national libraries of our Member States and developed by the European Commission for so many years, has been highlighted and supported by EU political forces at the highest level. They are right to do so; our Heads of State and Government are right to support this initiative, because there is real wealth in our libraries, our archives and our museums. It is not only books, but also newspapers, archive records and films. This is a multilingual wealth, a multicultural wealth. Knowing that less than 1% of this wealth is digitalised, we know what is in front of us and what kind of work we have to do.

That work is necessary for two reasons. The first is to overcome barriers and to get people to study, work and enjoy these works from their own culture and works from our common European history, and then to allow these elements of our cultural institutions to be reused for added-value services and products. That is where industry comes in. That is the reason why the goal of the Commission’s initiative is to achieve a common, multilingual access point to Europe’s digitalised cultural heritage.

We cannot do this alone. It requires collaboration between different types of cultural institutions, from all European countries. I am very glad to see that this is taking shape and is being formalised through the creation of a legal body that will increase the capacity of the European digital library to act. This common access point will be launched in 2008. In the years thereafter the content will be gradually expanded as more libraries, more archives and more audiovisual archives and museums contribute their digitalised collections.

I am very glad, also, that the report by Parliament tackles not only the outcome but also the prerequisites for achieving that outcome. This means improving the general conditions for getting our cultural heritage online as an integral part of the digital libraries initiatives, and the need for Member States to intensify their digitalisation efforts. I would say very clearly that it is not enough to have a big cultural event where all the Heads of Government make beautiful speeches and then go back to their countries and cut budgets. That cannot be! We need words to be followed by deeds. I want Parliament to move ahead and help us make this very beautiful project a reality.

We have the high level group on digital libraries, which I chair and which is forging ahead on this matter. We are also very conscious that the preservation of digital material will be one of the essential questions of the future, and I am therefore glad that the Council has endorsed the Commission approach to the European digital library and that Parliament is now helping us move in the same direction and is putting its political weight behind this objective.

  Vasco Graça Moura, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (PT) Mr President, Commissioner, I must warmly congratulate Mrs Descamps on her brilliant report. It is a document that will make an extremely important contribution to the issue of the relationship between digital technology and cultural heritage. It calls for a coordination of efforts between national institutions, particularly libraries, and in the future, other cultural institutions. It starts in a practical manner with works that are already in the public domain. It proposes the effective use of synergies and the exchange of good practices between those involved in the process at all levels. It calls on Member States to promote the project and to find ways of avoiding duplication of efforts in digitising holdings. It calls for coordination of all these efforts. The Descamps report will be a highlight of this legislature in terms of the relationship between cutting-edge technology and European culture through the ages.

When we talk about European culture, we are also talking about universal culture. This is not only because European cultural heritage deserves this qualification, but also because the intrinsic cultural diversity of Europe forms a completely open system which will of course have positive consequences as the project advances. It is also a project that has evolved. It started as a ‘chauvinistic’ fallacy in competition with Google, but has been reformulated, following various changes, in more sensible, realistic and productive terms. It is no longer what the Financial Times previously called ‘a blatant case of misguided and unnecessary nationalism’.

The European digital library is different from other solutions because it is a European Union project, because it aims to reach out to all libraries, because it is intended to be based on existing initiatives and because it aims to cover all categories of European cultural heritage, without being confined to printed material. There are certainly still a number of problems: finding funding partners in the private sector; avoiding, as far as possible, different rates of digitisation between Member States; solving certain technical aspects relating to the coordination of access to digitised works; preserving digitised content; resolving the issue of the integrated search engine for meta-information in image documents and for direct searching of text documents; finding content interoperability solutions, and enabling multilingual searching by subject or keyword in addition to the current situation of searching by author or title. We also cannot forget that the exchange of experiences between institutions will be essential, particularly with American institutions, and also that a strong research and development component will be crucial to the project producing good results.

In this context, by voting in favour of the Descamps report, this Chamber will take a positive step towards the future, whether the majority is made up of women or whether it reasonably consists of a percentage of women and another percentage of men, Mr President.

  President. − Ah, but the women are very happy you are a man!

  Christa Prets, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, 2010 is just round the corner. Given that the title of the report is ‘i2010: towards a European digital library’, that means that we still have a great deal of work to do and in my view, we have been dragging our feet. I am pleased that Mrs Descamps has presented a very good report, which points the way forward and shows us what can and could be done. However, we must all make efforts to get things moving. The report is a challenge and a response to the new technologies, the new management of knowledge and information, and above all, young people's access to learning, information and knowledge. We have a lot of catching up to do here and, as far as I am concerned, we really have to speed things up.

It is not only about preserving and safeguarding cultural heritage. Every day, new things arise that we must add to the equation, for things that were invented and written down only yesterday will be our cultural heritage tomorrow. That means that we have a great deal of ground to make up. However, we must always look ahead at the same time, to be able to keep pace with developments.

It will be very important to coordinate the process and urge countries – as has just been said – to put national sensitivities behind them and to move forward together along a European path to safeguard cultural diversity. There are hurdles to overcome. The first is the financial shortfall that we face. The Commissioner was right to talk about this. All the ministers and presidents are very good at giving big speeches and are proud of our cultural diversity, but when it comes to funding and implementation, they quickly pull back and forget all about the pride that they have been propounding.

From my perspective, it is also very important to safeguard copyright, so there needs to be an agreement with the authors and publishers and everyone else involved, so that for an appropriate fee the information can be put on the Internet for people to access. I think that we have a lot to think about here. It is certainly no easy task, but the proposals are on the table and the countries could gain a lot. I am convinced that we can achieve a positive vote on this report tomorrow.

In my view, we must use the new technologies and support this project in order not only to facilitate access for us as Europeans but also to carry our culture far out into the world.

  Jolanta Dičkutė, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (LT) Ladies and gentlemen, as has been stated in the Commission’s initial document, a European digital library would be based on Europe’s rich heritage combining multicultural and multilingual environments with technological advances and new business models. In the context of integration, this is a fine and welcome objective, an ambitious goal. However, besides reaching these ideal objectives we have to remain realistic and stay very attentive, prepared to meet the challenges that are inevitable during this process.

The main problems related to the creation of digital libraries are universal, though they are described in different ways. Technical infrastructure, the creation of digitised resources, digitisation, the identification of copyright, content preservation and the preservation of documents are issues requiring developmental and essential decisions.

The potential to provide virtual services and projects for their implementation are relevant for libraries of all types. However, it is obvious that digital materials, such as textual, visual and audio information, extend the traditional functions of libraries by adding different content. For example, access to information stored in a traditional library is determined by its working times which are usually longer than those of other public institutions. If a library is virtual its access is universal, because there is no physical door isolating information from its users. Access to information is ensured by the working periods of the server.

Librarians can use traditional skills and knowledge to design virtual services, but these are not sufficient. Digital libraries are a phenomenon of the third millennium and it is therefore necessary to evaluate not only the specific knowledge essential today, but also that which will be necessary in the future, as technologies change. It is not so important to have a perfect knowledge of certain technologies, because any flexible and mature employee can attain the skills and experience necessary for his or her job.

In my country, Lithuania, the long-term preservation of Lithuanian heritage through the use of information technologies has been determined by the adoption of legal acts. However, this problem is not being solved by coordinating the activities of the ‘memory institutions’ (libraries, museums, archives). Neither the citizens of Lithuania nor those of other countries are yet able to use all the services provided by digital libraries. I hope that today’s decision will accelerate these processes.

  Mieczysław Edmund Janowski, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (PL) Mr President, Umberto Eco said that whoever reads books lives twice. The report by Mrs Descamps provides a good account of the modern approach to cultural and educational issues. I also referred to the matter in my report on the contribution of the future regional policy to the innovative capacity of the European Union.

Just as Gutenberg's invention marked a turning point in human development at the time, so we can today refer to a cultural revolution brought about by the Internet. What is at issue is widespread access to the European, or indeed to the world, treasury of humankind's spiritual and material heritage. The latter comprises contemporary creations along with those dating back over the centuries arising out of different cultures and languages. Copyright and related rights are certainly an issue in this context.

I recognise what has already been achieved in this regard in many Member States, including the work of the National Library of Poland. I would like to take this opportunity to stress the importance of more extensive broadband access. I believe we should find a way of cofinancing digitisation from the Union's resources. I shall conclude by referring to Goethe, who said that when he read a good book he felt as if he had made a new friend. Just think how many good friends we could make through the European digital library!

  Mikel Irujo Amezaga, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (ES) Mr President, the Commission has defined three essential axes to exploit the potential of digital technology: online accessibility, digitisation of analogical collections and preservation and storage of digital contents, and we are well aware of this.

With respect to digitisation, it is common knowledge that the Commission, through a recommendation in August last year, asked the Member States to coordinate their efforts to ensure synergy on a European scale. The Council unanimously supported the recommendation, but I wish to take this opportunity – although it is a pity the Council is not in attendance –firstly to inquire of the Commission as to the real progress made by the Member States in this area, and secondly to ascertain whether sufficient consideration has been taken of non-state authorities, which, as we know, are responsible for culture in most decentralised countries.

With regard to another aspect, online accessibility, as I said, we all agree that there must be a multilingual interface and content must be guaranteed. It is a true joy to enter the digital library webpage and see that, apart from the 23 official Community languages, the contents also appear in Icelandic and Serbian.

Today we are celebrating the European Day of Languages and you, Mrs Reding, made a major contribution to its creation. You have also said on countless occasions, Commissioner, and rightly so, that big and small languages do not exist, that all of them form part of Europe’s cultural wealth, and thus I would like to be given the chance to see an occasional reference in the digital library, or content rather than a reference, concerning languages such as my own, which are not official in the European Union.

  Věra Flasarová, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, when the library in Alexandria burned down during Caesar’s invasion of Egypt, a substantial part of all the literature written by mankind at that stage disappeared forever. In my view, nothing like that will ever happen again, thanks to the existence of digital libraries.

I welcome the rapporteur’s complex approach to the issue. I come from the Czech Republic where successful digitisation of the National Library in Prague has been under way for some time. Since the states have their own national libraries, it is only logical that the European Union should also have a similar institution, one that makes use of the latest technologies. This is not just going through the motions of accomplishing the task of European integration; this is a practical matter. More and more books are being published these days. This vast amount of literature cannot be concentrated in one place without the help of computer technology. This is a mammoth task. The plan is that the European digital library will absorb those digital sources that already exist and contain the literary works not affected by copyright. Literary works will be joined by technical, legal, journalistic and also audiovisual works.

Setting up a system that is so universal and yet reasonably simple will be an interesting task for the digital technology experts. I am sure the European digital library will eliminate endless cross-referencing and complicated searches in virtual cyberspace and will become an enormous library that we will have, metaphorically speaking, at home.

Of course there are also the risks. Will digital libraries make us even more dependent on computers and threaten the existence of printed books? It may happen although I do not think it too likely. A traditional book is an integral part of our culture, just like theatre or art. It offers something digital libraries will never be able to provide: first-hand contact with the reader.

  Thomas Wise, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – Mr President, the British Library has roots going back to 1753. It contains documents dating as far back as 300 bc. Famous people such as Karl Marx, Oscar Wilde, Mahatma Gandhi, Rudyard Kipling, George Orwell, George Bernard Shaw, even Vladimir Lenin, are just some of the figures who have studied in the reading rooms of the British Museum and British libraries. I wonder if they would have found so much inspiration from surfing the internet. I suspect that our magnificent facility, with its unprecedented collection of publications from every corner of the world and British Empire – and beyond, indeed – will be as treasured long after the EU has gone the way of other Eurofederalist projects from Charlemagne to the awful political nightmares of the last two centuries. Good luck, Ms Descamps, with your digital library, but in this area, as in so many others, I would rather concentrate on protecting and preserving and developing a heritage that I am proud of than creating the trappings of a new state out of the ruins of failed ones.

  Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE). – Mr President, colleagues, first let me emphasise that I welcome the Commission and Ms Descamps’ report on digital libraries as a timely and important contribution towards ensuring that digital information is preserved for future generations.

It is true that the internet has become one of the principal means of access to knowledge and learning. Digital libraries would surely benefit many researchers, students, teachers and – as one specific group – people with physical disabilities. So this is a perfect initiative in the Year of Equal Opportunities for All.

I would just like to draw your attention to one aspect that needs to be thoroughly assessed before making decisions.

Public/private cooperation and private sponsorship for the digitalisation of Europe’s cultural heritage is an important element of the system as it now stands. We need to make sure that new regulations in this field do not threaten the benefits of the current system, especially on scientific information. For example, we have to make sure that the peer review mechanism is safeguarded. Peer review is the process by which independent experts in a scientific discipline – the peers – critically assess a scientific paper reporting on research.

The peer review system is critical for the scientific community as it is an important quality control mechanism and can influence scientific careers. We also need to avoid a scenario where open access puts the existing dissemination of scientific research through subscription journals at risk. One question to be assessed is also damage to the profitability of journals from small publishing houses.

In short, the current system is perceived by many stakeholders as easy to access, efficient, cost-effective and also of high quality. We have to be sure that the benefits, especially for researchers, will be on the positive side and we must avoid any unintended negative consequences for the very people we are hoping to assist.

  Zdzisław Zbigniew Podkański (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, the idea of creating a European digital library, by creating an Internet site where resources would be stored that could then be accessed by any user free of charge is certainly an ambitious one. The library would have a multilingual interface facilitating direct access to the desired material. Every citizen would be able to access even the least well-known works of world culture in his or her native language.

It should also be noted that this initiative raises an important issue, namely Internet access and the opportunity to connect with the world's cultural heritage being made available to residents of rural areas, island areas and to those experiencing mobility difficulties.

Access to all categories of cultural material, including that which is protected by copyright and related rights will be another major problem. I trust it will prove possible to resolve it in due course, through investment in technology.

Mrs Descamps has prepared a well-balanced report. I believe it deserves our support.

  Zdzisław Kazimierz Chmielewski (PPE-DE). – (PL) Mr President, Commissioner, I would like to echo the previous speakers who congratulated the rapporteur on her well-prepared report. It sends out a clear message from the European Parliament in support of the idea of establishing a European digital library. I am pleased to be able to remind the House that Poland was involved in promoting this idea. My country was represented amongst the six Heads of State and Government who launched it.

The report presents convincing arguments in favour of the gradual implementation of this project. It suggests progressive inclusion of the various categories of cultural heritage, together with documents protected by copyright and related rights, always complying with legal restrictions in the area of intellectual property. The idea contained in the proposal whereby institutions other than libraries that are involved in the dissemination of culture could be included in the project is worthy of consideration. It is only right and proper for museums and archives to play an important part in this system too, as they have enjoyed strong links with libraries over the centuries.

I have high hopes, especially in view of the plan to include in the coordination system for the European digital library not only scientific research on digitisation but also the very important issue of the protection of digital resources. I believe that in this way it will prove possible to develop common unified requirements regarding the proper storage of digital materials collected in libraries and archives, and also digital materials – archived, I must stress –collected elsewhere than in archives, in other words in museums and libraries. It is well known that for centuries these institutions have experienced difficulties in properly protecting archive material received from different sources. We are at last in a position to remedy the situation.

  Viviane Reding, Member of the Commission. – (FR) Mr President, I would like to express my heartfelt thanks to Mrs Descamps and the other members of the Committee on Culture and Education for having produced this report, because it is a very important one indeed.

You see, Europe’s true wealth is to be found not in the euro or in our economic development: it is in our heritage, a heritage that across the centuries has been created and built up; that is what constitutes the real and profound source of Europe’s riches.

Now in a certain sense the scandal is that this heritage is disappearing into archives and vaults, into places where the public, the citizens of Europe, cannot go, where they cannot touch it, where they cannot understand it, where they cannot enjoy it. The precise aim of the digital library is to break down these barriers.

I believe that this is one of the great advances that Europe has made and I would like to pay homage to the national libraries, to our national libraries, because they were there at the launch of this initiative, which has been so valid and so important for European cultures. The directors of these libraries have been true pioneers. They understood that symbiosis was involved, the symbiosis between culture, which is richness of the corpus, and technology, which is an instrument that provides access to this culture, and the fact that they undertook this pioneering work essentially means that in 2008 we now have the single multilingual access point.

And yes, yes, yes I say to those who brought up the point, it will even give us access to the literature of Luxembourg. I am proud of this because Luxembourgish is my mother tongue and therefore for me it is the most important language in the world, just as every mother tongue is important. This is precisely why the works of art and literature that have been created in all these languages, and the special manner in which these are expressed, are what we need to be able to access.

Take the culture of Luxembourg: of course the people of Luxembourg have access to it, but do you in this House know that there is a such a thing as the culture of Luxembourg? No! However, once we have the digital library the common access point will enable you to understand that there really is one.

It is extraordinary that we can have access to these cultures, that we can share this wealth all around us, including – and I would emphasise the fact – outside Europe, because culture does not stop at our borders. Culture means sharing and therefore it is in a spirit of openness that we wish to create this library, for interoperability will be a very important aspect, and this will apply not just to the books but also to all the other forms of culture: films, music, museum collections and so on. We are therefore witnessing an extraordinary cultural opening-up that is both multilingual and multicultural, something that will truly show the very essence of Europe itself, which is this unified diversity.

Of course there are problems to resolve and the honourable Members have been quite clear on this. There is the problem of financing, for one. I would therefore appeal to the Member States to ensure that the discussions are followed by effective action. Some have already done so and I would like to thank them for this.

In 2008 we shall be presenting an analysis of what has been achieved and also, therefore, of what has not been achieved. I believe that this will be very important for moving the whole venture forward. Of course we are also going to recommend the private-public partnership, because that will be essential for the progress of digitisation, which is a very expensive business. I am also thinking about the preservation of fragile material that can be destroyed if it is not taken care of. How many reels of film are allowed to go to dust? If we are to preserve this common cultural heritage then we simply have to digitise it before it is too late.

I am also naturally thinking of other problems that need to be resolved, namely those relating to copyright – which is a real headache – and to scientific information. Our high-level group is currently working on solutions to these issues.

Mr President, what we have here is an extraordinary project that shows what European value added really is, and I believe that the greatest thing is to unite Europeans around their cultures plural, around their respective histories plural, which are things of beauty and which have been developed through creativity. This really is the best of what we have. Let us preserve it and let us work together so that we can share it.

  President. − I would like to thank all the speakers very much, and especially Commissioner Reding for her charm and intelligence. I would like to thank her in own language, Luxembourgish, because today is Lesser Known Languages Day. Merci!

(Laughter)

17. Efficiency and equity in European education and training systems (debate)

  President. − The next item is the report by Tomáš Zatloukal, on behalf of the Committee on Culture and Education, on efficiency and equity in European education and training systems (2007/2113(INI)) (A6-0326/2007).

  Tomáš Zatloukal, rapporteur. – (CS) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union is facing a number of connected socioeconomic challenges: the emergence of highly competitive countries, the ageing of the population, migration, a fast-changing labour market structure, and booming information and communication technologies. Each one of these factors affects the issue of access to quality education. People with low qualifications are increasingly at risk of unemployment and social exclusion.

Fair systems guarantee that education and training are independent of socioeconomic background and other factors that place individuals at a disadvantage.

The challenge is to support the participation of pupils, students and adults from all social groups: the current situation in this regard is particularly unsatisfactory.

The report I am tabling here in this Parliament urges Member States to take positive measures from the pre-school stage to ensure the social diversity of classes and establishments and run quality educational programmes. Skills that are hereditary or acquired at an early age provide the basis for learning in later life. The return on investment is highest during this period because the fruit of such investment lasts a lifetime. I would like to point out that at the level of primary education premature categorisation of pupils has a detrimental effect. Instead, I consider it important to adapt the curriculum so that it suits diverse groups of children and their capabilities within one school.

On the other hand, differentiation and creating a flexible range of study options is very effective at secondary level. As far as vocational training is concerned, I would recommend improving access to tertiary education and developing opportunities for lifelong learning.

Third-level education is vital to the success of a knowledge-based economy. It would benefit from more funding than it receives at present. The report states that free university tuition does not necessarily guarantee equity and calls for an analysis of the range of financial incentives and support options that can significantly reduce inequity in terms of access to university education.

Education has an impact on the economy: it increases human capital and innovative capability and enables technology to be disseminated. Each additional year of average school attendance raises productivity in an average EU country selectively by 6.2% and in the long term by a further 3.1%, thanks to its contribution to more rapid technological development. Increasing the efficiency of education and training brings both individuals and society as a whole a return on investment of up to 8% a year. A further benefit is a reduction in unemployment: in today’s EU the average unemployment rate is 12.6% amongst people who have completed primary or secondary education, as against 5% in the case of people who have completed higher education. Furthermore, recent research carried out by the Commission has shown that 75 million EU citizens – i.e. 32% of the workforce – have received insufficient education. In 2010 only 15% of new jobs will be available for that group of people, most of whom come from socially disadvantaged sectors of society.

Education and training policies must have a significant positive impact on social and economic results, sustainable development and social cohesion, whereas inefficiency and inequity entail huge costs: loss of tax revenue, unemployment, a greater requirement for healthcare and support from public funds, and also the costs associated with a higher level of anti-social behaviour.

Education and training are basic factors contributing to long-term European economic growth, to competitiveness and to social cohesion.

In conclusion, allow me to thank all my colleagues who have worked with me on this report.

IN THE CHAIR: Diana WALLIS
Vice-President

  Ján Figeľ, Member of the Commission. − Madam President, I really welcome this initiative of the Parliament to take further the message of our communication, which we adopted on this topic last year.

I read your report with a lot of interest and I also listened now to Mr Zatloukal, whom I want to congratulate cordially because I think and I feel we are partners on this issue, in this debate and in efforts to improve the situation.

We could listen now to a description of socioeconomic challenges that we are facing individually, collectively, together, but also of the importance of investment – better investment, more investment – in education and training policies. I think that education and training policy lies at the centre of our efforts to create a more prosperous and a more cohesive European society.

All European education systems are marked by educational inequities that reflect socioeconomic inequalities. The paradoxical role of education and training in relation to these inequalities is that they very often contribute to their perpetuation. But they are sometimes the only vehicle by which inequalities can be ameliorated.

Across Europe, the process of modernising education and training systems is largely driven by the search for greater efficiency in terms of cost-effectiveness. I think this is really desirable, of course, but it is frequently, and wrongly, assumed that efficiency and equity are mutually exclusive.

As part of our commitment to helping Member States improve their education and training systems, the Commission’s communication showed that efficiency and equity do not have to come at the expense of each other, at the expense of quality. Efficiency and equity are, in effect, mutually enforcing. I think this is the most important message from the whole communication.

Your report stresses strongly the need for European education and training systems to be both efficient and equitable if they are to help us to achieve not only economic growth but social cohesion.

I am especially pleased to see your emphasis on the need to develop efficient and equitable policies for the whole life-long learning continuum and on the need to invest in education early, as investing in quality early-childhood and pre-primary education and care is shown to be the most effective way of breaking the cycle of disadvantage.

I am also pleased to notice that you confirm our message that early tracking of pupils has detrimental effects on efficiency and equity. And, of course, you place a lot of emphasis on the need to develop a culture of evaluation in order to develop effective long-term policies and create policies based on solid evidence.

Your initiative will bring us closer to the development of life-long learning strategies that foster equality, inclusion, integration, and social cohesion. We will take full account of it in our forthcoming initiatives in the field of education and training, especially in the proposal for the 2008 Joint Report on the implementation of our work programme and our reflections for the future, and in the Green Paper on the links between education and migration, in which inequalities will be a central issue. We hope to present this communication next spring.

  Christa Prets, draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality. – (DE) Madam President, the question is: why are we talking about equality or inequality when more women than men reach a high level of education? What this means is that we have the same educational opportunities and we are utilising them as well, but equality of opportunity is no longer guaranteed after that. In training, in the use of their acquired knowledge, women continue to suffer discrimination, which means that there is still no equality in the education and training systems.

That is why it is essential that we take account of women who are already mothers and are studying, for example, that we demand particularly flexible organisation of studies here, and that we promote and support access for young women, especially from remote regions, and vulnerable groups such as migrant women and women from ethnic minorities, for there are major anomalies and inequalities here. This must start at pre-school and school age and then continue all the way through to vocational training.

If I may, I will continue after a short break.

  Pál Schmitt, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (HU) Thank you, Madam President. I will speak in Hungarian. Commissioner, last week, representing the Committee on Culture and Education, I took part in a conference in Lisbon entitled ‘Young Voices – Meeting Diversity in Education’, organised by the Portuguese Presidency.

It was a profoundly moving experience to hear young people living with a variety of physical and learning disabilities present their school experiences. There was one common feature in their story: every one of them said that they felt that if they were able to participate in school activities alongside their able-bodied peers, they would not be judged according to their disabilities but according to their abilities and personalities.

Integrating children living with a disability into mainstream education alongside their able-bodied peers is also vital in order to ensure that society accepts them and includes them more easily as adults. If children are accustomed from an early age to being around children who have some disability or other, and are accustomed to having to respect them equally and perhaps to helping them, then there is a good chance that they will demonstrate more understanding and more empathy towards disadvantaged people in their adult lives.

The report we have before us speaks a great deal about integration issues relating to social differences. I am convinced that, by analogy to the example I referred to above, it is also important for children who are socially disadvantaged to be able to participate in an inclusive way alongside other children in all the various stages of education.

To achieve this, two things have to be put in place. One is technological progress and removal of barriers. From this point of view, central and eastern European Member States are lagging far behind: schools, the school environment, transport facilities, even the hospitals, other institutions, public institutions, for example, are all inaccessible to wheelchair users. The other, and this will take longer, is the change in attitude that is needed on the part of decision-makers in order for them to acknowledge that inclusive education is the first crucial stage in the process that leads to social acceptance and integration.

In conclusion, let me say that sports, too, are an important tool for education and social leverage, because social and societal differences disappear in sports; the only things that matter are talent, determination and application. Physical education in schools and sports contribute greatly to strengthening important social values such as solidarity and respect for each other’s dignity.

This is why I consider it important that when this House debates the quality, efficiency and equity of education and training, reference should also be made to the importance of physical education and its quality, efficiency and equity. We also need to ensure that inclusive education in this regard plays a major part. I congratulate the rapporteur and thank you for your attention.

  Christa Prets, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (DE) Madam President, the right to unrestricted education, which means the right of access to education, is enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and yet it is still deficient and has still not been fully realised in practice.

The considerable disparity in performance between education systems in the EU translates into differences in economic and social development. Education systems must be efficient, equitable and, above all, freely accessible. Efficiency must be promoted and emphasised from the pre-school level onwards, in schools and also in the vocational training system.

It is extremely important that higher education should become accustomed to some measure of flexibility in order to respond swiftly to economic and social change, for this is the only way to create competitive advantages. Multidimensionality, quality and cooperation with the private sector and the promotion of research and development are essential. However, we must not educate people simply to supply the economy with well-qualified workers. Education is personally enriching and is the prerequisite for us to be able to live in social cohesion. It fosters personal development and self-esteem, and that is at least as important as specialist, vocational and business skills training.

We need to work towards a situation in which teachers and all their students receive a high-quality education and, above all, have opportunities for advancement and flexible development, for here, we have been travelling down the same track for decades. That cannot continue!

It would be simplistic to say that education policy should be solely a matter for the Member States. This is only partly true. A European educational area with a common goal, namely the Lisbon objectives, also needs a common approach to achieve efficiency and equity.

  Jolanta Dičkutė, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (LT) Ladies and gentlemen, learning is an inseparable part of the European social dimension, because it reveals the significance of solidarity, equal opportunities and social inclusion. All citizens must gain the knowledge and skills required of them and continuously update them. Moreover, it is necessary to consider the special needs of people who are on the verge of social exclusion.

The European Union does not regulate the development of national education systems directly, but it does have a significant impact on their development, firstly through the common objectives of the European Union; secondly through the monitoring of set European guidelines and reports on the development of education systems presented by the Member States; and thirdly through the education and training programmes funded by the European Union.

I welcome the European Commission’s recommendation to make investments in human resources a priority for the Structural Funds. The European Union has to provide the essential conditions for every Member State seeking to create and develop an effective European education and training system in order to solve the relevant problems. For example, one of the biggest problems in Lithuania today is violence in schools. To combat this, various prevention programmes have already started to be implemented at national level. Another issue is that we are searching for any methods that would help to improve the quality of higher education, seeking to ensure that the level of education provided by universities in our country is equal to that provided by the best universities in Western Europe.

The Lithuanian education system faces other problems too. One of these is low salaries for teachers in all disciplines, inevitably leading to a lack of teachers. We do not have sufficient money to repair sports halls and grounds, and I believe that improving sports infrastructure is important not only for encouraging schoolchildren to enjoy sports, but also for preventing them from taking drugs and alcohol as well as smoking. One more very relevant problem is the generation of young emigrants returning home. They need extra funding and additional teachers for compensatory studies and special programmes.

I have mentioned only a few problems that are no doubt also relevant in other new Member States of the European Union. I fully agree with the speaker who said that the current situation was unsatisfactory. Realistic assessment and active support for different education systems complying with common European goals and standards should be today’s objective for the European Union.

  Zdzisław Zbigniew Podkański, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (PL) Madam President, there is a popular saying in Poland according to which if you fail to learn certain things in childhood, you will suffer the consequences for the rest of your life. It wisely reminds us that teaching children is the best investment of all. The rapporteur is therefore right to suggest increasing the resources allocated to pre-school education, because that is when social integration begins. The latter helps to develop the individual and prepare him or her to carry out their mission in life. Integration should be strengthened at a later stage too. The rapporteur is also right, therefore, in identifying the problem of classifying individuals and the advisability of only introducing streaming at lower secondary level and of extending the period spent in school-based education.

It is appropriate too that the draft resolution clearly identifies the need to link policies on vocational education and training with policies on employment, the economy, social integration, improving the competitiveness of higher education and enabling everyone to access it on equal terms.

The most pressing reason for us to adopt these arrangements for education is the fact that 75 million European Union citizens, that is to say, 32% of the workforce, is inadequately educated. This has serious implications for the effectiveness of their work, the performance of our economies and the social situation. Change is needed.

  Věra Flasarová, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, an equitable and efficient system should guarantee access to education for everyone.

The rapporteur states that we need an improvement in pre-school education, which is when people form their habits and skills needed for later learning. He asks the Member States to increase funding for pre-school education. However, what is the reality?

In almost all EU countries pre-school facilities have been closing down in recent years. The adverse population trend is not the only reason. The Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality agreed with this, too, and the situation in the Czech Republic is no different. Pre-school facilities have been closing down because they are expensive to run. That is how villages and towns try to hold on to substantial parts of their budgets. Company pre-school facilities practically do not exist any longer. Waiting times for placing a child in these facilities are starting to grow. Private nurseries that are run to high standards are beginning to appear: they offer foreign language tuition and other perks but only wealthy families can afford them. Pre-school education in the Czech Republic used to be, and still is, of a high standard but even there a certain inequality already exists.

Furthermore, I cannot agree with paragraph 21 of the report, which states that free university education does not necessarily guarantee equity. The situation whereby young people get student loans and pay them back later will have a more serious impact on the poorer students as opposed to the richer ones; this may affect the psychology of young people who start their lives burdened with debts.

Europe is experiencing a wave of immigration. Among those who come here are many children and students. These people have a lot of potential that can help the Union in its future development. They are also standing on an imaginary starting line and we should enable them to participate successfully in the education system. In this context, it is difficult to understand the legislation governing schools in force in the Czech Republic since January 2005, which regulates the extent to which education is allowed to be provided to foreigners with permanent residence permits, or with long-term or short-term visas, refugees or asylum seekers, or persons under temporary protection. One bureaucratic decision draws a line between children who must go to school and children who must not go to school. Everything depends on how quickly the person in question is granted the relevant status. Their arrival is dramatic enough to begin with. We must make every effort to ensure that their entry into our Union is easier. We do not want young people to be dragged into various undesirable social activities.

  Ovidiu Victor Ganţ (PPE-DE). – (RO) Mr. President, Mr. Commissioner, dear colleagues, I congratulate Mr. Zatloukal for the report, which I consider to be very good, because it refers to one of the most important and sensitive chapters in our life, namely education.

Furthermore, I would like to refer to three aspects of the report: I requested increased support for the university excellence programmes, both at the level of Member States and of the European Union, to the extent of its competencies. This is essential if we want the Lisbon Agenda to be successful and the gaps in respect to other global actors to decrease. The lack of highly-qualified specialists in Europe is felt everywhere and extremely seriously in the new Member States due to the brain drain phenomenon.

At the same time, I am convinced that the increase of the educational process efficiency is closely related to multilingualism. In the context of the free movement of European Union citizens, adjustment to the market requirements involves knowledge of foreign languages. Moreover, exchanges of pupils and students would be facilitated by multilingual education.

As regards the equity of educational and training systems, I believe that Member States should find the necessary means to increase the degree of access to education and training of children, young people and adults. Subsidized positions should come as a support for underprivileged social categories, for the purpose of reducing illiteracy, social reconversion, for a better adjustment to the labour market requirements and reduction of unemployment. This way, the required labour force in third countries will be reduced. There are enough human resources, yet they are not trained and managed efficiently.

  Maria Badia i Cutchet (PSE). – (ES) Madam President, the review of the Lisbon objectives we carried out in 2005 demonstrated once more how important it is to position education and training at the core of future EU strategy.

It is obvious, and this is borne out by Eurostat data, that we are falling short of the ambitious objectives we have set for higher education for 2015: investment in R&D, modernisation of universities, reduction of academic failure rates and the numbers of early school-leavers, more participation by adults in life-long learning, and an increase in the numbers of those who have completed secondary education.

This time lag leaves us behind our international partners, the US, India and Japan, and to add to this we have the huge disparity of situations among European countries.

Not only is making efficient and effective progress in the education systems of our Member States important in terms of international competitiveness and economic growth; it is also an essential component of making progress in terms of social cohesion in our societies.

Investing in pre-school, primary and secondary education is a basic requirement to minimise the risk of social exclusion and ensure higher levels of employment and better pay.

Both the public and private finance allocated to education must be increased, and Member States must seriously consider the need to build on the Bologna and Copenhagen processes.

Likewise, university education ought to be adapted to our societies’ increasingly heterogeneous social and economic needs, while not ignoring the fact that education is also the basis for training free citizens capable of playing an active role in society.

Finally, we must update and improve the teaching of vocational training with all due haste, and adapt it to the new challenges posed by the extension of the working lives of Europeans, which increases socioeconomic and educational expectations in adults, without neglecting training on non-discrimination between the sexes at each and every level of education.

  Ewa Tomaszewska (UEN). – (PL) Further to the recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council in 2006, emphasising the need to develop lifelong learning, with particular reference to the unemployed, and the need to adjust to economic changes impacting on the operation of the labour market, I should like to draw attention to the importance of education in achieving greater mobility on the labour market, which represents an opportunity to reduce structural unemployment.

I would like to emphasise the significance of the European Qualifications Framework in terms of increasing worker mobility. Equal access to education, which is such an important factor in ensuring that all children and young people have equal opportunities in life, is linked to the financing of education in the Member States of the Union. The differences between the financial resources allocated to education, qualifications and teachers' pay have a significant bearing on the chances of achieving that particular objective of the Lisbon Strategy.

The report entitled ‘Progress towards the Lisbon Objectives in Education and Training’ adopted by the European Commission in 2005 clearly indicates that progress in that field had been inadequate in terms of achieving the desired outcome by 2010. That is why it is so important to focus on improving the quality of education, thus preventing social exclusion and increasing the competitiveness of our economy. I congratulate Mr Zatloukal on his excellent report.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL). – (PT) One of the areas of education which is still lagging behind in certain European Union countries, in particular Portugal, is pre-school education. It therefore seems essential to me to underline the call to Member States to invest much more in a public network of nurseries supplied with teachers with high-quality training, capable of dealing with all children, as this is one of the most effective means of developing their intellect, establishing the basis for future education, raising overall skills levels, significantly increasing the equity of the education system and combating social inequalities.

Likewise, it is essential to ensure quality primary and secondary education, which must be universal, compulsory and free, in order to provide a basic education and key skills which will contribute to the achievement of fundamental social and civic values and education for peace and equality, thereby reinforcing social cohesion and inclusion. As for higher education, it should be recognised that this is a fundamental sector in developed societies, which is why lack of success at school and early school leaving must be prevented, as is the case in Portugal where unfortunately around 40% of pupils never even finish their secondary education.

Budget cuts in education, rising costs of higher education and the difficult social situation of a high percentage of families and young people are preventing Portugal from rapidly improving the higher education of its population, resulting in the worst indices in the European Union. Given that studies show that, for every additional year of average school attendance, productivity increases selectively by 6.2% in an average country of the European Union, we can understand better the difficulties of those countries which do not give their citizens access to high-quality education.

  Rolf Berend (PPE-DE). – (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, education has played, and continues to play, a key role in the development of the European economy and the personal development of young people. I fully agree with this and many other statements made in the report, and I would like to express my thanks and appreciation to the rapporteur.

It is also correct to say that education systems are effective when the resources deployed produce the best possible results. These objectives are pursued by all the EU Member States, in fact, but comparative studies often reveal some interesting facts about the outcomes. For that reason, pointers and appeals to the Member States, as set out in the report, are more than justified from a European perspective, even though we have no direct powers in respect of the content and structure of education. The causes of such divergent outcomes can be found in the variations in educational quality and intensity, which result in different levels of performance and therefore also to unequal life chances for our young people.

In my view, it is essential, as a matter of urgency, to make it clear, time and again, that today's generation of school students will be entering an international competition for training places after completing their education. Equal opportunities for all thus pose a challenge for Member States which they must meet in order to ensure that young people receive the best possible education that equips them with the intellectual skills they need in order to flourish.

However, equality of opportunity always has to do with quality and performance as well. This, in turn, merits a greater focus on quality and performance in the education system. In this context, it should not just be about educational equality for everyone, but about giving everyone an equal start, followed up by the best possible education which takes account of individual talents and differences in physical and intellectual abilities.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (PSE). – (RO) Madam President, Mr. Commissioner, by 2010, the European Union plans for the dropout rate for young people between 18 and 24 years old not to exceed 10% and over 85% of the young people over 18 years old to attend post-secondary studies.

9.7% of the children in the European Union aged between 0 and 17 are part of a family with no income. Many of the children coming from poor families or a rural environment do not attend any form of post-secondary education for financial reasons. I consider that, in a social Europe, scholarships for pupils and students should be accessible to all those who want to learn. Disabled children must also have access to education.

The Member States and the Commission must have as a priority the registration of at least 90% of the children aged under 7 in nurseries or kindergartens. In this way, young mothers will be able to reconcile their family life and their professional activity.

I also request, in order to make education more efficient, ensuring the training and motivation of teachers.

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE-DE). – (PL) Madam President, I should like to highlight a number of issues.

First, I agree with the rapporteur that investment in pre-school education brings the most rewards, because that is when the best results are obtained. It is also important to support modernisation of universities, to emphasise the need for equal access to higher education and to increase its competitiveness.

Second, equal access to education leads to many positive outcomes. It has a bearing on social development, economic growth, increased innovation, the development of human potential and new technologies, and also on reducing unemployment.

Third, although the return on investment in education only makes itself felt after a lengthy period and requires long-term planning, we should remember that such investment is vital.

Fourth, I agree with the view that it is essential to link policies on vocational training and education with employment policy, economic policy and social integration.

Fifth, we need to invest in our young people, because the younger generation represents the future of the European Union. It is very important to prevent children from dropping out of school early.

Sixth, we are confronted by a demographic problem; namely that Europe's population is ageing. That is why we must promote lifelong learning for adults.

And finally, education, education, education.

  Proinsias De Rossa (PSE). – Madam President, in general I am concerned by the uncritical acceptance by the Commission that Member States are cutting funding for education. In Ireland it is particularly glaring, with the growth in our population and, indeed, as a result, overcrowded classrooms. I have long been an advocate of pre-school and primary education as essential for the personal development of every child. All the evidence shows that the better the education, the better one’s life chances are. It is even linked to a longer and healthier life.

I believe the Commission and Member States must put as much emphasis on quality as on efficiency and equity. The quality of the school environment and teaching are prerequisites to efficiency. Children need good teachers with a curriculum that gives a holistic education, one geared to teaching students how to make rational decisions, how to cope with diversity and change, how to communicate with others and, indeed, provide a broad ethical basis for the values they can choose to live their lives by. These are skills they need to make the most of themselves and their society.

But there is even a more urgent and basic issue – that of hungry children in our schools. Thousands of children go to school hungry in Ireland and I am sure we are not unique. It matters not how efficient or equitable the access is, these children cannot do well, and the long-term consequences of that dwarf the savings a state makes by not providing a healthy breakfast for these children.

  Ján Figeľ, Member of the Commission. – (SK) I would like to thank you for a convergent debate since it confirms not only the report and the Commission communication on this matter but also the position of the Member States, which expressed their views at the ministerial meeting in November and subsequently in that half of 2007 when the Council adopted conclusions that also confirmed the basic points in the Commission communication.

I would just like to make a couple of comments. I believe that promoting equity and efficiency in education is both a moral duty and a fundamental financial/economic need. Logic dictates that we need to make better and greater investment in education: firstly, better because there is scope to use every euro, every crown and every pound more effectively.

Several speakers have stated that skills and the quality of education and vocational training have a decisive impact on the future position of both individuals and social groups and need to be constantly improved. Those who can improve them primarily are, for example, teachers. Investment in the quality of teacher training is one of the most efficient ways of achieving an overall improvement since teachers multiply such effects. In terms of improvement, there is a systematic need, for example, for quality assessment as a basic tool and not as an exception, not as something extraordinary but as a rule, where inputs, outputs and everything in between are evaluated, and quality is assessed and rewarded.

I would like to say that the Commission will, as expected from the report, continue to focus on this matter. We want to pay more attention to the issue fair and efficient education, for example, in next year’s topic on education and migration. There is presently an ongoing consultation on schools for the 21st century, i.e. what is expected from schools in this new era, and naturally we want this process to culminate in an up-to-date view of the position of schools in European society today. Another topic that we raised recently was the communication adopted in August on the quality of teacher training and the very important conclusions it presents.

In conclusion, I believe that the processes that have been mentioned, such as the Bologna and Copenhagen process, and matters relating to adult education, pre-school education and lifelong education, must all come together under the topic of accessibility and quality as key factors in the truly fair education system that we require today and in the future.

  President. − The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Thursday, 27 September 2007.

Written statements (Rule 142)

  Marianne Mikko (PSE), in writing. – (ET) Time waits for no man. It is clear that in 2010 Europe will not be the world’s most competitive economy. An appropriate and well-structured education system would bring that objective within reach.

It is impossible to ignore the academic and financial level of the individual top universities. According to various data, 20-30 of the world’s top 50 universities are in the United States. A further five or six are in the United Kingdom. The rest of Europe is in third place with four or five, with Canada and Australia hot on their heels.

Success stories have a habit of repeating themselves. Unfortunately, this success story owes its existence primarily to the fact that the English-language education market can tap into billions of powerful customers. The effect of scale does the rest. As a result Harvard is tens of times wealthier and more famous than its nearest competitor.

Imitating the elite system of the Ivy League and Oxbridge in continental Europe is a hazardous project. I would even call it a blind alley. Both in the United States and in the United Kingdom the literacy and numeracy of many ordinary citizens is deemed to be inadequate.

In the desire for success, especially rapid success, it would be more reasonable to rely entirely on those activities which are familiar to us. The most successful European Union country in terms of education is unquestionably Finland, whose national strategy includes public access to education at an equally high level everywhere.

Education is by nature a strategic area. The effects of decisions and actions emerge only over decades. Consequently it would be pointless as far as equality is concerned to sacrifice another quarter of a century in the name of higher summits. Even if it were the right way to go.

A uniformly high level remains Europe’s best trump card in international competition.

18. European strategy for the rights of the child: against "dys"crimination of children and exclusion of "dys" people (debate)

  President. − The next item is the debate on the oral question to the Commission on a European strategy for the rights of the child: against ‘dys’crimination of children and exclusion of ‘dys’ people, by Anna Záborská, Amalia Sartori and Marie Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group, Roberta Angelilli on behalf of the UEN Group, Zita Gurmai and Catherine Trautmann on behalf of the PSE Group, Adamos Adamou on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group, Hiltrud Breyer et Raül Romeva i Rueda on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group, Elizabeth Lynne on behalf of the ALDE Group, and Kathy Sinnott on behalf of the IND/DEM Group (O-0062/2007 – B6-0317/2007).

  Anna Záborská (PPE-DE). – (FR) Madam President, Rule 173 states that a verbatim report of the proceedings of each sitting shall be drawn up in all the official languages.

I would draw your attention to the fact that this debate on the exclusion of persons affected by ‘dys’ ability is not to be translated into the official languages of the European Union.

This ‘tool’ has quite simply been done away with in practice, even though our Rules of Procedure require it. My point of order is quite a simple one: this evening’s debate has to a large extent been requested by numerous schoolchildren, parents’ associations, teachers, educators and doctors in different countries.

However, the citizens who elect the Members of this House, since they will not be familiar with all the different languages used this evening, will never be able to know everything that is being said during this parliamentary debate, even though it is intended for them.

  President. − Thank you very much for your point, which of course concerns us all on what is the day of European languages. The matter is being considered and a report is being prepared that will go to the Conference of Presidents, so your point is taken.

We now continue with the debate on the oral question to the Commission on a European strategy for the rights of the child.

  Anna Záborská, author. – (SK) Allow me to begin with the testimony of a young 21-year-old woman in her third year at university.

‘When I was 17 my schoolmates laughed at me all year because I looked like an 11-year-old. In my report the teachers frequently asked when I would finally make up my mind to learn. Those of us with ‘dys’abilities work much more than others and it’s very hard to live with’. End of quote.

Society is never aware of the 10-20% of children with ‘dys’abilities because they are never diagnosed. Their difficulties hinder communication, prevent normal education and unfortunately sometimes lead to mental breakdown and social exclusion. As far as we are concerned, the European Union can do what it does best, that is to say it can act as a spokesperson and highlight, in a sufficiently varied manner, a problem which in other circumstances might remain taboo and hidden away. Europe provides an opportunity to identify good ideas and the tried and tested practices of organisations and governments, as referred to in Written Declaration 64/2007, which is currently before the European Parliament.

A ‘neuro-dys’ programme already exists and the European Union funds projects that may be well suited to those affected by ‘dys’abilities too, such as the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme, the ICT Policy Support Programme, support for research into information and communication technology skills, the Seventh Framework Programme for Research – health, the Lifelong Learning Programme, and the Second Public Health Programme 2008-2013. These programmes are the subject of amending and supplementary proposals for the 2008 budget, which we have put forward with our fellow Members from the five political groups.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, in conclusion allow me to express my great admiration, respect, gratitude and encouragement to those who in their lives could have had plenty of reasons to be mothers without hope: ‘des mères désespérées’. Nevertheless, none of them is giving up the fight. They are the best defenders of their children’s cause, alongside the fathers where they are still part of the same family. I believe that the debate this evening will show that they will not be alone and that their problem will also become a concern of the European Parliament.

  Teresa Riera Madurell, author. – (ES) Madam President, first and foremost I wish to apologise for the absence of Mrs Zita Gurmai, the author of this oral question on behalf of the Socialist Group, who cannot attend this sitting due to unforeseen circumstances, and so with your permission, Madam President, I intend to speak on behalf of Mrs Gurmai and on my own behalf, since I had also asked to speak.

My wish, Madam President, is simply to reiterate what has been said. We are talking about learning disorders that affect a substantial segment of our population. Almost 10% of Europe’s children suffer from ‘dys’ problems: children who are usually invisible to our education systems, which all too frequently blame their academic failure on unrelated causes.

The necessary measures must be taken to prevent such ‘dys’crimination, and schoolchildren must be treated in a special, timely, intensive and multidisciplinary fashion, preferably at their usual teaching centre. This requires protocols for detection and courses of action at schools.

For the first time in my country, Spain, a socialist government has introduced an education law to help pupils with specific learning difficulties. This is a major step, since in our various countries families are usually dependent on the goodwill of teachers and their willingness to make a voluntary effort with the proper training. Opting for other solutions means a substantial economic burden, which is often impossible to shoulder.

We must remember that boys and girls with these dysfunctions are intelligent, and all they need is a different way of learning. Academic success is a genuine possibility for them. All that is required is the political will to implement the right mechanisms that produce genuine solutions.

Making these pupils visible to society means having reliable statistics to allow proper decisions to be taken; it means providing access to clear and truthful information for everyone who seeks it and starting up awareness campaigns extending to all our countries. Making them visible to our education systems also means that, in addition to providing treatment in good time for all children affected in the early years of school, we must take account of their needs when designing syllabuses at each and every level of education. A number of universities are now using examinations and tests adapted to university students with this kind of problem.

Community-financed education programmes such as e-learning or life-long learning must also be designed with ‘dys’ people in mind. Ladies and gentlemen, we must tackle the needs of this sector of the population. We cannot continue to turn our backs on a disorder that affects over 3 million Europeans.

  Hiltrud Breyer, author. – (DE) Madam President, I am pleased, too, that this important topic – the increase in dyslexia – is being discussed here this evening. It is certainly the first time that we have talked about this issue, but it should not be the last. I want the Commission to do everything possible to drive this issue forward. We are not starting from zero.

There are already programmes, there are already initiatives, in many Member States. It is important, in my view, not to talk about dyslexia as an illness or a disability, for that is incorrect. It has already been mentioned that many children with dyslexia are actually highly intelligent. We know that these children are quicker at thinking than in their motor skills.

The first step that we need to take, therefore – and this is my urgent request to the Commissioner – is to obtain an overview of what has already been done in the field of research and the programmes and initiatives which already exist at European level, and then pull all this information together.

I think it is important not to confuse dyslexia with ADS. It would be disastrous to lump the two together. We know that ADS is closely connected to excessive television consumption and over-stimulation. On the issue of dyslexia, we should also consider how we can introduce children to books and reading early on. We know that children who read a lot and have easy access to books are less susceptible to dyslexia. This might be one way of curbing the alarming rise in dyslexia.

We urge the Commission to compile an overview of the diversity and the different approaches which exist in Europe. Another option would be to hold a conference to bring together all these people and their different experiences in this area. We know that children are our future and knowledge is our most important resource in Europe, so we need to do our utmost here.

  Elizabeth Lynne (ALDE), author. – Madam President, it is estimated that there are approximately 49 million people with some form of ‘dys’ability within the EU. As many as 10% of children are affected by a ‘dys’-type disability such as dysphasia, dyspraxia, dyslexia, dyscalculia, or attention-deficit disorder.

Take the case of Sean in the UK. The teachers’ report described him as stupid, awkward, disruptive and over-emotional. Because of his problem, he was marginalised and bullied by fellow pupils and teachers did very little to intervene.

Sean’s parents were eventually forced to withdraw him from school after he arrived home badly beaten and bloodied, but the local education authority refused to provide tutoring or assistance, so education was left to his parents, one of whom was forced to give up work. Thankfully, a local support group was at hand and offered help to Sean and his parents. Other children in the UK and some other Member States are not so lucky.

We must exchange best practice across the EU, and this is where the Council and the Commission have an important role to play. Information must be made more available. Steps must be taken to spot, screen, diagnose and treat these disorders at an early stage. Structures must be adapted to integrate young people with disabilities into the world of work, and it is important that a European charter for people with ‘dys’ problems is drawn up.

It is also vital that research under the seventh Framework Programme is increased. There is no point in paying lip-service to disabled people’s rights. We have to continue to fight to ensure that individuals like Sean are treated equally and given the help and support they deserve.

  Kathy Sinnott (IND/DEM), author. – Madam President, there are millions, literally millions, of children who are not considered disabled but who struggle with a significant and disabling condition in the area of learning, movement and communication.

Although the number of children diagnosed with dyslexia, dysphasia, dyscalculation, dyspraxia and similar specific disorders is increasingly dramatically – dyslexia alone is estimated to affect 10% of children in the US – many, if not the majority, of children affected in Europe still remain undiagnosed and therefore largely unhelped.

Often, when parents express concern they are ignored or told to stop imagining things. Often, children – even gifted children – are written off as intellectually weak or clumsy by well-meaning teachers and education authorities because they do not have the expertise to tell the difference.

Ignoring these conditions does not make them go away. They just become more problematic for the child, who gets increasingly discouraged and frustrated. The children’s self-image can suffer serious damage and their potential can be squandered.

We have formulated this question and the written declaration to emphasise the enormity of the problem for children with a specific difficulty, for their family and for the community, and to ask the Commission, Parliament and Council to take these children seriously in research programmes, initiatives, guidelines and strategies.

We need to learn more about these ‘dys’ conditions, how to identify them as early as possible, how to intervene effectively. We also need to learn why a child’s developing brain is affected in these ways and how to prevent these ‘dys’abilities where that is possible. We also need to ensure that no-one is considered less important or less valuable because of these conditions.

I would suggest to the Commissioner that many adults also struggle with these specific learning or coordination difficulties but have no name for their condition or real knowledge of it. Many have come up with elaborate compensatory techniques to get by. I collected signatures this summer for a citizens’ petition supporting persons with disabilities and was amazed at how many adults struggle to even write their names.

People suffer in silence with their gifts and talents hidden even from themselves by these hidden disabilities. What is the price society pays? People quitting education and working below their ability because of a problem in one area of learning. An educational psychologist told me that the tragedy of these children is that many of them would have done very well at university, where they could have worked to their strengths, but failed to get the opportunity as they cannot get through secondary school because the more general nature of the curriculum means that their particular difficulty becomes an insurmountable obstacle to the standard assessment system.

I know one young man who has a specific learning difficulty. He failed primary and secondary school and had to leave the school system without a certificate but, on the basis of an aptitude test and the recommendation of teachers, he did get into a small college. Two years later he has proved to be exceptionally gifted in the study of philosophy and has become a popular student leader.

Our education system in Europe tends to be competitive and rigid. The authorities seem to think this is creating a class of educated, skilled citizens, but this inflexibility – a one-size-fits-all approach – is destroying the potential of countless young people. This is not good enough and creates social exclusion which can lead many children to become disillusioned and even, in some cases, angry adults. In Ireland, 76% of the prisoners in Mountjoy Prison have a history of school failure and what are probably undiagnosed learning difficulties.

To ignore these children and adults is clearly discrimination. I am very proud of this Parliament in the support it has shown for the written declaration, but have one word of caution. The UN Declaration on the Rights of the Child states that every child is entitled to primary education, but special-needs children are only entitled to the help they need according to resources. Before we ratify this Convention and introduce it into our strategies, we must examine it very closely. Otherwise we will bring this fault into our own policies.

  Ján Figeľ, Member of the Commission. − Madam President, I thank all those present, especially Ms Záborská and the co-authors of the question, because I think it is very important, not only as a question, as a topic for our discussions, but also in terms of action in favour of those who need more specific assistance or treatment or conditions for their life in society, for education, training and so on.

I especially underline what was said at the beginning: that we want to be the voice of those with these difficulties, and I think this is a very strong moral and political commitment.

The Commission is aware of the negative social and health consequences that these problems might have on affected individuals or families raising children affected by ‘dys’-related problems.

We agree that measures should be taken to improve the everyday life of children and their access to education, information and culture. Of course, the main responsibility for dealing with people with ‘dys’ problems falls on Member States, but the Commission, as well as European institutions, can support the action of Member States.

For example, our Disability Action Plan 2003-2010 promotes access to support and care services for people with disabilities and their families. The Commission promotes a level of service which strikes an appropriate balance between security, freedom of choice and independence of life.

The Commission Work Plans for 2005, 2006 and 2007 in the field of public health included specific reference to the need for further information and definition of indicators relating to attention-deficit hyperactivity disorders, cognitive retardation and disruption of motor, perceptual, language and socio-emotional functions.

Several calls for proposals have been published to support research on ‘dys’-related problems. However, the Commission has so far failed to receive any proposal in these areas.

The Community programme PROGRESS provides support to a number of large European networks, including the European Disability Forum, as you know. We support the European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education. The agency provides policymakers and professionals with relevant information on special needs education and facilitates the exchange of good practices.

Special education needs are also one of the general priorities of the Lifelong Learning Programme and, as such, they must be considered a priority for all its actions because it is a general priority.

The Lifelong Learning Programme has a clear aim to integrate people with a range of special needs. Concretely, this is done through funding cooperation projects to exchange, develop and improve practice in general, including on the design of pedagogical structures in ordinary and specialist education and by offering increased grants to disabled participants to fund any necessary extra support arrangements.

Furthermore, several research projects have been supported by the Commission, including the Neurodys project mentioned in the Oral Question. The Commission also promotes access to information and communication technology (ICT) and new technology in general for people suffering from ‘dys’-related problems.

The ICT part of the sixth Framework Research Programme co-financed projects on e-accessible and assistive solutions. I just want to mention two projects in this regard: the AGENT-DYSL project, which focused on developing the next generation of assistive reading systems and, secondly, the EU’s ‘For All’ project, which aimed to develop technologies to make education accessible to everyone, including people with dyslexia. The seventh Framework Research Programme will continue to support ‘dys’-related projects or research, including as part of the health priority and as part of the e-accessibility priority.

We recognise the importance of collecting relevant statistics. This was one of the very strong issues here. Although the Commission does not currently collect statistics on specific ‘dys’-related problems, Eurostat provides EU-wide statistics on disability and social integration.

Following a special disability-oriented labour force survey in 2002, Eurostat is currently in the process of developing an EU-wide survey model. The survey is part of the European Health Survey System and focuses on disabilities and on various aspects of social integration of people about 18 years old.

We recognise difficulties encountered by people or families caring for people with disabilities, including with those with ‘dys’ problems. Following up on our commitment in the Roadmap for Gender Equality, in 2005 and 2006 we launched a consultation with social partners on reconciliation policies. The consultation covered a broad range of issues, including maternity leave, parental leave, paternity leave, adoption leave and a new type of leave to care for dependent family members.

Having finished the second phase of consultation in June 2007, the Commission is currently engaged in an impact assessment process. Depending on the outcome, the new proposals might be brought forward, possibly to 2008.

The Commission constantly monitors the transposition of EU anti-discrimination legislation at national level. Directive 2000/78/EC, which prohibits discrimination in the field of employment and occupation, covers all citizens, including those suffering from ‘dys’-related problems. However, the Commission believes that legislation should offer protection, not only to employees suffering from a disability but also to employees who care for a disabled dependent.

In this regard, we follow with great interest the Coleman case currently pending before the European Court of Justice.

Finally, I really want to say that this is primarily about real knowledge and awareness, and your contribution now is very helpful. It is a pity that it is so late, just before midnight. But, after raising proper awareness, I think we could focus more on implementation and concrete actions in favour of those in real need.

  Maria Panayotopoulou-Kassiotou, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (EL) Madam President, Commissioner, thank you for staying so late and for your very thorough treatment of the issue.

I see two other Commissioners in your seat, including the Commissioner responsible for the health sector. He is responsible for taking action to have behavioural and learning difficulties recognised as health problems rather than disabilities. He also directs research into early diagnosis and ensures that medical methods for treatment and therapy become specific proposals in research programmes. This in turn promotes your own education sector by giving special training to staff and parents, and special equipment to schools. It also promotes new technologies so as to adopt accompanying and assistance measures for pupils with special educational needs.

The possibility of education leads to training and professional reintegration. I also see in your seat the third Commissioner, responsible for employment. He ought to take an interest in the measures for access to professional life, social rights and options for social integration. This is to prevent social exclusion of individuals who are differently able, who have a special characteristic without being disabled.

You have used the word ‘disability’ many times and have expounded to us all the disability programmes. Here, however, it is a question of other dyspraxia problems. We can tackle these without the need for a host of new initiatives; we need no more than a little expense and funding, but mainly just care, organisation and the mustering of best practices already at the disposal of the Member States in a fairly broad sphere.

Legal recognition is a fundamental precondition and allows for access to health and schools as well as to social provision. The use of technical means and financial aid for parents combine to prevent discrimination against families as well: they suffer from the time when they start to deal with a diagnosis of a dyspraxia problem until its cure.

I hope that our question will give the Commission the opportunity to take action.

  Catherine Trautmann, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is pleasing to see the subject of ‘dys’-type disorders, so often ignored, now being raised in Parliament and the fact that this topic has generated a response from practically all the political groups that make up this House demonstrates that for us no citizen of Europe, whatever their problems, should be subjected to discrimination. Such is the case for ‘dys’ sufferers, for increasingly sophisticated studies have shown that while this type of disability is still very widespread it is still not being properly identified.

As the only French Member to speak this evening I can pride myself on the fact that France has been fairly active in its efforts to tackle ‘dys’ problems. Thanks to the initiative of parents’ associations and professional groups, a national day, the first of its kind, is now to be held in Paris on 10 October and it is hoped that this will make the press more aware of the situation of the people, and especially children, who are affected by problems of this kind.

However, the purpose of my question this evening is not to celebrate the positive advances made in one country or another, since there is still a huge amount of work to be done, but collectively to discuss ways in which we might pool the best practices that have been developed at European level, insomuch as certain Member States do not even recognise the existence of this type of disorder. It appears to me that the call for a European multidisciplinary network to be set up for specific training and learning problems, which is part of the written declaration, goes some way in this direction. A judicious use of Community actions such as the Seventh Framework Programme would also be beneficial.

In this respect, the initiative that you mentioned, Commissioner, namely the NeuroDys project, which is aimed at highlighting the cognitive, cerebral and genetic origins of dyslexia, and which brings together 15 scientific research groups from nine Member States – and in passing I would like to point out, for this is important, that this body includes practically all the European languages – seems to set a good example because ultimately it appears to me that Europe should lead the world in understanding these conditions and in collecting the biological data that relate to them. However, it should also set an example in recognising the most effective forms of rehabilitation and therapy so that children can begin to hope again and face life with optimism.

Does the Commission have plans for other programmes of this type in the future? Commissioner, you referred to a call for tenders that received no response. It is our intention that the awareness campaign now being waged by the various associations and by the Members who signed the written declaration should perhaps make up for this lack of information and motivation. We hope that your capacity for mobilising the European funding that is needed to fulfil these expectations will enable the relevant research to be carried out into other ‘dys’-type disorders, such as dyspraxia and dysphasia.

  Wiesław Stefan Kuc, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (PL) Madam President, it is quite alarming to learn that 10% of children suffer from dysfunctional disorders. That means that one child in every 10 either suffers from motor disorders, cannot express their thoughts or cannot do so clearly. What will the adult population be like in a few years’ time? It will be composed of people who have difficulty undertaking the normal tasks involved in day-to-day living and cannot play a normal part in society. Can we contemplate treating them as invalids and creating a society of invalids? That would be unacceptable. If these conditions can be treated, we must do all we can to treat the children affected, instead of focusing on the prevention of discrimination and social exclusion, because one cannot exclude beings similar to oneself. I do not think it will come to that. I believe there are ways to manage the situation.

Finally, I should like to offer my sincere thanks to those who brought this matter to my attention and say that I stand shoulder to shoulder with them.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (ES) Madam President, I wish to start by congratulating the staff and Members who took this initiative of a written declaration and an oral question, and also the Commission for its attendance at this time of night to discuss this issue which, regrettably, not only seems to be a secret issue, an issue for absolute discretion, but also an issue that is completely invisible in certain cases.

Therefore, despite this situation, the fact that we are discussing it today means that we wish to put an end to the invisibility, and so I have lent my support with full enthusiasm not only to the written declaration and the oral question, but to this debate.

I think by and large we all know people who have suffered, and are suffering, from these disorders, which are not illnesses. Therefore, from that point of view the perception we have in this context is that these are certainly not people who, we might say, require a special service from the point of view of health care for an illness. All they need is support, specific support, assistance and sensitivity, which must be forthcoming not only from institutions but also from families, teaching centres and especially from society in general.

In my view, the worst thing that can happen in these cases is for discrimination to arise from ignorance in the first instance, from the perception that these people cannot be people who lead absolutely normal lives, although they may need a certain amount of support, and especially from the absence of political willingness and economic resources to implement the necessary programmes to allow these people not just to have, I repeat, a normal lifestyle, but also to allow them as fully capable human beings to contribute their wisdom, their knowledge, their hopes and their dreams to a society that frequently marginalises them and discriminates against them, when they have done absolutely nothing to deserve this.

  Jan Tadeusz Masiel (UEN). – (PL) Madam President, I should like to congratulate those who have raised the matter of these specific disabling conditions. The 10% of children affected grow up to become the 10% of the population that has difficulty functioning in society. Their suffering is greater in adult life. Today, however, we are concerned with the fate of children detached from society for reasons that are not fully understood. As children develop, one difficulty generates another, and each complex leads to the next.

‘Dys’-type disabilities should be recognised as specific conditions or impairments. The problems entailed should be explained first to the child itself, and then to those surrounding it, namely parents, friends and schoolmates. Such children require a special approach and a personalised style of teaching. The identification and correct definition of these conditions is particularly important when the opportunities for treating them are limited.

  Ján Figeľ, Member of the Commission. – (SK) Mr President, I would like to express my thanks for the many, very interesting speeches. I am not an expert on the matter but we need more expertise with regard to this topic.

I am also personally aware of this issue but a much more profound approach by the various institutions and policymakers is necessary to address it specifically. Many have been put forward here with regard to the fields of social policy, equal opportunities, non-discrimination, health, education, vocational training and others associated with this issue. The starting point is in fact the interest and desire to change the situation because ignorance breeds intolerance. That is true of every problem, including this one.

One of the tasks is clearly to align the views on this problem in the Member States and the EU, that is to say in the EU Member States, because no definition exists anywhere, although in some countries there are national days devoted to this issue. In my view, the definition the United Nations uses in the Disability Convention could provide inspiration for the Member States, but that is a matter for them.

I would like to reiterate what I said at the beginning. We have several major programmes that can help in vocational and information and communication terms to identify possible solutions. I am thinking of the education programme, the lifelong learning programme, the research programme and the public health programme.

Allow me personally and on behalf of my institution to thank the team of authors and also others seeking to ensure that people with ‘dys’abilities are treated equally and that it is recognised that they are in fact frequently unrecognised and undervalued with regard to their talent, ability and potential. The Commission has been called upon to be more active on this issue and I would like to say that the Commission is active and willing, in collaboration with Parliament and the presidency, to be even more active than we may have been in the past.

  President. − Thank you very much, Commissioner, for that reassurance.

The debate is closed.

Written statements (Rule 142)

  Alessandro Battilocchio (NI), in writing. – (IT) I should like to thank the colleagues who prompted this important debate and the European Commission, in the person of Commissioner Figeľ, with whom I have cooperated on a few previous occasions, for being prepared to note the suggestions put forward by this House.

Even though the health sector is primarily a matter of national competence, I appreciate the efforts being made by the Commission to try and encourage the Member States to adopt strategies enabling people with disabilities to access care and, above all, to lead as normal a life as possible. The Disability Action Plan 2003-2010 and the PROGRESS programme already go in this direction. However, it is important to raise awareness among European citizens so as to promote the integration of these people, especially children, into society. Integration and awareness campaigns against ‘dys’crimination in schools, workplaces, sport and everyday life are needed, as is access to the health service, in order that such dysfunctions – sometimes purely physical – do not compromise the personal and working lives of sufferers and their families.

19. Agenda for next sitting: see Minutes

20. Closure of sitting

(The sitting closed at 23.55)