Verbatim report of proceedings

Thursday, 29 November 2007 - Brussels

1. Opening of the sitting

IN THE CHAIR: MR PÖTTERING
President

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

2. Documents received: see Minutes

3. Presentation of the Court of Auditors' annual report - 2006 (debate)

  President. − The first item is the presentation of the Court of Auditors’ annual report for 2006.

  Hubert Weber, President of the Court of Auditors. – (DE) Mr President, Vice-President Kallas, ladies and gentlemen, I am delighted to be able to take part today in your debate on the annual reports of the Court of Auditors for the 2006 financial year. On 12 November I presented the annual reports to the Committee on Budgetary Control of the European Parliament, and the following day I presented them to the Economic and Financial Affairs Council.

Let me begin with a brief review of the key messages contained in the annual reports for 2006. My first point concerns the reliability of the final annual accounts for 2006. The consolidated financial statements for the 2006 financial year provide a true picture of the assets and liabilities and the financial position of the Communities and the results of their operations in that year with the exception of an overstating, in the statement of assets and liabilities, of accounts payable and of the amount of pre-financing. The Commission has made further progress in the implementation of accrual accounting, although some weaknesses are still observable.

The Court noted that the Commission has made considerable efforts to eliminate defects in the system of risk management for EU finances. Some changes are already yielding visible benefits in areas such as the agricultural budget.

I shall move on now to legality and regularity. The Court has once more delivered an unconditional favourable opinion on transactions underlying revenue and commitments as well as payments for administrative expenditure and expenditure under the pre-accession strategy, with the exception of expenditure under the Sapard programme. In addition, there was a minimal error rate for payments managed and controlled directly by Commission delegations in respect of external actions. The Court, however, has once again delivered an unfavourable opinion on the legality and regularity of the bulk of EU expenditure transactions. This applies primarily to expenditure under the common agricultural policy that is not subject to the integrated administration and control system – IACS for short – and to expenditure on structural measures and internal policies and to a considerable proportion of expenditure on external actions. In these areas payments to final beneficiaries are still affected by material error rates, albeit at varying levels.

The Court’s observations on the areas of the budget that are subject to shared management are as follows: in the realm of agriculture, to which a budget of EUR 49.8 billion was allocated in 2006, the Court noted a sharp decline in the estimated overall error rate, although the rate is still slightly above the materiality threshold. If properly applied, IACS, which covers some 70% of agricultural expenditure, can effectively reduce the risk of illegal and irregular expenditure payments. Financial corrections to agricultural payments, such as those deriving from the Commission’s annual clearance decisions in the framework of the balancing procedure, relate to large sums, which the Member States have to repay to the Community budget as corrections or financial penalties because of their failure to establish adequate control systems. These recoveries to the Community budget continue to be funded by national taxpayers and not by the beneficiaries who have obtained Community resources by irregular means.

Besides highlighting problem areas by citing illustrative cases, the Court also considers it has a duty to flag up developments which may be important for political decision-makers to know about. For example, the Court pointed out that, while the single-payment system facilitates application and payment procedures, it also has side-effects, such as entitlements being allocated to landlords who have never farmed. While this may be legally permissible, it has perceptibly shifted the focus of EU aid from farm proprietors to landowners. The new recipients of agricultural subsidies include railway companies, riding stables, stud farms, golf and leisure clubs and local authorities. Moreover, the legal provisions governing the single-payment system have given Member States wide scope in the allocation of entitlements, which has resulted in unequal treatment of beneficiaries.

With regard to structural measures, to which a total of EUR 32.4 billion was allocated in 2006, the situation prevailing in previous years has not changed. The Court observed a material rate of error, which it estimated to be at least 12% of the aggregate amount of reimbursements to beneficiaries. The most common errors involved applications for the reimbursement of ineligible expenditure and failure to carry out a tendering procedure. In addition, documentation substantiating overheads and personnel costs was often missing.

In the view of the Court, the Commission should set a good example in its handling of the expenditure it administers directly, that is to say expenditure on the Union’s internal policies and external actions. Although improvements are discernible, the internal policies administered by the Commission, on which nine billion euros was spent in 2006, were once again subject to a material rate of error. The main reason for this was the payment of reimbursements to beneficiaries who had submitted declarations overstating project costs. The causes of the errors in the underlying transactions include negligence, insufficient knowledge of rules that are often complex, and applicants’ wilful attempts to defraud the EU budget. In addition, for agricultural expenditure not covered by the IACS and expenditure on structural measures and on internal policies, checks on requests for payment, which are largely based on the information provided by beneficiaries, are in many cases inadequate in terms of frequency and coverage and are often short on quality too.

In past years the Commission has taken action to enhance the recovery system and to improve the protection of the Union’s financial interests. Because of the complexity of its procedures, however, the Commission is still not being reliably informed of the various amounts and recipients of unduly paid funds and of their financial impact on the EU budget. In fact, only six Member States responded to last November’s request from the Commission for a report on the recovery of irregular payments. In its single-audit model, the Court recommended the establishment of an efficient framework for all internal control systems relating to EU funds. All such systems should be based on common principles and standards; they should take account of inherent risks as well as striking the right balance between the cost of controls and the benefits they bring.

One of the main innovations of recent times is the obligation imposed on Member States to present annual surveys of their audit and control findings. There are also the voluntary initiatives launched by some national audit bodies to issue national declarations and produce audit reports on the management of EU funds in their respective countries. The Court takes the view that the national declarations and the national auditing efforts could help to raise awareness in the Member States of the importance of internal control of EU funds. In its opinion No 6/2007, the Court stated that such national procedures were a means of focusing and demonstrating national accountability for the use of EU funds. Moreover, they can serve to identify rectifiable defects and examples of good practice as well as enhancing transparency and accountability in the realm of financial management.

The Court is also continuing to play an active part in fostering cooperation with the Supreme Audit Institutions in the Member States and is the lead body in a new working group dealing with common auditing standards and comparable auditing criteria designed for the EU context.

This brings me to the conclusions. In spite of considerable efforts on the part of the Commission to eliminate the weaknesses in the system of risk management for EU funds, the Court has once again delivered an unfavourable opinion on the legality and regularity of transactions in most areas of the budget. The greatest improvements were observed in relation to the common agricultural policy. The high error rate in the underlying transactions is due in part to the fact that complicated legal requirements and provisions and unclear eligibility criteria sometimes cause beneficiaries to overstate their costs when claiming reimbursement, but it is also partly due to persistent defects in the realm of internal control.

The basic prerequisite for effective management of budgetary funds is the existence of reliable internal control systems at every administrative level in all Member States and recipient countries. In my opinion, the people of Europe have a right to proper administration and control of EU funds throughout the Union.

  Siim Kallas, Vice-President of the Commission. − Mr President, the Commission welcomes the Court’s report and the comments from President Weber.

Overall, the Court’s Annual Report for 2006 gives a more positive assessment than its 2005 edition. Thanks to the Court’s system of traffic lights, it is now possible to measure progress in detail. The Court’s report sets out, from one spending area to another, where our systems are considered satisfactory and where the errors found are below the Court’s materiality threshold of 2%.

Comparing this with previous years, the Commission is pleased that in total the Court has now given its green light to over 40% of total payments, compared to roughly a third last year and only 6% two years ago. That is real progress towards our common goal of getting a positive Statement of Assurance (DAS).

The Court also reports improvements in internal policies, such as research programmes, and external actions. The Court said that our 2006 accounts are true and fair in all material respects, except for certain small overstatements, comprising 0.13% of operating expenditure. The Court recognises that the Commission has made considerable efforts to address the weaknesses in the management of the risks to EU funds.

Overall, though, there is, again, a negative DAS concerning the legality and regularity of transactions. While we are moving in the right direction, I would therefore like to focus on the major stumbling block on our road to a positive DAS. The big remaining challenge is to ensure that structural policies are properly implemented. For spending on structural policies – EUR 32.4 billion in 2006 – the situation remains similar to previous years, and the Court has again identified the material level of error.

The most frequent errors were claims for ineligible expenditure and failure to carry out tender procedures, as well as a lack of evidence to support the calculation of the overheads or the staff costs involved.

The Court goes on to say that it is reasonably confident that at least 12% of structural and cohesion fund payments in 2006 should not have been reimbursed. We agree that there are real problems in this area. The Commission’s own synthesis report for 2006 stated that it did not have confidence in the systems for managing Structural Funds in parts of Italy, Latvia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Reserves were expressed by the directors-general in their annual activity reports.

The Court looked at a sample of 19 regions in 2006, and found none to be fully effective. The Court found various control systems to be ineffective in England, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Scotland, Slovenia and Spain, and for the Interreg project between Austria and Hungary.

We believe things will improve under the new legislation, but this will not reduce the continuing high risk for payments made to the 2000-2006 programmes, where the situation remains critical up to their closure in 2009-2010. We need to act together on this state of affairs. I have written to the Council President, the Member States and the European Parliament, setting out the additional efforts the Commission will make.

At the Ecofin meeting earlier this month, I also called on Member States to fulfil their responsibility to provide annual summaries of audit and declarations by 15 February 2008. That was the deal we reached with Parliament and the Council when adopting the revised Financial Regulation.

The annual summary has to be more than just another reporting exercise without added value. It must provide real analytical information for the Commission to use in giving assurance to the Court and Parliament about the state of controls in each Member State.

The 2006 discharge hearing that the Committee on Budgetary Control has organised for 18 December 2007 for the main Structural Fund Commissioners will be attended by representatives of the national budgetary control committees. The Commission welcomes that innovation and hopes it will help mobilise commitment at national level to improve the management of EU funds.

We need to follow a policy of warn, solve or suspend. The Commission has stated its intention to suspend Structural Fund payments where the Commission cannot obtain the necessary assurance that Member State systems are working well. That may lead the Commission to take a few unpopular decisions, but it has reached the conclusion that progress will be too slow if we do not display a sense of urgency.

Before concluding, let me say a few words about how the media covered this year’s report. Over the last two weeks, the Commission has been asked by journalists to comment on two main points. First, it has been asked to comment on the Court’s findings that golf clubs and other bodies not formally associated with farming received EU subsidies last year. An otherwise serious newspaper ran the headline ‘EU aid for poor misspent on golf clubs’. It managed to get three facts wrong in only eight words. Let me clarify. Firstly, farm subsidies are not aid for the poor; secondly, the aid in question was not spent on golf clubs, but as subsidies for eligible agricultural activities – in these cases on adjoining land owned by different owners. It follows that, thirdly, the money was not misspent, but was in fact both legal and regular expenditure, which the Court is not questioning. Rather, the Court has drawn attention to a policy issue and to the end result of an agreed policy: the introduction of the single-payment scheme.

We welcome such discussions and, as honourable Members will be aware, this Commission has worked hard to achieve full transparency on the beneficiaries of EU funds, which it believes is leading to better-informed policy discussions, such as the common agricultural policy health checks launched by my colleague, Marian Fischer Boel, earlier this month.

The same approach lies behind the Commission’s initiative of sending the supreme audit institutions in all Member States a complete list of all the payments made to recipients in that Member State.

Regrettably, in some media reports, this golf club issue has entirely overshadowed the Court’s statement that agriculture is an area in which the Commission and the Member States have made most progress, and for which the Court came very close to giving an overall green light. That is why I felt a need to clarify this today.

The second issue is that 12% of Structural Funds, according to the Court, should not have been reimbursed. Most journalists have picked up on the Court seeing this as a problem when almost EUR 4 billion was paid out last year. This point also needs explaining. There is no clear picture as to whether the funds were lost or stolen, and whether the errors are systemic or one-off errors. It therefore falls to the Commission to explain the 12%. In this speech I have given some explanations, and pointed to some of the problems we face and the action we intend to take.

My colleagues, Commissioners Hübner and Špidla, will elaborate further in their Committee on Budgetary Control hearings next month.

As a final remark, I wish to stress that, despite some of the media coverage, we believe the Court report does in fact help us to focus on the real issues. The Commission is working hard to ensure that improvements are made on these key points.

  José Javier Pomés Ruiz, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (ES) Mr President, Hans-Gert Pöttering, I am pleased that you are attending this debate, underlining the importance which the Parliament attaches to the auditing of its accounts, and that Vice-President Kallas and President Weber are also here, but where is the Council? Where is the speaker who can tell us what the Council is doing with all the suggestions and comments that the President of the Court of Auditors, Vice-President Kallas and I myself have been putting to the Council?

Thank you, Mr President, for attending this debate.

(Applause from certain quarters)

I would like to begin by thanking the Court of Auditors for its excellent work, especially chapter 2 of its report, which is very well presented. You are getting better at this job all the time and are helping not only the Parliament, but also the man in the street, to realise what it costs to run the European Union.

Farmers should be congratulated because now that we are reducing direct payments to them they have managed to improve their management of the money they receive significantly.

However, such praise cannot be heaped on structural funds. It is now three years since this Parliament said that the Council, the great absentee, should be involved in order to account for how it spends the greater part of the budget which it controls. One thing is clear: it is now obligatory, under the new Financial Regulation, for Member States to submit their summary national management declarations. It is not an option, it is mandatory. They have to do this before mid-February next year; and as we know – and here we agree with Mr Kallas – the Member States are unwilling to do so: it seems as though they are not required to present accounts. If they have an obligation, they should be the first ones to set an example. You said that only six Member States are accounting for how they recover funds. That is scandalous, it deserves a headline: only six Member States are telling us what they are doing about recovering funds which they have misused. That really is a scandal.

To sum up, I would like to tell you that this Parliament will continue its work; may you continue with yours. You and Mr Kallas have our full support in continuing to strive towards the goal of a positive DAS, and we take our share of the blame for all those particularly burdensome procedures; we are to blame there because sometimes we ask for the impossible. We offer our collaboration in order to simplify procedures as far as possible.

Thank you, Mr Weber, for your magnificent report.

  Herbert Bösch, on behalf of the PSE Group. – Mr President, the situation as regards the Union’s financial management is mixed. I welcome the efforts made by the Commission as regards agriculture. The Court reports a marked overall reduction in errors in agricultural expenditure. That should be welcomed as a major success.

On the other hand, there is little positive said about the Structural Funds. The Court is of the opinion that control systems in the Member States are generally ineffective or moderately effective. That is why Parliament’s call for national management declarations as an instrument to improve national accountability is more relevant than ever.

I am also very disappointed that the internal control system within the Commission is still not all it should be, seven years after the reform. There are significant weaknesses, and I welcome the Court’s solid analysis in chapter two of its annual report.

Let us look to the future. The Court has proposed interinstitutional discussions on the concept of ‘tolerable risk of error’. I welcome that initiative. Parliament and the Commission have already, in different ways, given some follow-up to this proposal. When will the Council – which is not present today – give its view on this?

The Reform Treaty states that: ‘The regulations shall lay down the control and audit obligations of the Member States in the implementation of the budget and the resulting responsibilities.’ Parliament will carefully follow the implementation of that new rule.

As regards the Union’s audit arrangements, I am not going to repeat what I said in Luxembourg on 18 October 2007. I just want to stress that Parliament is very interested in the outcome of the ongoing peer review at the Court. I congratulate Mr Weber, and in particular Mr Engwirda, for having been able to start that exercise.

  Jan Mulder, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (NL) Mr President, I would like to start by thanking the Court of Auditors for its new system of reporting to the European Parliament. For years we have been asking whether the errors in the various chapters might not be quantified rather precisely. For years the Court said that it was not possible and now, happily, we see for the first time that the Court of Auditors too can change its mind; it now uses a ‘traffic light’ system of reporting – red, yellow and green. We welcome that very much and hope that in years to come the system will be refined further so that we can see where things have been improved. On the matter of improvements – Mr Kallas has made the point already – the Commission can of course be proud, because three years ago only 6% of expenditure was deemed to have been legal. Now the figure is 40% and the Commission came close to giving agriculture the green light. That is progress. The big question is, does the man in the street think enough progress has been made? Well, I can tell you, the answer is no. It beggars belief that the Statement of Assurance still is not positive after so many years, and it is a reason for great concern.

An even greater problem is the Structural Funds; 12% is of course far too high. It would be good if in future reports the Court of Auditors could explain exactly where this 12% comes from. From incorrect form-filling? Are these real errors? When I hear, out in the field, how hard it is to obtain money from the Structural Funds, I find it scarcely credible that the controls are not adequate, because more and more I am hearing people say ‘someone else can have my share – it is far too complicated being involved with the Funds’. At least that is what I am hearing in some of the Dutch provinces.

Now as we start the discharge procedure for the Commission, I think what matters most is this: what has the Commission done in response to Parliament’s earlier recommendations in its resolutions on discharge? Because does the Treaty not say that the Commission must take all appropriate steps to act on these discharge resolutions as far as possible? To my mind there are two things in them that need to be spelled out more clearly – not just in a resolution but in the Treaty too in the section on the multiannual budget, regarding the declarations by Member States. Other people have also made reference to this; two Parliament resolutions state that the commissioners must sign off the declarations submitted annually in whatever form by the directors-general. To Parliament this means that the responsibility lies not with the Commission as a collegiate body, but that commissioners are individually responsible for their budgets. I would be glad to hear more about this.

Lastly, the new Treaty says that the Commission and Member States are jointly responsible. In the light of these Member States’ declarations it would be interesting to know how the Commission is preparing to implement the new Treaty now and in the future.

  Bart Staes, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (NL) Mr President, Members of the Court of Auditors, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in 2006 the European budget was about EUR 106 billion. Admittedly, that is only 1% of the gross national product of the 27 Member States, but it is still a tidy sum. It is money coughed up by you and me and all taxpayers and so it has to be subjected to proper scrutiny. That is one of the European Parliament’s core responsibilities. Now for the thirteenth time in a row we see that the Court of Auditors refuses to guarantee the total legality and regularity of this expenditure.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is no minor occurrence. It is cause for some indignation. It is a serious warning to the Commission but also to the Member State governments that they need to do something. Karel Pinxten, the Belgian Member of the Court of Auditors, wrote about it in De Tijd and Echo de la Bourse, saying that if an internal or external auditor of a listed company with assets the size of the EU budget refused to sign off the accounts in this way it would send shockwaves through the financial markets. He is only too right, and we cannot just let this rest.

What are the sticking points? Agriculture, still the most important budget heading, at about EUR 50 billion. The improvement on that is unquestionable, thanks chiefly to operation of the Integrated Administration and Control System. But let us be clear on this, ladies and gentlemen, some Member States, notably Greece, are refusing to be part of the system. So this money is being managed by the Member State administrations and I think we should definitely show Greece the red card here. We should repeat our call for the payment of agricultural monies to Greece to be suspended until such time as Greece comes into line.

The second problem concerning agriculture is the payment – Mr Weber alluded to it and Mr Kallas picked up on it – of agriculture monies to golf clubs, railway companies, stud farms and landowners who are manifestly not real farmers and are pocketing money from the agriculture budget. And these are usually members of the aristocracy or royalty. There is a little game of ‘oh yes it is, oh no it isn’t’ going on here: Mr Weber says it is true, Mr Kallas says it is not. The European Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control held a hearing at which Mrs Fischer Boel, the Agriculture Commissioner, said that all this was an exaggeration and played down the whole thing. I would now like to hear Mr Kallas and Mr Weber giving us answers as to the truth of the matter. Can the Court of Auditors substantiate its claims? Does it stand by them?

The second large budget heading is still the Structural Funds. Twelve per cent of these monies ought not really to have been paid, according to the Court of Auditors’ report. That is not good enough. We have to do something about that. Hence our call to Member States, to the Member State governments, Mr President, because part of the responsibility is theirs. 80% of the European funds is managed by them. So I repeat here the insistence of Parliament, of the plenary, that they must sign a declaration to the effect that European monies have been properly spent, and so fulfil their political responsibilities. Denmark, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom have done so. Where are the other Member State governments? Where is Belgium, France, Germany? Should they not also discharge their political responsibilities?

  Esko Seppänen, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (FI) Mr President, Commissioner, once again it is that time of the year when the Court of Auditors gives a negative opinion on the legality and relevance of the previous year’s expenditure. In the spring it will be time for Parliament to grant discharge in respect of the parties concerned, despite the negative report. At least that has been the practice in recent years, except for one year when there was an election.

I would like to draw your attention to Diagrams V and VI in the Annex to the Court of Auditors’ report, which are for calculating Member States’ net contributions. Member States’ tariffs, including those charged on goods shipped to other Member States, have been included under traditional own resources. This gives a misleading picture of the actual net contribution made by some Member States, particularly the Netherlands and Belgium, especially when the unreasonably large 25% tariff commission is taken into account.

It is also hard to accept a method of calculation, which apparently originates with the Commission, which does not include administrative expenditure in the Union’s expenditure in this context. The audit numbers purely and simply do not tell the whole truth on the use of resources, therefore: they also comprise political elements. It is a positive sign that the country which has not applied the monitoring and administration system for agricultural expenditure properly is mentioned by name, i.e. Greece. The examples of the misuse of agricultural payments the President of the Court of Auditors cited in his presentation speech need to be corrected. The problems were not just about golf clubs, Commissioner Kallas.

A good example of the positive influence the auditors’ recommendations has had is the attention given to the remuneration paid to Members’ assistants. The revised rules are plainly far too strict, but better that than permitting neglect.

(Applause)

  Nils Lundgren, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – (SV) Mr President, so for the thirteenth year running the Court of Auditors has rejected the implementation of the EU budget. Why has that happened? Are the politicians, bureaucrats and citizens of the EU notorious fraudsters? Of course not! The problem is that the EU wants to regulate in detail what happens in a region with 23 countries and half a billion inhabitants. It is this that opens the door to fraud, abuse and error. The entire organisation needs to be reformed from the bottom up. There are two ways to go.

Firstly, we must move from perverse detailed regulation to systems in which poor Member States get aid without detailed stipulations on how it is to be used. Secondly, we must ensure that the guilty are identified. This in turn requires maximum transparency, that whistleblowers should be treated as heroes, not traitors, and that journalists should be welcome to scrutinise the EU’s stewardship. None of these three requirements are in fact met. A relevant example is the fate of journalist Hans-Martin Tillack. He detected fraud in Eurostat but was himself charged with offences by OLAF. He lost his case in the Belgian court system and in the European Court of Justice, but now he has been cleared by the European Court of Human Rights. The EU’s role in this sad story shows how far we have to go if we want to change its nature as a bureaucratic establishment. Is there the will to do that? I doubt it.

  Hans-Peter Martin (NI). – (DE) Mr despotic President, the rule of law, democracy and control based on the principle of equality would be a bulwark against despotism, yet these are the very things that are lacking here.

This annual report from the European Court of Auditors may, however, be of some help and may yet put some things right. Once again I refer specifically to the facts which, under your responsibility, Mr Weber, have thankfully been placed on record at long last in points 10.9 to 10.12 inclusive. They are a slap on the wrist for the European Parliament. In that part of its report the Court observes that Parliament’s control of Members’ expenditure is extremely inadequate and sets out a catalogue of omissions. What are the practical implications? It means, Mr President, Mr Secretary-General of this House, that undesirable individuals are singled out, Mr Herbert Bösch, that a cowardly report is made to OLAF and then, after years of investigation, it emerges that there was nothing at all – no fraud, absolutely nothing. But here, where there really was something to be found – and you said yourself, Mr Weber, that only 22% of all expenditure was properly processed – nobody looked. And that is despotic behaviour.

People in this House, including the President and the Secretary-General, Mr Rømer, know that at least EUR 80 million in Members’ expenditure is not covered by the proper supporting documentation. Why is that not investigated? Why are appropriate steps not taken? Why are various deadlines continually extended? The things that are happening here – and let me reiterate my thanks to the Court of Auditors for putting their finger on them – lead to a despotic system and to this body here that cannot seriously be described as a parliament. And then those who are responsible take to their heels. This cannot go on.

I make the following appeal to Parliament and to you in the Court of Auditors: please investigate these cases in detail and find a solution. It is a fact that a great deal of real fraud lies below the surface.

  Herbert Bösch (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, I have learned to put up with a lot from Mr Martin in this House, but I must protest against the description ‘cowardly report’. I would be very grateful if the record could be put straight on this point, for I believe Mr Martin is the last one who has the right to make such accusations.

  Alexander Stubb (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I was going to end my speech by saying that the discharge report provides a wonderful source for anti-European propaganda, but since that is what Mr Hans-Peter Martin has just said I will instead start by saying it, and that I am glad Mr Bösch intervened.

I would like to make three points. The first is a general point, which is to congratulate the Court of Auditors on its report. Since it is a better report than last year’s report we should also congratulate the Commission. I like the system of traffic lights. For simple MEPs like myself it gives quite a good picture of what is going well and what is not going well. Nevertheless, we in the European Parliament, as always, have three possibilities. The first is to approve and give discharge to the Commission, the second is to delay, and the third is to reject. We must bear that in mind at the start of every debate.

My second point concerns the policies, and firstly the common agricultural policy (CAP). My congratulations on that. The only problem there seems to be with Greece, as many have noted. The golf course problem, as has already been said, is not really a problem. It has been over-exaggerated by the media. I am not saying this solely because I used to play for the Finnish national golf team, and have no direct vested interest!

The other area is structural policies, where there is an estimated 12% error. That can be improved upon. There are also the so-called ‘RALs’ or restes à liquider, which amount to EUR 130 billion. The Commission must work hard on that area.

My third and final point is that the discharge procedure provides an easy target for anti-EU propaganda, as we have just witnessed, and also that there is indeed some bad news in this report, which is that not everything is in order and that there is room for improvement. However, the good news is that there has already been improvement. We have reliable accounts and we have achieved improvements on the CAP. Also, the Commission should be congratulated for getting a green light on its administration.

I would therefore call for a critical, but constructive, debate on the discharge procedure with the distant hope of there being a positive DAS in 2009.

  Dan Jørgensen (PSE) – (DA) Mr President, I would also like to begin by thanking the Court of Auditors for an excellent report and a good presentation here today. It is clear that it is an incredibly useful instrument in our work to ensure that EU citizens’ money is managed well and in a legitimate and appropriate manner. Unfortunately, the report’s general conclusion is unsatisfactory. It is clear that when it has not been possible to provide a positive audit statement for 13 years in a row, there is cause for deep, deep criticism. Unfortunately, it indicates that there is no control over taxpayers’ money, and unfortunately it indicates that here in Parliament, together with the Commission and the Member States, we have a major task ahead of us. We need to do things better. Things must be done better.

In the Committee on Budgetary Control the annual procedure is now underway – that is, we are consulting the relevant commissioners and thoroughly reviewing the documents that are now available to us. Only when we have completed this process will we be able to say to what extent we can give what is technically known as a ‘discharge’ – in other words, the extent to which we approve the accounts and the implementation of the budgets for 2006. There are some arguments in favour of doing this: there has been progress in some areas. However, unfortunately there are also some very, very serious criticisms, and consequently some very serious arguments against approving the accounts for 2006.

Allow me to begin with the positive aspects. Fortunately, it has been the case that in the agricultural sector things are going very well, as has been mentioned by other Members, and as both the Court of Auditors and Mr Kallas mentioned in their contributions. The system referred to as an ‘integrated financial control system’ has proved to be effective. It must be said that in the areas where it has been implemented there has been good financial control. We can look citizens in the eye and say that the money they have paid in taxes has been managed well and appropriately. In the case of Greece, where this system has not been implemented properly, I believe that the Commission has acted responsibly by saying that it will suspend payments. This is both good and positive. In the research sector too there is good reason to be positive. It is almost a textbook example. Over the last year, we have certainly highlighted some criticisms, which Commissioner Potočnik has subsequently taken into account, and naturally this is the way in which we will work. It is certainly a very good thing we are not here to be populist, as some members would like to be. We are not here to run errands for the EU’s opponents; we are here to highlight the points that are worthy of criticism and come up with good and constructive proposals for solutions.

That said, there are huge problems relating to the Structural Funds. We have not been given an explanation of the 12% that you mentioned, Mr Kallas. It is possible that there is an explanation. We hope that there is. However, we have not received such an explanation. Unfortunately, we can also see that it is of course unsatisfactory that the control systems are being labelled as ineffective in all cases investigated by the Court of Auditors. In addition, we must say that there is also a lack of control in connection with foreign policy concerning the EUR 1 billion that is being used jointly with other institutions in international trust funds. In conclusion, I will say that there has to be some very clear answers. If we are to recommend discharge, there must be some very good explanations.

  Helga Trüpel (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner Kallas, ladies and gentlemen, we Greens commend the work of the Court of Auditors. We need the information it provides, but we regret that many areas of activity have seen no improvement for years, because these findings bring the European Union into disrepute. We have no wish to be fobbed off any longer; what we want is efficiency at long last.

Mr Kallas cut a fairly conciliatory figure today, but when the content of the Court of Auditors’ report became public, he called it too harsh and also attacked the Member States. That was not a wise move on the part of the Commission, for it bears political responsibility, and we expect the Commission to exercise that responsibility and to ensure that improvements finally materialise.

We Greens have serious doubts as to whether we can grant discharge for the 2006 budget, and what we have just heard may well have political consequences for certain Commissioners too. That is why we urge the Commission to change its budgetary practices and start making significant improvements.

  Jeffrey Titford (IND/DEM). – Mr President, we have a baker’s dozen! We have now reached 13 years of unapproved accounts. It is not new auditors that are required, but a new payments system. It never ceases to amaze me how many politicians in this House, and the one in Westminster, are prepared in good conscience not only to continue to tolerate the parlous state of the EU accounts, but to continue to increase the amount of taxpayers’ money given to the EU. As usual, we get the same round of excuses for incompetence and turning a blind eye, the principal one being to put the blame on the Member States, but that just will not wash.

How can the European Commission hand over money to the Member States without seeing paperwork confirming how and where it is spent? I cannot imagine any other professional organisation allowing this to happen, and for so long. If Member States are not prepared to provide the necessary paperwork – i.e. receipts and cheques – then the financial tap should be turned off. In fact, the tap should be turned off at both ends. If the EU is not prepared to put its house in order, then the politicians at Westminster should stop pouring taxpayers’ money into the EU bucket, which still seems to have more holes than a colander!

  Jana Bobošíková (NI). – (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, we have already tolerated a highly alarming and unacceptable situation for 13 years. The Commission and the Member States manage taxpayers’ money badly and illegally. The European Court of Auditors’ Report clearly shows that the Commission and the Member States proceed negligently and are not thoroughly familiar with the rules of budgetary expenditure.

Now there are also suspicions of attempts to misuse money from the Union’s budget. Completely contrary to Commission regulations and the laws of individual states, public tender procedures are not carried out, claims are made for payment of ineligible expenditure, recipients are unable to support the legitimacy of overheads or staff costs, while controls are also faltering.

Ladies and gentlemen, if the citizens whose money we are so shamelessly squandering managed their own firms and households like this, the European Union would be full of socially excluded, homeless people. Now I am asking the Commission and the Council to pull themselves together and start to regard taxpayers’ money as if it were their own. This is the only way we can strengthen trust in the European integration process.

  Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Mr Weber, ladies and gentlemen, reports from audit offices are always interesting and important. That applies especially to Europe, for the prudent and efficient use of European funds is always the subject of particularly close public attention.

The report rightly focuses most sharply on the use of funds in the Member States. A great deal certainly remains to be done there with regard to the structural funds in particular. This, however, should not take our eyes off the expenditure practice of our own institutions, especially the Commission and the Council. It is in the realm of directly managed expenditure that there is most room for improvement on the part of the Commission. The Commission, in short, is not only the guardian of the treaties; it must also be a paragon of sound financial management. When I look at the shift in agricultural policy, beginning with subsidies and extending to the promotion of landscape conservation, I do wonder whether the aim here is perhaps to subsidise equestrian-sports clubs and golf clubs. Such an aim is out of tune with the real purpose of agricultural support.

Buildings policy continues to give the Court of Auditors plenty to think about, whether it be the extension to the seat of the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg or the Council and Parliament buildings in Brussels. The Court of Justice rightly pursues a consistent approach of exposing uncomfortable truths, particularly in cases where tendering procedures have been flawed or non-existent. It surely cannot be right that the Court of Justice has to foot the bill but is not involved in formulating the contract and putting it out to tender.

Let me take this opportunity in passing to remind the Commission of its answer to my written question of 2 August on this matter. It simply creates a bad general impression if the local authority of every little municipality in the EU has to issue an EU-wide call for tenders before it can award any contract worth more than EUR 200 000, whereas the European institutions themselves can casually dispense with tendering procedures for contracts worth millions. Our citizens cannot understand that.

I would also like to address the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, for each of them must also present the report we have requested. May I also ask the Council to ensure that increases in operational expenditure on the common foreign and security policy are not slipped in under the heading of administrative expenditure.

  Paulo Casaca (PSE). – (PT) Mr President, I would like to begin by congratulating the Court of Auditors, especially its president, Hubert Weber, who is coming to the end of his term of office and with whom we, the Socialists in the Committee on Budgetary Control, have enjoyed excellent cooperation. I want to thank him very much for his work and I especially want to highlight the work the Court has done on many specific issues, such as in helping to clarify European Union policy on export refunds.

I would like to say I am very concerned about the European Union external aid budget. A large proportion of the EUR 5 billion we spent in 2006, around EUR 1 billion, was spent by multilateral funds. In addition to this a lot of other funding was spent by certain international organisations funded by the European Commission – I would like to know on what basis and whether this was authorised, legitimate and transparent. Although we already asked for detailed figures and clarifications last year, the Commission continues to flout the Financial Regulation and has still not provided us with a report on how European money is being spent in many Middle Eastern countries.

At the same time, the European Commission refuses to listen to us when we say that the European Agency for Reconstruction has been an essential mechanism for ensuring the visibility of the European presence in the Western Balkans, ensuring European political leadership and ensuring sound and effective financial management. It now wants to close it down even though it is currently the only available instrument for carrying out work that we believe to be effective in situations that are anything but transparent. This is unacceptable and I would like to say, particularly to Vice-President Kallas, that he cannot simply turn his back on this, and that in the discharge procedure we are going to closely scrutinise everything in this budget, including all the organisations which are not using funds in a transparent way.

  Sylwester Chruszcz (NI). – (PL) Mr President, the auditing and control of EU funds in the Member States is a basic requisite for efficient and transparent management of Community budget resources. The Commission’s latest proposals are worrying, however, since they may seriously affect beneficiaries of EU funds. The Commission wishes to make the procedures stricter and impose penalties for tender irregularities, often without objective reasons.

I am referring to the document entitled ‘Structural Funds: Guidelines on the principles, criteria and indicative scales to be applied by Commission departments in determining financial corrections’. The EU proposal for penalties is particularly threatening to local and regional authorities. We cannot have a situation in which, as Members have already pointed out, the EU funds golf courses in the 15 old Member States while elaborating a system of sanctions and penalties that hit the less developed European countries, including Poland.

  Ingeborg Grässle (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, President and members of the Court of Auditors, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we wish to convey our sincere appreciation to the Court of Auditors for a better-compiled report, and we ask you to keep pursuing this path. We have not yet reached the bounds of the possible, for the more comprehensible your reports are, the more they help us and the more they help the Commission to act on all your findings. So please continue along these lines. We are very satisfied with what we have received so far.

We also congratulate the Commission. What has been achieved in the realm of agriculture is truly a milestone, and it shows that years of hard work do actually yield improvements.

Now we come to the structural funds. The fact is that we have to get things right in this area too and at least come close to the standard achieved in agriculture. We are prepared to engage in the necessary discussions. We are not seeking the impossible. That is why we speak of a tolerable risk. We are aware of the Commission’s problems, but we are also aware that the only way for us to progress is by supporting the Commission. You therefore have the support of this Parliament and its Committee on Budgetary Control, Commissioner Kallas, for the structural-fund guidelines. We warmly encourage you to make tangible progress in this matter. We must move forward.

Sadly, we have no one from the Council to address. We shall, however, take the Council to task on the next best occasion. We cannot go on like this. We cannot meet here next year and draw the same conclusions. We have been making ourselves a laughing stock for long enough.

Lastly, a few words on the parliamentary budget: what the Members of Parliament expect of others, they naturally demand of themselves too. I wish to thank the Court of Auditors for enabling us to carry forward the parliamentary budget for 2006 as far as the Members’ assistance allowance is concerned. In the meantime, the problem of supporting documents for the assistance allowance that was noted in 2006 has been regulated and resolved for all but six Members. That is a message, President Pöttering, that we must also convey to European taxpayers. We have an interest in resolving the old cases and shall do so together with the parliamentary administration. We shall find a solution, and the solution will be no different from what we expect of others.

  Francesco Musotto (PPE-DE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should first like to highlight the very positive attitude and valuable work of the Court of Auditors and in particular to draw attention to the figures which we have received as regards the 2006 annual report.

There is an improvement in the use of Community funds. This year, the Court has positively assessed the way in which 40% of funds have been spent, in comparison with 30% last year. The positive development of which we can be sure, even though funds are far from being fully used, is that progress is being made every year. Years ago the Court gave the green light to only 6% of total expenditure.

It is therefore interesting to note that most of the problems encountered are largely to do with irregularities rather than fraud. The most frequent types of errors are missing documents, failure to respect eligibility criteria, inaccurate declarations and failure to comply with procedures. Complying with the formalities is obviously a problem.

The new Financial Regulation is a step forward towards simpler and more transparent governance. Mandatory disclosure in respect of funds administered directly by national and regional authorities, which account for some 80% of the Community budget, is of particular importance.

Much remains to be done to streamline the formalities with a view to simplifying the provisions governing the release of funds. That would make it possible substantially to reduce irregularities, especially on the part of small beneficiaries, many of whom lack the facilities required to carry out the necessary procedures.

Lastly, a key point of the European financial control system continues to be the issue of recoveries. If recovery work is to be made easier, more detailed information and data need to be made available to the Court of Auditors, Parliament and the Commission and more binding legislative instruments, such as guarantee and performance bond systems, need to be introduced.

Although the results set out in the annual report of the Court of Auditors show some improvement, I would conclude by saying that simplifying procedures and improving cooperation by states during the control stage continue to be major challenges.

IN THE CHAIR: MR MARTÍNEZ MARTÍNEZ
Vice-President

  Richard James Ashworth (PPE-DE). – Mr President, firstly I want to thank Mr Weber and the Court of Auditors for the report they have produced this year, which I have read with great interest. I have often made the point that it is regrettable that the auditors do not adequately name and shame in the areas where improvement is urgently needed. If they were to do that, it would give the Members of this House the information they need to more accurately direct their efforts towards achieving a positive déclaration d’assurance, or ‘DAS’.

Despite this, it is perfectly clear that by far the largest single issue to be tackled is the fact that 80% or more of the transactions of the European Union are carried out under joint management agreements within the Member States, and usually by agencies. By this I do not mean the fact that 80% are carried out by agencies, but the fact that those agencies have a distinct lack of accountability for the monies which they handle on behalf of the European Union. It is to the great credit of the Committee on Budgets and the Committee on Budgetary Control that they recognised this weakness and forced the inclusion of Article 44 of the Interinstitutional Agreement in 2006. That article, I would remind you, made it a requirement for the Member States to submit self-certification for the monies and transactions they have handled.

That was a positive step, but, to date, little, if any, real progress has been made towards meeting that goal. It is therefore reasonable to assume that, even if progress is made right now, it will be something like 2012 before we have any chance of achieving a positive DAS, making it 18 years that we have failed to get a positive DAS.

The Council and the Commission have to understand that this is not acceptable. They have to understand that this annual failure to achieve a positive DAS is extremely damaging to this House. The time is coming for the elected Members of this House to exert more pressure on both the Council and the Commission to attach greater urgency to this essential task. I, for one, have never voted for discharge of the accounts. I will continue to refuse to do so until I see more urgency being attached by both the Council and the Commission.

  Hubert Weber, President of the Court of Auditors. − (DE) Mr President, allow me first of all to offer my sincere thanks for the many kind words that have been spoken about the Court of Auditors, its report and its presentation. I attach great importance to these comments, and I shall gladly pass them on in Luxembourg. I believe they will also be a very strong motivating factor for our staff. I was also pleased by the very frequent references to the new beneficiaries of the common agricultural policy. Nevertheless, I think I have the opportunity to put some things straight, as indeed Mr Staes directly asked me to do.

I must begin with a little background information. The single-payment system is essentially something that was welcomed from the outset by the Court of Auditors. It simplifies matters considerably, and we are seeing the effects of that. In conjunction with IACS, it has resulted in a sharp reduction in the frequency of errors. But whenever new rules are created, of course, there is always the possibility that they will not be observed. We should also look at this whole area and not focus exclusively on a single phenomenon, such as non-compliance with the ten-months rule and the resulting heavy financial losses.

We must also bear in mind, of course, that the rules have been formulated very broadly and that a great deal is left to the Member States’ discretion. That has given rise to certain phenomena. To be sure, there are what have been termed the side-effects, which may have less serious financial implications but which have perhaps attracted more public attention. It must also be noted that the general concept of agricultural activity has been very broadly defined. It is sufficient today to manage an area of land in accordance with good agricultural and environmental practice. It is enough simply to mow the lawn and claim a subsidy. We seek to highlight that point in order to query it. We have a total of 700 cases, and so I cannot say at the present time whether all of these cases are legally relevant, for each of them will have to be examined on its merits. It goes without saying that, if the support received by a golf club also covered the area of the golf course itself, such a situation would certainly not be lawful. As I said, however, we must deal with these things on a case-by-case basis, and the Commission is invited to do likewise.

I also pointed out, however, that there were other effects to consider. The introduction of a dynamic model means that a redistribution will take place from land managers – farmers – to landlords. I am very pleased that we have also been called upon to comment on the implications of policies.

  Siim Kallas, Vice-President of the Commission. − Mr President, I wish to thank the honourable Members for their comments. The main issue, which is that of better governance of the Structural Funds, will be discussed in detail during the hearings in the Committee on Budgetary Control on 18 December. These will be followed by extensive hearings concerning overall governance and internal control systems in January.

Thank you again for your comments. The Commission will be ready to answer all your questions in more detail during the hearings.

  President. − That concludes this item.

Written statements (Rule 142)

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE-DE), in writing. – I welcome the European Court of Auditors' 2006 Annual Report as it identifies welcome improvements, particularly in relation to agricultural spending. Where errors are identified these mainly relate to weaknesses in internal control systems both in the Member States and in the Commission.

Positive developments in agriculture spending underlines the effectiveness of the integrated administrative and control system IACS and the simplification of claim and payment procedures in the newly introduced Single Payment Scheme.

For agriculture as a whole - €49.8 billion in 2006 - the Court found a marked reduction in the estimated overall level of error.

The Court notes that the Single Payment Scheme has side effects, such as the allocation of entitlements to landowners who never exercised previous agricultural activity, leading to a substantial redistribution of EU aid away from farmers to landlords.

I do not accept this broad statement - as in the single farm payment is paid to active producers NOT landowners.

For the court to say that golf clubs are getting the single farm payment is erroneous. If they are, they should not be, as the payments can only be made to active producers, who farm and keep land in good agricultural condition. Golf courses do not qualify

4. Appointment of 7 members of the Court of Auditors (debate)

  President. − The next item is the joint debate of seven reports from Mrs Ayala Sender, of the Committee on Budgetary Control, on the proposed nomination of David Bostock, Michel Cretin, Maarten B. Engwirda, Henri Grethen, Harald Noack, Ioannis Sarmas and Hubert Weber as Members of the Court of Auditors.

  Inés Ayala Sender, rapporteur. − (ES) Mr President, as you all know, the members of the Court of Auditors are nominated by the Council, for a six-year mandate, following consultation with Parliament. It is the Committee on Budgetary Control which is responsible for preparing the opinion of the Parliament.

The Court is currently composed of 27 members, from the Member States of the Union, and we are now preparing to renew the mandate of four candidates: David Bostock, for the United Kingdom; Maarten B. Engwirda, for the Netherlands; Ioannis Sarmas, for Greece; and Hubert Weber, for Austria; and to propose three new members, Michel Cretin, for France; Henri Grethen, for Luxembourg; and Harald Noack, for Germany.

During the procedure in the Committee on Budgetary Control, all candidates were approved but not all of them unanimously. However, we shall see that, subject to a few clarifications, in principle my final proposal is that, if there are no further comments, all these nominations should be approved.

Following the personal interviews of the three new candidates, I would like to emphasise the good showing made by Mr Cretin, the French candidate, who will bring to the Court his considerable experience in international auditing, both in connection with the UN and NATO. The Committee on Budgetary Control considered this experience to be a huge plus.

During the personal interviews of the four Members whose mandate is up for renewal, the most important topic was their opinion on the self-assessment process embarked upon by the Court of Auditors, which is due to terminate at the end of 2008, as well as the contribution of each candidate to the current debate about the need to reform the way in which the Court is organised, especially since enlargement, given that it currently has a Board of 27 members, and also with a view to enhancing its effectiveness and modernisation.

In this context, I would like to say that Mr Sarmas was particularly impressive and he was supported unanimously by the Committee, I imagine because he was particularly cooperative during the approval process.

On the other hand, the understanding reached between Mr Engwirda and the Government of the Netherlands was not entirely transparent and this aroused some suspicions in the Committee.

As for Mr Weber, currently President of the Court of Auditors, I would like to clear up one point, before the vote, which is of particular concern to me and which arose after the confirmation hearing in the Committee on Budgetary Control, and so I think that this forum offers an excellent opportunity to clarify it.

Mr President, with this in mind, I would like to ask you to allow Mr Weber to speak when I have finished in order to clarify the following matter.

On 13 November 2007, following the presentation of the Annual Report of the Court of which Mr Weber is President, various statements were made on BBC News by a former Commission chief accountant claiming that 80% of the Community budget was still suspect. Immediately following this was a quote from Mr Weber, saying that that analysis constituted the more orthodox approach but that the quite different statement by Mr Kallas was also valid.

I would like to hear the truth and for Mr Weber to confirm whether these statements are his and, if not, I would like him to publish a denial and to send a copy to this House, so as to prevent the damage caused to public opinion by this type of contradiction, amongst the general public.

Returning to the content of my report, I would like to register my frustration at the fact that the Council – whose absence at this sitting, I repeat, is regrettable – has once again ignored the criteria laid down by Parliament in its resolution of 1992, with a view to achieving greater transparency.

Basically, the Council has ignored, in two cases, the recommendation not to exceed two mandates, in other words 12 years’ service, at the Court of Auditors. Worse, however, is its disregard of the recommendation of this Parliament about the need to strike a better balance at the Court between men and women. Whereas to date there are 5 women out of a total of 27 Members, it is now proposed that they be reduced to four. In this connection I feel once and for all that the Council should adopt special measures.

In this connection too we demand that the Council recognise that good relations between Parliament and the Court of Auditors are essential if the control system is to function properly. We should therefore receive the Council proposal, with its proposed nominations, in due time and be able to cooperate more closely with Members in the period prior to the decision.

Even more importantly, we would remind the Council of the need to respect the opinion of the European Parliament in order to avoid a repetition of what happened in 2004, following a negative opinion in respect of one of its proposed Members which was totally ignored by the Council.

With the future of the Court in mind, I would like to mention the concern, widely felt among Members of the European Parliament, about the efficacy of such an important body when it is governed by a Board of up to 27 members. We therefore await with some impatience the conclusion of the Court’s self-assessment exercise and in fact in my report I recommend that the Parliament should study it carefully at the end of 2008 when it is submitted, and that it should take up a position on the various options.

Meanwhile, however, improvements can be made and so I invite the Court of Auditors to use all means at its disposal to rationalise and simplify its work, in particular by using the options available under the current Treaty: for example the possibility of adopting reports by a majority and not always by consensus, and also the possibility of establishing panels, responsible for specific reports which do not therefore have to be processed by the entire Board.

Accordingly I recommend that, in adopting the proposal to approve the nominations of Members, with the provisos mentioned, the Parliament should express the wish that, at any rate, we should receive clarification on what I proposed previously.

  President. − Thank you, Mrs Ayala. As Mr Weber is not in the room, I hope that your appeal will be relayed to him by one of his colleagues so that Mr Weber can answer your concerns.

  Petya Stavreva , on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (BG) Today we are going to vote the nominations for seven new members of the Court of Auditors. The European Parliament and the MEPs have always attached great importance to this institution. Being a MEP from Bulgaria and a representative of a new Member State, I find the proper functioning of the Court of Auditors and its effective cooperation with the MEPs to be of great importance for the financial health of the whole European Union.

In the course of the hearings of the nominees at the Budgetary Control Committee, we had the opportunity to see their professional competences, their personal knowledge and their individual motivation. Of course, we could only regret the fact that there was no woman or young person among the nominees but the European Parliament has no powers over the Member States and the selection they make at the national level.

Our responsibility as MEPs is to assess the nominations and I believe that those we have heard at the Budgetary Control Committee are worthy of being elected to the Court of Auditors. The majority, which the seven nominations carried during the Committee voting, is a testimony to the high appreciation we gave to each of these nominees. Their political and professional independence was among the fundamental criteria that guided our assessment of the nominations. The Group of EPP-ED in the European Parliament will support all nominations in its expectations for good and fruitful cooperation with the members of the European Court of Auditors.

  Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I welcome the proposals for the appointment of seven members of the Court of Auditors and can only reiterate how important the work of the Court of Auditors is in protecting the financial interests of the EU and the Member States. The Court of Auditors plays a key role in the pursuit of this aim and has established an excellent reputation. It performs its task fearlessly, fairly, professionally and independently, but of course it always has to rely on individuals, for it is people who make any institution tick. And since its members are proposed by the Member States, it is actually to the latter that my remarks are primarily addressed.

On considering these nominees, some might object to their relatively high ages. For these particular positions, however, I regard personal and professional experience as crucial factors, and auditors simply do not possess these attributes in sufficient measure at the age of 25, 30 or 35. The more warranted criticism, in my view, relates to the percentage of women, which is very low. The quality of candidates, however, must also take precedence over their sex. I attach great importance to the development of team spirit and esprit de corps and to the quest for close ties with national audit offices. There should be cooperation, but not dependence.

As you know, the question whether the Court of Auditors has too many members has been hotly debated in recent times. The decision has now been taken by virtue of the Reform Treaty. There remains some concern – and it is a legitimate concern – as to whether a Court with 27 members can still operate at maximum efficiency. The number and the profile of the members must be right. Above all, particularly in this domain, professional competence must not be subordinated to political considerations. Thinking ahead to future restructuring plans, which there will surely be, I would like to cite the example of the Federal Audit Office in the country I come from, which has a large number of members – I believe there are more than 50 – but in which each member heads a department and is fully involved in audit operations as well as enjoying full judicial independence.

Whatever the future holds for the Federal Audit Office, it is and will remain our main ally in the task of budgetary scrutiny.

  President. − I think we should ask whether Mr Weber would like to say a few words to comment on or react to the appeal made by the rapporteur for this debate, Mrs Ayala.

Mr Weber, would you like to say a few words?

  Hubert Weber, President of the Court of Auditors. − (DE) Mr President, I had already left the chamber when this question was asked. Needless to say, I should like to clarify the matter. It was alleged that, in a BBC interview, I had sided with Mrs Andreasen. I can tell you that I certainly did give an interview to the BBC, but the name Andreasen was not even mentioned in it. Two of my staff who are here can testify to that.

Another particularly important point is that I am supposed to have said that 80% of expenditure had got the red light, if I may express it in these simple terms. I actually said the exact opposite. The interviewer, who is free, of course, in the way he chooses to present things, asked me whether I had a problem with Mr Kallas’s statement to the effect that 40% of expenditure had been given the green light. I replied that I had no problem with it. I say this to make it clear that there is no difference between Mr Kallas’s perception and my own. One can always argue about percentages. This one might even be higher than 40%, but I must reaffirm that the figure 80 did not pass my lips. I did not make any reference to Mrs Andreasen, because the issue is between the Commission and Mrs Andreasen, and the Court has no wish to interfere in that. Thank you very much for giving me this opportunity to respond.

  President. − Thank you for your clarification, which answers the rapporteur’s concerns. The joint debate is now closed.

The vote will take place this morning at 11 a.m.

5. Law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) (debate)

  President. − The next item is the report (A6-0450/2007) by Mr Dumitrescu, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs, on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome 1).

  Franco Frattini, Member of the Commission. − (FR) Mr President, I am delighted that the negotiations have produced such an excellent outcome. We support the compromise that is currently on the table. If you give your approval, ladies and gentlemen, we will be bringing the curtain down on two years of discussions that have clearly shown just how important this subject is for the European judicial area and the internal market. I would particularly like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Dumitrescu, whose efficient approach has been so helpful in achieving a successful outcome here, and also the shadow rapporteurs from all the political groups.

2007 has, I believe, been an important year for the Community harmonisation of private international law in the field of civil and commercial obligations. The Brussels I Regulation on jurisdiction, which covers both contracts and torts/delicts, will now be supplemented by the Rome II Regulation on the law applicable to torts/delicts, which resulted in the first conciliation procedure in the ‘justice and security’ sector in May this year, and by the Rome I Regulation.

The compromise found for Article 5 represents a step forward for consumers. The article is also compatible with the Brussels I Regulation, under which a consumer may not be prosecuted before courts other than those of his country of residence. I would also confirm that the Commission has undertaken to submit to the co-legislator, as part of the report on the application of the Rome I Regulation, studies on two important issues on which the compromise was unable to harmonise rules at Community level: the assignment of claims and insurance contracts. Here, appropriate measures are to be taken later, if they prove necessary. The general report will also cover Article 5 on consumer contracts, and particularly whether it is consistent with the rules of private international law applicable to consumer contracts. I would point out, however, that the report will not deal with substantive consumer law.

As regards insurance contracts, both the Commission and the Council have felt it necessary to issue a statement spelling out that the inclusion of special rules in the Rome I Regulation must not delay work on the Solvency II proposal. Parliament may also support this statement if it wishes.

To highlight its right of initiative in the area of external competences, the Commission has, as you know, issued a second statement, on recital 16b. I would point out that we intend to propose a horizontal mechanism allowing the Member States to conclude bilateral agreements with third countries in areas where there are Community responsibilities. The Commission has nevertheless accepted recital 16b to avoid preventing agreement at first reading.

Lastly, I would like to point out that we share Parliament’s views on the importance of alternative methods for resolving disputes concerning contracts concluded over the internet. This is why we have actively promoted the development of such methods, through the mediation directive and by setting up a European network to help consumers wishing to bring extra-judicial proceedings in another Member State.

I therefore hope that Parliament will today confirm the agreement negotiated with the Council so as to enable the Council to adopt Parliament’s amendments at its meeting next week on 6 and 7 December 2007.

  Cristian Dumitrescu, rapporteur. − (FR) Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, today we are about to vote on a second private international law instrument, the future regulation on the law applicable to contractual obligations, which is that rare thing in Community law: a document on a purely legal issue.

Despite its technical nature, however, this regulation is hugely relevant for Europe’s citizens. Contractual law lies at the heart of all economic and social life, and in the Single Market contracts increasingly tend to be between actors resident in different Member States. This is why this instrument, which lays down uniform rules on the law applicable, is so important. The solutions ultimately adopted in the amendments we have put before you for the vote are the result of cordial, ambitious and innovative cooperation with the shadow rapporteurs Mr Gauzès, Mrs Wallis and Mrs Frassoni, and with the Portuguese Presidency and the political group coordinators in the Committee on Legal Affairs, Mr Medina Ortega and Mr Lehne. I also owe an enormous debt of gratitude to Mrs Maria Berger, who preceded me as rapporteur.

At the beginning the problems seemed insurmountable, particularly for an MEP from one of the newest Member States. I must point out that in seeking to replace the Rome Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations, the European Commission claimed, perhaps rather naively, to be trying to communitise an existing instrument, whereas it was actually making radical changes. This led to widespread criticism that the Commission had failed in its duty to carry out an impact assessment.

Before I look at Article 5, which was the biggest problem we had to solve, I will briefly describe the main points we have achieved. The crux of this regulation lies not in Article 5, but in Article 3, which sets out the basic principle that the parties are independent, and Article 4, which contains the rules on the law applicable in cases where the parties have not chosen which should apply. The Council has followed the approach adopted by the Legal Affairs Committee here. It has to be said that Parliament and the Council took the lead in this codecision procedure by extending the scope of the future regulation to include insurance and carriage of goods contracts and by clarifying the rules on overriding mandatory provisions and mandatory rules.

Returning now to the contentious question of Article 5, it has to be said that Parliament won an outright victory here, reflecting the close and friendly cooperation between the rapporteur and shadow rapporteurs. The problem was that the Commission proposal departed from the Rome Convention by saying that, apart from certain exceptions, it is the law of the consumer that should apply to contracts between consumers and professionals. The problem with this version of Article 5 proposed by the Commission was that traders, particularly electronic traders, would have had to draw up terms and conditions tailor-made for each EU Member State. This would have been impossible for small and medium-sized businesses, which do not have the same resources as the big multinationals, and the result would have been an enormous barrier for SMEs wanting to conduct e-commerce within the Single Market. The rapporteur is all too aware that SMEs are the driving-force behind Europe’s economy and create jobs and innovation. The smaller Member States were also worried that they would be excluded from the e-commerce market.

The solution adopted in the end was to return to a simplified version of Article 5 of the Rome Convention. The new Article 5 sets out the principle that the law of the consumer should apply, but allows the parties to choose the law applicable. In practice, given that most contracts between consumers and professionals are standard, take-it-or-leave-it contracts, this means that traders will make their law applicable. However, since Article 5 provides that the choice of law is subject to the mandatory rules of the consumer’s country of residence, it offers a solution that is very much in consumers’ favour. The new Article 5 that we are proposing therefore provides a win-win solution in which the consumer is guaranteed maximum protection and SMEs will be free to offer their goods and services on the internet on the basis of contracts governed by their own law.

Lastly, I must draw your attention to a short recital which provides that the Community may, in future, adopt standard terms and conditions for electronic contracts between consumers and professionals. The final major step forward is the inclusion of insurance contracts, which has been the subject of lengthy negotiations between the Member States – Commissioner Frattini referred to this – and the inclusion of contracts for the carriage of goods.

The last thing I absolutely have to mention is that the UK, which had initially decided not to be involved in the adoption of the regulation following its reservations about the Rome Convention, has now apparently decided to take part after all, in the light of the wording produced by the negotiations.

We therefore commend this text to the House. In our view it constitutes a very positive result for consumers and businesses, and is an eloquent demonstration of the highly effective contribution that Parliament can make in the codecision procedure, even on very tricky issues such as this.

The Council President has assured us that if the amendments in the first group on the voting list are adopted, we will have agreement at first reading. That would be an outstanding and unexpected success for Parliament and the Presidency, and as the rapporteur from a new Member State, Romania, I am delighted to have played my small part. As I reach the end of my term of office as a Romanian MEP, I have to say that I am also very proud.

  President. − I would like to take this opportunity, Mr Dumitrescu, to wish you every success and happiness in your pursuits when you eventually leave the seat which you have occupied with such dignity all these months.

  Klaus-Heiner Lehne, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the PPE-DE Group is content with the outcome of this process. This is primarily due to the fact that the rapporteur, by dint of consummate bargaining skill, great patience and dogged persistence, managed to negotiate and seal a compromise which the entire Committee on Legal Affairs was ultimately able to endorse. May I therefore express my very special thanks to our rapporteur.

It was clearly evident from the outcome that patience had been the best policy. Rather than take snap decisions at a single reading, it was right to opt for further negotiations with the Council and the Commission, because this was precisely the sort of matter that lent itself to treatment at one reading with a view to resolving all the complex issues rather than burning the midnight oil two years hence at meetings of the Conciliation Committee, which would have had to discuss the same problems we are examining today.

As I see it, Article 5 is the core of this regulation, and we are delighted that we have managed to alter the substance of Article 5 to reflect the original intention of the Rome Convention, namely to balance the interests of consumers with those of providers. Had the Commission’s proposal been approved, we know that it would have had quite serious repercussions on e-commerce and on small and medium-sized businesses, and this would have impacted adversely on the supply of goods and services to consumers.

We have constantly criticised the fact that the Commission, in spite of the Interinstitutional Agreement of December 2003, has failed to carry out an impact assessment in this case. We confidently assume, however, that this is the last such omission and that the same mistake will not be repeated in future legislative proposals from the Commission.

Lastly, I merely wish to observe that the whole debate about consumer contracts, about the country-of-destination principle and the country-of-origin principle and about the relationship between providers or suppliers and consumers has only reinforced Parliament’s repeated message that, in the long run, we need an optional instrument for the law of contract governing cross-border trade, and we are pleased that this requirement is set out in the recitals of the motion for a resolution before us.

  Manuel Medina Ortega, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (ES) Mr President, I believe that this is a good example of the proper functioning of the European institutions. Despite our institutional complexity, the Parliament, the Commission and the Council are all working well on this matter and I hope that, with a satisfactory vote at this Parliamentary session, we can achieve a resolution at first reading, without any further delay.

I am grateful to Mr Frattini for facilitating the outcome and to the rapporteur for all his hard work in arriving at this agreement.

As has been said more than once, the focus of our discussions here has been Article 5, which relates to the protection of consumer rights. In contractual matters, the consumer is not in a situation of equality; normally he is at a disadvantage. To give a simple example, take a person who has to sign a car rental contract at an airport: the consumer is not able to read the content of the contract, he is unaware of the law to which the contract is subject and, unless he has legal protection he is completely in the hands of the person offering the contract.

This proposal for a regulation aims, without sacrificing the principles governing choice of the applicable law, to secure a system of protection for the consumer and this is now reflected in the formula – suggested by the Council – whereby the choice of law may not entail for the consumer the loss of the protection provided under the inalienable contractual provisions of the law which, in the absence of choice, would have been applicable under paragraph 1.

Generally speaking, the main problem here in the European Union is the lack of harmonisation of substantive law. These formulae applying the law of conflict are merely subsidiary formulae and we hope that the Commission will pursue its legislative drive by proposing texts offering the consumer material protection which is uniform throughout the European Union, thereby removing the need to resort to these complicated conflict-of-law provisions.

  Katalin Lévai (PSE). – (HU) Thank you very much, Mr President. Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this document before us is of great significance from an economic, social and political point of view, and its main objective was to harmonise the content of the Brussels I Regulation and the legislative work connected with Rome II, creating appropriate balance between the two. A good compromise solution has emerged, as we have also heard from the remarks by our fellow Members, and this is indeed due to the fact that there has been exemplary cooperation between the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament. The Union has taken as its objective the creation of an area based on freedom, security and the rule of law, and this requires the compromise solutions we see here, and it signifies serious progress for consumers. A consumer may only be brought for court proceedings in his home country, so this kind of solution for contractual law, which is so important for economic life, points the way forward whatever happens. Thank you very much.

  Andrzej Jan Szejna (PSE). – (PL) Mr President, may I begin by thanking the rapporteur for his contribution to the drafting of a regulation that is so important for the future of the European Union. We must remember that the Rome Convention is the only legal instrument in the field of international private law at Community level that is currently in the form of an international treaty.

The Convention needs amending to take account of the current and future needs of the European Union’s internal market. For that reason too, the proposed regulation is politically highly sensitive, especially in terms of the protection of consumers and the possibilities for small and medium-sized enterprises to offer products and services via the internet.

The report before us strikes a compromise between providing possibilities for consumer protection and facilitating the activities of small and medium-sized enterprises on the EU common market. It also broaches the important issue of the standardisation of clauses in contracts covering transactions conducted via the internet. I agree that the European Commission had to take appropriate action in this field. It has done so, and I welcome the compromise that has been reached. I wish to congratulate the rapporteur once again and to support adoption of the regulation.

  President. − The debate is closed.

The vote will take place at 11 a.m.

(The sitting was suspended at 10.50 a.m. and resumed at 11 a.m.).

IN THE CHAIR: MR ONESTA
Vice-President

6. Approval of Minutes of previous sitting: see Minutes

  Paul Rübig (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, at yesterday’s late-night sitting, Mrs McCarthy had a weapon here in Parliament. I should like to ask who gave permission for a weapon to be brought into the chamber.

  President. – That is a good question. I will refer the matter to the relevant authorities and they will let you know.

7. Voting time

  President. – The next item is the vote.

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

7.1. Electro-medical equipment used in veterinary medicine (vote)

- Report: Arlene McCarthy (A6-0431/2007)

7.2. Units of measurement (vote)

- Report: Arlene McCarthy (A6-0430/2007)

- Before the vote

  Siim Kallas, Vice-President of the Commission. − Mr President, the Commission confirms that it will continue monitoring the developments relating to this Directive and its implementation, and that it will consider, in the light of the results of that monitoring, applying follow-up measures.

7.3. Amendment of Directive 2003/54/EC as regards Estonia (vote)

- Report: Angelika Niebler (A6-0440/2007)

7.4. Agreement between the EC and Egypt on scientific and technological cooperation (vote)

- Report: Angelika Niebler (A6-0429/2007)

7.5. Proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (Financial Regulation) (vote)

- Report: Jo Leinen (A6-0465/2007)

7.6. Macro-financial assistance for Lebanon (vote)

- Report: Kader Arif (A6-0452/2007)

7.7. European supervision order in pre-trial procedures (vote)

- Report: Ioannis Varvitsiotis (A6-0428/2007)

7.8. Combating racism and xenophobia (vote)

- Report: Martine Roure (A6-0444/2007)

- Before the vote

  Martine Roure (PSE). – (FR) Mr President, I would just like to say that the European Parliament has once again demonstrated its maturity and sense of responsibility, and I would point out to the Council, which is not here, that it should follow our example: we have produced a text which has the unanimous approval of practically the whole of our committee, and this is something we can be proud of. My thanks go to all my fellow committee members.

7.9. Treatment of questions referred for a preliminary ruling concerning the area of freedom, security and justice (vote)

- Report: Diana Wallis (A6-0451/2007)

7.10. Immunity and privileges of Renato Brunetta (vote)

- Report: Aloyzas Sakalas (A6-0449/2007)

7.11. Coordination of certain of the Member States' provisions on television broadcasting (vote)

- Report: Ruth Hieronymi (A6-0442/2007)

7.12. Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (implementing powers conferred on the Commission) (vote)

- Report: Françoise Grossetête (A6-0277/2007)

  Siim Kallas, Vice-President of the Commission. − Commission Statement

The Commission is preparing a legislative proposal, which is on its 2008 legislative programme, to amend the Community drug-monitoring system for medicinal products for human use. There will be a radical overhaul of Title IX (‘Pharmacovigilance’) of Directive 2001/83/EC.

In this proposal, the Commission undertakes to propose recourse to the regulatory procedure referred to in Articles 5 and 7 of Decision 1999/468/EC for the adoption of final public-health protection measures in respect of marketing authorisations which may be necessitated as a result of evaluation of pharmacovigilance data (measures provided for in the new proposal to amend or replace the fourth subparagraph of Article 107(2) of Directive 2001/83/EC).

In its future proposals, the Commission also intends to maintain the existing situation whereby, under Article 107, the Commission may request Member States to take temporary measures immediately where urgent action to protect public health is necessary, without recourse to any committee procedure; it will continue recourse to the management procedure referred to in Articles 4 and 7 of Decision 1999/468/EC for the adoption of any other decision of an individual nature in relation to marketing authorisations for medicinal products.

7.13. Amendment of Directive 2004/49/EC on safety on the Community's railways (vote)

- Report: Paolo Costa (A6-0346/2007)

7.14. Amendment of Regulation (EC) No 881/2004 establishing a European Railway Agency (vote)

- Report: Paolo Costa (A6-0350/2007)

7.15. Control of the acquisition and possession of weapons (vote)

- Report: Gisela Kallenbach (A6-0276/2007)

- Before the vote

  Gisela Kallenbach (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I regard it as a remarkable success that this compromise between the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, the Council and the Commission has enabled us to achieve a result at first reading on the sensitive issue of the acquisition and possession of firearms. I would like to express my sincere thanks to everyone involved.

- After the vote

  Arlene McCarthy (PSE). – Mr President, Mr Rübig has accused me twice now of bringing a firearm into the Chamber. I want to clarify that this was agreed to by the security services, and the presidency was aware of it.

Up until this vote it was not a firearm. Now that the House has voted that it is a firearm, I am prepared to hand it over to the authorities!

  President. – I think the only weapon we have here is the strength of our convictions.

7.16. Law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) (vote)

- Report: Cristian Dumitrescu (A6-0450/2007)

- Before the vote on Article 5, Amendment 77

  Cristian Dumitrescu, rapporteur. − (FR) Mr President, I had already asked for the floor, but you called Mrs McCarthy instead, which I quite understand, since it should be ladies first.

Having said that, we are taking a vote, and I would ask you to start with Article 5 and Amendment 77.

I propose that we should reject the GUE Group’s amendment so that we can vote on a package from the compromise we reached with all the other political groups. In this way, thanks to the Council’s and Commission’s decision, we can hope to have approval at first reading. Thank you.

  President. – That is absolutely fine, Mr Dimitrescu, since that is exactly what I was going to suggest.

7.17. Genetically modified food and feed (implementing powers conferred on the Commission) (vote)

- Report: Karin Scheele (A6-0299/2007)

7.18. Regulations governing political parties at European level and the rules regarding their funding (vote)

- Report: Jo Leinen (A6-0412/2007)

- Before the vote

  Jo Leinen, rapporteur. − (DE) Mr President, thanks to the truly effective and committed way in which the Portuguese Presidency has conducted the negotiations on this difficult issue, we are able to adopt this resolution today at first reading. All of the compromise amendments are in Block 1, which means that all other amendments fall.

This regulation will finally enable European political parties to take part in European elections. That might be considered perfectly normal, but it was not normal before. My hope is that this new regulation really will enable the ten families of political parties to inject fresh dynamism into the next European elections in 2009. Thank you to everyone who has been working with me on this legislation.

(Applause)

7.19. Residue levels of pesticides in or on food and feed (implementing powers conferred on the Commission) (vote)

- Report: Robert Sturdy (A6-0342/2007)

- Before the vote

  Siim Kallas, Vice-President of the Commission. − Mr President, the Commission wishes to thank the European Parliament for its constructive support and welcomes the good compromise reached. As part of that compromise, the Commission has agreed to make the following statement:

‘The standard time limits for the regulatory procedure with scrutiny are laid down in Article 5a(3) and (4) of Decision 1999/468/EC. Derogation from paragraphs 3 and 4 may be provided in duly substantiated exceptional cases. The objective of curtailment of time limits under the regulatory procedure with scrutiny included in the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 on maximum residue levels of pesticides in or on food and feed as regards the implementing powers conferred on the Commission is to complete the process from application for a maximum residue level to adoption within less than one year. These adaptations are necessary to ensure consistency with the proposed one-year deadline for authorisation of plant protection products included in the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market.

The European Commission will examine the appropriateness of curtailment of time limits under the regulatory procedure with scrutiny after two years’ experience with the authorisation procedure in the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, taking into account experience gained in the application of these procedures in the European Parliament and the Council.’

7.20. Appointment of a Member of the Court of Auditors (David Bostock) (vote)

- Report: Inés Ayala Sender (A6-0439/2007)

7.21. Appointment of a Member of the Court of Auditors (Michel Cretin) (vote)

- Report: Inés Ayala Sender (A6-0438/2007)

7.22. Appointment of a Member of the Court of Auditors (Maarten B. Engwirda) (vote)

- Report: Inés Ayala Sender (A6-0437/2007)

7.23. Appointment of a Member of the Court of Auditors (Henri Grethen) (vote)

- Report: Inés Ayala Sender (A6-0436/2007)

7.24. Appointment of a Member of the Court of Auditors (Harald Noack) (vote)

- Report: Inés Ayala Sender (A6-0435/2007)

7.25. Appointment of a Member of the Court of Auditors (Ioannis Sarmas) (vote)

- Report: Inés Ayala Sender (A6-0434/2007)

7.26. Appointment of a Member of the Court of Auditors ( Hubert Weber) (vote)

- Report: Inés Ayala Sender (A6-0433/2007)

7.27. Proclamation of consensus on humanitarian aid (vote)

- Motion for a resolution B6-0484/2007

7.28. Situation in Georgia (vote)

- Joint motion for a resolution RC-B6-0481/2007

- Before the vote on paragraph 9

  Marie Anne Isler Béguin (Verts/ALE). – (FR) Mr President, in paragraph 9 I would like to replace:

‘welcomes the readiness of the Georgian authorities to allow international observers to monitor the elections’ by ‘welcomes the call of the Georgian authorities for international observers to monitor the elections’.

This makes the text a closer reflection of what is actually happening.

(The oral amendment was accepted)

- Before the vote on Amendment 4

  Vytautas Landsbergis (PPE-DE). – Mr President, at the end of the text proposed for insertion after paragraph 10, which is in the voting list under Amendment 4, the words ‘on Russia’s own approach’ are unspecific. Is that approach good or bad? I therefore propose that this be defined by inserting the single word ‘deplorable’, which would give ‘Russia’s own deplorable approach…’. I would ask Members to support that clarification.

  President. – Mr Landsbergis, can you just clarify whether you are talking about paragraph 10 or Amendment 4?

  Vytautas Landsbergis (PPE-DE). – Mr President, according to the voting list it should come after paragraph 14. It is paragraph 14a, which is Amendment 4 by Mr Gahler and others.

  President. – That is clear now, thank you.

(The oral amendment was accepted)

- Before the vote on recital D

  Marie Anne Isler Béguin (Verts/ALE). – (FR) Mr President, again to make things clearer, I would like to add the word police before security forces, so the text would read:

‘whereas six days of opposition rallies erupted in violence when police security forces’ etc.

(The oral amendment was accepted)

- Before the vote on recital G

  Marie Anne Isler Béguin (Verts/ALE). – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, again for the sake of clarity, and because an inquiry is currently being conducted, I would like to delete the reference to 90 %, so we would delete

‘up to 90%’ and replace it with ‘part’, so it will read ‘with part of the station’s ...’, etc.

(The oral amendment was accepted)

- Before the vote on recital H

  Marie Anne Isler Béguin (Verts/ALE). – (FR) Mr President, the Georgian Constitution contains the terms ‘referendum’ and ‘plebiscite’, which are not the same thing. I therefore propose that we replace the term ‘referendum’ with ‘plebiscite’, to bring this into line with the Georgian Constitution.

(The oral amendment was accepted)

- After the vote on recital J

  Hannes Swoboda (PSE). – Mr President, since there were also social reasons for the recent events, we should at least have a neutral reference to these. My oral amendment would therefore read: ‘whereas Georgia’s economic and social reforms should raise the standard of living of the wider population’.

(The oral amendment was accepted)

7.29. Approval by the European Parliament of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (vote)

- Report: Jo Leinen (A6-0445/2007)

- Before the vote

  Jo Leinen, rapporteur. − (DE) Mr President, with this resolution we are paving the way for the solemn proclamation of the Charter of Fundamental rights by all three institutions in Strasbourg on 12 December.

May I draw your attention to an important amendment, namely Amendment No 3, which I support and which calls on Britain and Poland to redouble their efforts to rethink and reverse their decision to opt out. When it comes to fundamental rights and freedoms, the EU must be able to speak with one voice, both at home and abroad. Amendment No 3 is therefore very important.

7.30. Common principles on flexicurity (vote)

- Report: Ole Christensen (A6-0446/2007)

- Before the vote

  Stavros Lambrinidis (PSE). – (EL) Mr President, I would simply like to point out that there are some serious problems with the Greek translation of this text, specifically as regards recitals 4, 5, 6, 8, Article 20, etc., for which the English version of the text is considered authoritative.

  President. – You are right, Mr Lambrinidis, flexibility should not go as far as linguistic errors.

7.31. A renewed EU tourism policy: towards a stronger partnership for European tourism (vote)

- Report: Paolo Costa (A6-0399/2007)

7.32. Trade and Climate Change (vote)

- Report: Alain Lipietz (A6-0409/2007)

- Before the vote on paragraph 4

  David Martin (PSE). – Mr President, very briefly, the PPE-DE Group has made paragraph 4 a fundamental issue in this report. We would have voted in favour of it, but not if they get a big consensus for the report. We are suggesting abstentions. I request that members of the PSE Group abstain on that paragraph.

  President. – The House has taken note of this.

- Before the vote on Amendment 18

  David Martin (PSE). – In order to find a consensus, we are suggesting that where the text reads ‘it would be appropriate to revise the rules on trade defence measures’, the word ‘revise’ be deleted and replaced with the word ‘evaluate’.

(The oral amendment was accepted)

7.33. Advancing African agriculture - Proposal for agricultural development and food security in Africa

- Report: Luisa Morgantini (A6-0432/2007)

8. Explanations of vote

Oral explanations of vote

- Report: Jo Leinen (A6-0412/2007)

  Frank Vanhecke (NI). – (NL) Mr President, the Leinen report is yet further evidence of the pernicious system of self-service which this European Union is developing in all political parties. To my mind it is typical that even European election campaigns are now funded by the taxpayer, campaigns waged, naturally, on behalf of Europhile parties, because as we know, the bar is set deliberately high and Eurosceptics in fact find it impossible to meet the criteria for funding. This is the umpteenth case of tax theft, dressed up and peddled in this House as democratisation. The people who are now helping themselves, helping themselves to money from the Community pot, are the same people who have refused outright to hold a democratic referendum in France and the Netherlands and formerly in Denmark and are still refusing one now. They are the same people who say that our citizens cannot have their say on whether or not Turkey should join the EU. For God’s sake let them shut up about democratisation and stop disguising their voracious appetite for money as a desire to help society.

- Report: Martine Roure (A6-0444/2007)

  Philip Claeys (NI). – (NL) Mr President, I voted against the Roure report for a number of basic reasons. One of them is that Member States are perfectly well able to enact statutory safeguards against racism, in other words EU action in this area is fundamentally at odds with the subsidiarity principle. The Framework Directive is also an attack on freedom of expression. Whilst it is acceptable to combat racism – and by racism I mean the specific incitement to or the use of violence – it is not acceptable to confuse this concept with legitimate public debate, such as opposition to mass immigration, opposition to Islamisation or the defence of national identity.

  Jean-Louis Bourlanges (ALDE). – (FR) Mr President, like all my colleagues I voted for Mrs Roure’s report on combating racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law. I did so because I approve of the line it takes, but also because the rapporteur and the Committee on Civil Liberties have given us a report which aims to protect freedom of thought, research and expression. Any decision of this type involves a risk: the risk of giving a political authority the right to tell people what they can and cannot lawfully think, say and write.

In my country we have seen some inappropriate legislation: Mr Gollnisch, for instance, wanted school curricula to include flattering references to France’s colonial work. More cunningly, laws whose intention was very clear, like Mrs Taubira’s, have been misinterpreted or misused to bring unwarranted prosecutions against historical works whose objectivity, intellectual rigour and academic excellence in general had been universally welcomed by historians.

The opinion we have adopted appears likely to prevent such abuses, first of all because it formally recognises freedom of expression as a fundamental right, and secondly because the framework decision does not aim to punish comments, analyses or opinions, but incitements to hatred, which is something completely different. Let us hope that all the Member States and political groupings can adopt the same balanced and wise approach as our rapporteur.

- Report: Jo Leinen (A6-0412/2007)

  Koenraad Dillen (NI). – (NL) Mr President, I voted against the Leinen report on the financing of European political parties because it is not acceptable for European funds to be channelled into existing European political associations, thereby discriminating against groups which do not feel the need to organise themselves at European level. And it is very cynical to portray the European financing of European election campaigns and all manner of European political foundations as a strengthening of European democracy. Because it so happens, as Mr Claeys said just now, that the parties concerned are precisely the ones that have always chorused that we must brush aside the French and Dutch no-vote on the European Constitution and just get on with the ratification process. These parties have also been very quiet on the question of a referendum on Turkish accession. Yet that would represent a strengthening of European democracy. But financing, clearly, is only appropriate for those parties which are politically correct in their thinking on Europe. For that reason we should vote against it.

- Report: Martine Roure (A6-0444/2007)

  Frank Vanhecke (NI). – (NL) Mr President, because I have comprehensively criticised the first Leinen report just now, I would like simply to echo the sentiments of my friend Philip Claeys who has in fact replied adequately to the somewhat strange comments by Mr Bourlanges. The notions of racism on the one hand and legitimate public debate on the other are becoming utterly confused. This is apparent from the comments of the European Monitoring Centre on Racism when it said that Islamophobia was a new form of discrimination and that the answer to the Danish cartoons was a blasphemy law. That is very dangerous, once we know that normal public debate on Islam and Islamisation can be interpreted as incitement to hatred of Muslims. For all these various reasons we regard the whole debate as unacceptable and we voted against both the Leinen and Roure reports.

- Report: Jo Leinen (A6-0412/2007)

  Philip Claeys (NI). – (NL) Mr President, I voted against the Leinen report because the rules on the financing of European parties, which I already regard as unacceptable per se, are being broadened. In order to qualify, not only numerical but also ideological criteria are to be applied, and that means that parties which row against the tide will have no chance. The established parties and groups decide who gets funding. There is not even any provision for appealing against such decisions.

We must also be aware of the creeping decision-making, the typical salami tactics being used here. The principle of financing for European parties was cautiously mooted a few years ago. It was expressly decided at that time that money should not be used to bankroll election campaigns. And now? Election campaigns will indeed be funded. And on top of that money will be channelled into all sorts of political foundations. In these circumstances you will understand, Mr President, that I voted against this self-service formula.

- Resolution on Georgia (RC-B6-0481/2007)

  Sylwester Chruszcz (NI). – (PL) Mr President, I voted today for adoption of the resolution on the situation in Georgia. I wish to voice my deep concern at the recent events in Tbilisi and the violence on the part of the security forces.

The situation in the region calls for dialogue with all parties, including leaders of the opposition. The international community, of which the European Union and the Russian Federation are part, must make every effort to ensure that the forthcoming election in Georgia is conducted democratically, with respect for human rights and freedom of the media.

I was surprised, however, to see that Members of the UEN Group wished to delete a phrase in paragraph C referring to the release of people considered political prisoners.

Mr President, I believe you did not get my name quite right at the beginning, hence the longer introduction. I was not sure whether I had already been given the floor.

- Report: Jo Leinen (A6-0445/2007)

  Jaroslav Zvěřina (PPE-DE). – (CS) I do not share the enthusiasm for this text which generally prevails here. In my opinion, God’s Ten Commandments, communicated to the world by Moses a long time ago, must hold good in the area of human rights. Obviously, the contents of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights also hold good.

The highest value for us has to be placed on the freedom of the individual, which must be restricted only to preserve the freedom of others. In particular, certain provisions concerning social rights are not clearly defined here and can be difficult to interpret. This relates primarily to anti-discrimination provisions, but also to such rights as the self-evident right of the elderly to participate in social and cultural life. I believe that self-evident truths should not be dealt with by legislative means. The provision that relates to employees’ rights poses problems rather than clear principles.

In my opinion, the European Union is not just a pool of hired labourers. Therefore, when it does not sufficiently emphasise protection of private property and the rights of owners and businesses, the Charter is functioning in an unbalanced way. I have come to the conclusion that the existence of this Charter will not essentially enrich our lives.

  Seán Ó Neachtain (UEN). – (GA) Mr President, I am voting in favour of this report because I firmly believe that the Reform Treaty, or the Treaty of Lisbon, confers legal status on the Charter of Fundamental Rights with its 54 individual rights, including the right to life, the prohibition of torture, equality before the law, respect for family life, and the right to justice.

I believe that most people in Ireland support this Charter, as does the Government, bearing in mind that the European Constitution was approved a couple of years ago.

We shall be required to hold a referendum in Ireland, Mr President, on the European reform, that is to say on the Treaty of Lisbon, and if it is to succeed, we shall have to mount a clear, transparent, visible, and professional campaign. I think that an Irish vote in favour will depend crucially on the action taken in Europe to ensure that human rights are fully respected in the Treaty.

  Kathy Sinnott (IND/DEM). – Mr President, Article 3(d) of the European Charter of Fundamental Human Rights allows therapeutic cloning by banning only reproductive cloning. This is contrary to the United Nations Declaration on Human Cloning of 8 March 2005, which recognises the necessity of banning all forms of human cloning. Cloning, for whatever reason, destroys human embryonic persons. I could not vote for this. I would have liked to have supported Article 26 on the rights of the integration of persons with disabilities.

  Frank Vanhecke (NI). – (NL) I do no want there to be any misunderstanding here, Mr President. The fact that I voted no to the Leinen report on fundamental rights must certainly not be taken to mean that I am against Europeans being given more fundamental rights and freedoms, on the contrary. Both inside and outside this Chamber I have frequently spoken out in defence of freedom of expression and against laws that muzzle people. The point is that this report is not about fundamental freedoms. Europeans, happily, are already armed with very fundamental rights and very fundamental freedoms with which to counter abuses in their own countries and at European Union level. I voted against because making this Charter binding is actually a very big step towards a federal Europe. I am in favour of Europe as a confederation of free nations and consequently I voted against this report on fundamental rights, without, of course, being opposed to fundamental basic rights per se.

  Mario Borghezio (UEN). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, seven hours underground in a cell in the Belgian Palais de Justice, thanks to the Mayor of Brussels and the silence of the competent authorities, gave me plenty of time to think about fundamental rights.

I am pointing the finger, and it is for that reason that the Lega Nord voted against the Charter of Fundamental Rights, at the lack of attention that has been paid to the dangers inherent in Article 10. As regards freedom of religion, no question, but freedom of observance, without limits? Those limits that are in the Constitution of my country, Italy: limits of public decency, security and law and order.

Is the European Union aware that cannibalism is an ongoing problem? Does it know what voodoo rites are? I believe our Flemish colleagues were right to point out, in very clear terms, the ambiguity of the texts that the European Union puts out, for instance against Islamophobia. There is never any talk, however, of Christianophobia, of anti-white racism. These are real problems and the European Union should also be mindful of these risks and dangers and protect its own citizens, its culture and its traditions, the identity of the European peoples, if we want a Europe of peoples and not a Europe that becomes a melting pot, in which fundamental rights are not really protected.

We are the proof of that, we who have been thrown in jail for defending our ideas and the rights of European citizens, while Europe watched on in silence.

  Francesco Enrico Speroni (UEN). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I also voted against the report on the Charter of Fundamental Rights, not because I am against those rights, but to highlight an ambiguity, a danger inherent in the wording of those rights, in particular – as Mr Borghezio has already pointed out – in Article 10, where there are no limits on the freedom of religious worship, practice and observance.

Because there is no limit, satanic practices, voodoo rites, rites contrary to public order, contrary to public morality, contrary to other rights could very well be allowed and practised. The Court of Justice in Luxembourg, were it to interpret the text literally, would have no choice but to rule in favour of any action brought by those practising such rites, something that would run counter not just to age-old traditions but also to common sense.

- Report: Alain Lipietz (A6-0409/2007)

  Georgios Papastamkos (PPE-DE). – Mr President, the PPE-DE Group has decided to vote in favour of the Lipietz report on trade and climate change at this mini-plenary session. The report has merit and addresses many of the concerns we all share. However, we have decided to vote against some of the amendments to paragraphs, because we believe that global warming must be addressed through sustainable measures which do not have an adverse effect on economic growth or the long-term prospects of Europe’s social model.

As a political group, we are very sensitive to the issue of climate change. The European Union has taken the lead in proposing far-reaching solutions on how to tackle climate change. We believe that Europe’s proposals have become the benchmark for any future discussion, and that they are compatible with our economic model.

We believe that global trade has been beneficial to the world economy, but at the same time we acknowledge that more needs to be done, especially in the transport sector, to reduce harmful emissions. However, world trade as such should not be distorted.

Written explanations of vote

- Report: Arlene McCarthy (A6-0430/2007)

  Brian Simpson (PSE), in writing. − I will be voting in favour of this report because at last it allows Member States, and in particular the United Kingdom, to carry on using imperial measurements.

Personally I prefer the metric system, but there are some areas where the very nature of the work being undertaken necessitates using imperial measurements. I do not refer to the selling of vegetables, but to work like the renovation of historic and heritage modes of transport, and in particular heritage railways.

I would point out that in the UK not everybody sticks to imperial measurements. The great game of rugby league went metric years ago.

  Peter Skinner (PSE), in writing. − It is clear now that, despite the worst attempts of some to denigrate the European Union on the basis of measurements, the EU is able to deal with issues in a practical manner. The use of imperial measurements alongside metric ones has been with UK citizens for some time. Although schools now refer to a metric system and many have grown up with these measurements, the principle for many others to use imperial measurements remains. This is welcome and should calm many who were confused by previous press reports to the contrary.

- Report: Kader Arif (A6-0452/2007)

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. − Lebanon is now one of the most indebted countries in the world and the granting by the EU of macroeconomic financial assistance is wholly justified. However, conditions must be put in place to ensure that EU finances are properly accounted for and fraud and mismanagement treated with zero tolerance. It is worth noting that, once again, it is the EU that is picking up the tab for Israeli attacks on a neighbouring country.

- Report: Ioannis Varvitsiotis (A6-0428/2007)

  Carlos Coelho (PPE-DE), in writing. − (PT) We must ensure that justice in Europe does not remain restricted within national borders that have already physically disappeared between the Member States.

It is essential to guarantee equal treatment for all EU citizens, regardless of their nationality or country of residence. A suspect who is not resident in the trial state must not be treated differently from a suspect who is resident in that state.

Non-custodial supervision measures cannot currently be transposed or transferred between Member States, as there is no mutual recognition of these measures. This calls into question the judicial protection of individual rights.

I therefore support this proposal for a framework decision on the European supervision order in pre-trial procedures, which should allow the mutual recognition of pre-trial supervision measures, enabling suspects to return to their Member State of residence during the investigation stage.

This reduces the scope for arrests (especially in the case of less serious offences) while encouraging more efficient legal cooperation.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) As with previous processes, this Council framework decision on the European supervision order in pre-trial procedures between Member States, which the European Parliament report has just approved, is part of an attempt to strengthen and complete a ‘common European area of justice’ following the path traced by the Tampere and Hague programmes in pursuit of a ‘Europe without (internal) Borders’.

Among other aspects, the proposal for a framework decision and the report advocate extending the use of the European arrest warrant to cover all offences (without setting a threshold).

These and other planned measures aim to extend the scope for harmonisation of criminal law in the different EU Member States, strengthen the federalist nature of the European Union, and advance and draw strength from the ‘Reform’ Treaty, which removes from states new areas of jurisdiction in legal and home affairs.

- Report: Martine Roure (A6-0444/2007)

  Patrick Gaubert (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) After more than five years of negotiations the Council has finally reached agreement on the framework decision on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law. While we might welcome this breakthrough, we must also regret that it has come at the cost of minimum protection.

As Mrs Roure’s report points out, the framework decision establishes only a minimum level of harmonisation, and its effectiveness and scope have been severely limited by the many derogations it includes.

Despite the European Parliament’s efforts, when consulted on this text, to give it greater force, the framework decision lacks ambition and will not be enough to tackle the problems we face: combating racism and ensuring that our universal values are shared.

This framework decision must be seen as a first step in the process of getting to grips with racism and xenophobia at European level and maximum harmonisation in this field.

Despite these shortcomings, I voted for the adoption of this report in the plenary because it is vitally important for the European Union, and the European Parliament in particular, to send out a strong political message in support of fundamental rights.

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI), in writing. – (FR) I support the minority opinion officially expressed by Mr Dillen. The framework directive on the criminalisation of ‘certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia’ is liberticidal European legislation which does as much to harm freedom of thought and expression as the Gayssot and Taubira legislation in France.

No political speech defending national identities, expressing pride in national history or opposing the spread of migration and the universal danger to freedom posed by the relentless Islamisation of our continent will now escape the wrath of the thought-police. Once again Europe is not taking its own people’s side, because those who drafted this directive and the MEPs who have just adopted it have already made up their minds who are the alleged criminals and who are the supposed victims.

As for the harmonisation of criminal law, at a time when weapons of war are being fired on police in the French suburbs, when our continent is still under threat of terrorist carnage, and when hardened criminals are taking advantage of the abolition of borders to carry out horrific crimes in one country after another, we have more urgent things to do than to make intellectual and judicial dictators out of those who support all things foreign and enforced multiculturalism.

  Carl Lang (NI), in writing. – (FR) The purpose of Mrs Roure’s report is to combat racism. This is a very laudable goal, but it is unfortunately being used as an excuse to apply a policy which discriminates against nationals of our Member States, who are becoming second-class citizens in their own countries.

Two tragic events last Sunday illustrate this. The murder of a young French woman, Anne-Lorraine Schmitt, by a convicted rapist of Turkish origin, did not hit the headlines, unlike the deaths on the same day of two ‘youths’, Moushin and Larami, who were speeding on an unlicensed mini-bike without crash-helmets and collided with a police car. The accident was widely covered on the television news, and the French President met the parents of the two teenagers.

So, if you want the State’s sympathy, do you have to burn and ransack a town, as hundreds of thugs did, claiming to be avenging the death of their ‘mates’ Moushin and Larami? Why are innocent victims entitled to less consideration than delinquents? It is high time to put an end to these aberrations: the authorities’ soft approach, the insane immigration policy of the last 30 years, and the supposed anti-racism which in France is more like out-and-out anti-French racism.

  Martine Roure (PSE), in writing. – (FR) The European Union is not just a Single Market, it is above all a union of peoples who share the same values, in particular protection for individual fundamental rights. The adoption of the framework decision on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law was therefore urgently needed.

Europe is taking action to combat racism and discrimination, and this is why an instrument is needed which guarantees the same level of protection in all Member States against racist and xenophobic acts. We have to strike a fair balance by ensuring an equivalent level of punishment for words and actions that incite violence and hatred, while at the same time guaranteeing the right to freedom of expression. So, for instance, we respect national traditions when it comes to condemning revisionism.

However, I regret the fact that the scope of this proposal has been reduced by the requirement for unanimity in the Council, and I would urge the Member States to go further, together with the European Parliament, when this text is re-examined.

  Olle Schmidt (ALDE), in writing. − (SV) Mrs Roure’s report gave rise to much head-scratching. Of course I wholeheartedly endorse the ambition to fight on several fronts against racism and xenophobia wherever it might arise. There are good grounds for discussing legislation at EU level. Ideas, both good and bad, move rapidly across borders and between people. Judicial protection is patchy in Europe.

At the same time, we have reason to be cautious when it comes to harmonising criminal law, not least in an area which has constitutional implications. Sweden has a generous attitude to freedom of expression, press freedom and freedom of religion. Some parts of Europe do not have the same attitude, for obvious reasons. The Council Decision, which was painstakingly negotiated into being by the German Presidency, guarantees a minimum level of protection. Mrs Roure’s report sought to go further and contained a number of very unclear considerations. In the end, therefore, I voted to reject the report.

Of course freedom of expression cannot be absolute. Saying that, however, does not make it clear that all restrictions must be particularly well motivated.

- Report: Ruth Hieronymi (A6-0442/2007)

  Marie-Hélène Descamps (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) The text adopted today is an important step for the audiovisual media sector and also for Europe’s citizens.

It is the result of lengthy negotiations in which the European Parliament has played a major role.

It makes considerable improvements to the European Commission’s original proposal, in particular by extending the scope of the directive to the new media and through practical measures for promoting European audiovisual productions.

These points ensure that the traditional and digital audiovisual media can develop competitively while still safeguarding the cultural diversity that gives Europe its identity.

Recognising the right of access to short extracts also marks real progress for broadcasting bodies, including pan-European ones, provided that this right is exercised reasonably.

Lastly, we will for the first time have clear rules on product placement. This practice already exists, but is currently developing without any regulatory framework and therefore without transparency or legal certainty. With the proposed guarantees product placement will open up new opportunities for European audiovisual production and creation, while at the same time providing the necessary consumer protection and information.

  Henri Weber (PSE), in writing. – (FR) Here we are at the end of a lengthy and laborious process. We have got as much out of the Council as it could give us. We have reinstated what we felt was essential in the text, and to our surprise and pleasure we have to admit that almost all our new proposals have been accepted.

Of course we would have been happier if we could have reined in the private broadcasters and operators when it comes to the liberalisation of advertising. Of course we would have preferred product placement to be prohibited. Of course we would have preferred a firmer stance on children’s advertising. But this was, clearly, not the position of the majority in this House or in the Council.

Because the audiovisual media services need this new legislation as soon as possible, and because we have to admit that the Council and the German Presidency provided open and, in the end, productive cooperation, we can now say that the glass is half full. The Socialist Group therefore supports the proposal to approve the text resulting from the negotiations.

- Report: Gisela Kallenbach (A6-0276/2007)

  Carlos Coelho (PPE-DE), in writing. − (PT) The illicit manufacture and trafficking of firearms, their parts, components and ammunition have harmful effects on the security of all inhabitants of the EU. In addition, tracing firearms is of the greatest importance in the fight against organised crime.

It is essential to take the measures necessary to prevent, combat and eradicate this type of crime.

According to World Health Organization data, interpersonal violence and suicide rank third and fourth respectively among the world’s leading causes of ill-health and premature mortality in people aged 15–44 years, with a large proportion resulting from the use of firearms.

This initiative therefore aims to adapt the Directive on the control of the acquisition and possession of weapons, and set common rules enabling Member States to monitor the acquisition and possession of firearms and their transfer to another Member State.

Although the Commission's proposal is generally positive, it confines itself to incorporating aspects of the UN 2001 Protocol. It is important for it also to consider the changes that the Commission’s 2000 report identified as necessary.

  Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. − I voted in favour of my group colleague Ms Kallenbach's report on weapons, which represents a well-earned compromise.

The legitimate use of firearms plays an important role across the European Union. Firearms contribute to various parts of the economy, be that in their manufacture or sale or in parts of the rural economy where shooting is a necessity. Many thousands of people also take part in shooting activities in their leisure time.

Nevertheless, it is vital that there are adequate controls to prevent legitimate firearms crossing over into the field of criminality. Today's report finds a sensible balance which will enable those who use firearms legitimately to continue to do so, whilst thwarting those who seek to operate outwith the law.

  Bogusław Liberadzki (PSE), in writing. − (PL) Mr President, I am voting in favour of the adoption of Mrs Kallenbach’s report on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directive 91/477/EEC on control of the acquisition and possession of weapons (COM(2006)0093 – C6-0081/2006 – 2006/0031(COD)). I agree that illicit manufacturing and trafficking of firearms, their parts and components and ammunition have harmful effects on the security of all inhabitants of the EU.

The report correctly points out that small arms are tools of violence in society because they are readily available, cheap, portable and easy to use.

It also stresses the need for inclusion in the scope of the directive of internet trade and the provision of internet platforms for trade in arms.

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. − I voted in favour of this report and welcome the accession of the European Communities to the UN Protocol on the acquisition and possession of firearms. The protocol will enable greater consumer protection, as it will strengthen the surveillance of the market, allow rapid traceability of arms, thanks to computerised databases, and destruction of illegal weapons and, therefore, will help to lower the illicit manufacturing and trafficking of firearms on the territories of Member States.

  Zita Pleštinská (PPE-DE), in writing. − (SK) Weapons are not conventional products. They represent a great danger especially for children and young people, who are threatened by the spread of a culture of weapon use through the Internet. In Europe recently there have been some very negative incidents, in which the main actors were young people using weapons. I am glad we have not remained idle in the face of the events in Finland and in Antwerp, Belgium.

I realize that a weapons ban would mean an increase in illicit trafficking, hence this question calls for a very sensitive political approach. The UN protocols have provided a starting point for this Directive. Before their ratification, their obligations had to be carried into European law.

I voted in favour of the report because it introduces a viable compromise, limiting the illicit sale of weapons but also respecting the authorised interests of hunters and legal owners of sporting weapons. The Directive will lead to improved marking of weapons and also recognises that each Member State has its own traditions and culture of weapon use. It will ban the use of weapons by young people under 18. Young people will be able to take part in sporting pursuits only under the supervision of their trainers and parents.

I believe that, thanks to the responsible work of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, Europe will have modern weapons legislation. The partial harmonisation of rules in the Union will not only serve to eliminate illicit sales, but will ensure that dangerous weapons, which are a threat to innocent people, gradually disappear from our streets.

  Catherine Stihler (PSE), in writing. − This report on the control of the acquisition and possession of weapons should be welcomed. Tackling gun crime and the illegal smuggling of weapons into the EU has to be a priority.

- Report: Cristian Dumitrescu (A6-0450/2007)

  Astrid Lulling (PPE-DE) , in writing. – (FR) I voted for the Dumitrescu report and I am delighted that thanks to Parliament’s efforts we have been able to adopt viable compromises for all the players involved. For Luxembourg, Article 5 of the regulation is vitally important.

This article reinstates contractual freedom allowing the two parties – the consumer and the professional – to choose which national law should apply to their contract, either that of the consumer’s Member State of residence or that of the professional’s Member State.

In its proposal the Commission attempted to change this by saying that only the law of the consumer’s country of residence would apply. This would have had devastating consequences for the smaller Member States, since businesses operating in the Single Market from these countries would have been forced to apply up to 27 different national legislations, which would have deterred SMEs in particular from undertaking commercial activities beyond their national borders.

Consumers in the smaller Member States would have seen a considerable reduction in supply, since the increase in red-tape resulting from this proposal could have persuaded operators to stop providing services for consumers living in these countries.

  Inger Segelström (PSE), in writing. − (SV) We Swedish Social Democrats voted for the report since we think it important, from the point of view of legal security and in the context of developments which have taken place in both commerce and marketing, that we should have modern common rules for the choice of law in contractual obligations. However, we are not happy with the compromise which has emerged and therefore voted against paragraph 2 in Amendment 77 which concerns consumer contracts. We consider that Europe needs stronger consumer protection with clear rules for both business operators and consumers. In our view, the compromise does not resolve this matter in a satisfactory way.

Secure consumers, aware of their rights and with confidence to make cross-border purchases, are important to Europe’s economy and prosperity. However, we share the concern expressed by small businesses over the burden imposed on those engaging in e-commerce in Europe as regards the acquisition of expertise on the consumer legislation of the various Member States. This is an important question which remains to be resolved.

- Report: Karin Scheele (A6-0299/2007)

  Edite Estrela (PSE), in writing. − (PT) I voted for the Karin Scheele report on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 on genetically modified food and feed because I believe the changes presented in the report, which aim to extend the area of application of the regulation, strengthen the role of the European Parliament in its implementation, thereby promoting better regulation.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) The European Parliament today approved the Scheele report on genetically modified food and feed. As is well known, there is still a lot of doubt about genetically modified food, especially with regard to its impact on human and animal health. The precautionary principle must therefore be maintained in the absence of scientific certainty.

In addition, feeding animals with genetically modified food means that these products also enter our food chain, even though there are no scientific guarantees that this is harmless to health.

In this report, the European Parliament supports the Commission's position on the implementing powers conferred on the Commission and places a series of conditions on existing legislation without resolving the fundamental issues.

Therefore, we cannot vote in favour. Although the conditions may be positive, they do not resolve the fundamental issue.

  Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. − My group tabled an important amendment to the Scheele report. We believe that the European Parliament should have full scrutiny in matters dealing with GMOs. I consider that GMOs represent a considerable threat to health and the environment in the EU and that all decisions on such matters deserve the fullest scrutiny possible.

  Renate Sommer (PPE-DE), in writing. − (DE) After lengthy deliberations, we, the rapporteurs from the political groups in this House, agreed on a compromise for the amendment of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 on genetically modified food and feed as regards the implementing powers conferred on the Commission. This compromise was reached after consultation with other bodies, including the Council. It takes full account of the new regulatory procedure with scrutiny.

We succeeded on the one hand in widening the powers of Parliament compared with those envisaged in the Commission’s draft. We also managed to correct the draft report from the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety and turn it into a practicable and realistic proposal. All amendments designed to misuse the new comitology procedure to amend key elements of existing GMO legislation by the back door were rejected.

The fact is that we cannot afford to turn our backs on green genetic engineering. On the contrary, GMOs are indispensable to our future. In the light of the climate debate, it ought to be abundantly clear by now, even to ideologically overladen Green politicians, that we need to apply bioengineering methods to improve renewables for use in the production of biomass and energy. We simply do not have enough arable land to grow sufficient quantities of conventional energy crops. Moreover, we must ensure that food and energy crops do not have to compete for space. Authorised GMOs are safe, and ideology does not fill bellies!

- Report: Jo Leinen (A6-0412/2007)

  Hélène Goudin and Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM), in writing. − (SV) We say ‘no’ to more subsidies for political parties at EU level. It is in the nature of democracy that political parties are built from the bottom up by a process of opinion-forming, followed by the formulation of political programmes and the launch of parties that go on to win support in general elections. The idea of allowing the political and technocratic establishment to set up EU parties from the top down, using taxpayers’ money, is repugnant to democracy. The result will be parties that are independent of their members, but dependent on a political elite.

Hence it is quite wrong now to boost the subsidies to EU parties through appropriations to create political foundations at European level. EU parties already cost the taxpayers over EUR 10 million in the 2007 EU budget, and it looks as though the political foundations will get as much again in financial contributions. This means that, in future, EU taxpayers will have to pay around 190 million Swedish kronor to the EU parties and organisations linked to them. The funds go to EU parties which are pure paper interventions of Brussels, parties which the people have never asked for, either as citizens or as taxpayers.

It is also morally questionable that politicians in this House so glibly appropriate taxpayers’ money for their own organisations at a time when public spending in the Member States is being cut back.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) While attempting to impose the essence of a treaty proposal that has already been rejected, variously called ‘constitutional’, ‘mini’, ‘simplified’ and ‘reforming’, the EU's supranational institutions are continuing to promote the artificial creation of a so-called ‘European public opinion.’

Moreover, we recall, this determination became something like a crusade after the French and Dutch rejected the ‘European Constitution’, and it has resorted to every available means, including the ‘European political parties’ and now their political grass roots, to promote the ‘formation of a European conscience.’

As the Portuguese Presidency has said, the involvement of ‘all our citizens in this fascinating process of European construction’ is the ‘real substance’, the ‘real cause’, the ‘real issue.’ We should therefore ask why, despite so much enthusiasm, the holding of referendums on the European Treaty is being avoided.

However, this is not what the dominant forces in the EU want. What they now want, among other things, is Community budget funding to finance the European Parliament election campaigns of the European political parties, which could constitute clear interference in the internal political affairs and democratic functioning of each country.

  Kartika Tamara Liotard and Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (NL) In countries where different peoples live together it is usual for there to be no parties that operate nationwide. Former Austro-Hungary had a variety of social-democratic, catholic and liberal parties, each representing different population groups and each tied to its own group interests and language. For decades, Belgium too has no longer had national parties, only Flemish and Walloon parties. So how could the EU have 'European' parties?

Our party, the Socialist Party in the Netherlands, sees parties as grass-roots organisations, popular movements that work together to achieve their vision of how society ought to be and in pursuit of the interests of the groups that place their trust in a given party. Parties are not part of the machinery of state and should not be set up using tax revenue. For this reason we voted against earlier decisions on the financing of European parties and we are also against raising the level of it to 85%. We also regard it as unreal to promote European rather than national campaigns for future European elections. Twenty-seven national elections take place in a variety of different situations. They produce one parliament, with an international membership made up of groups of like-minded people. We are all for international cooperation by like-minded people, but that does not need EU funding.

  Kyriacos Triantaphyllides (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The political parties at European level have different and sometimes conflicting political positions on European policies in various areas. Any European political organisations which are linked with the political parties must therefore be independent, so that they can promote their political positions as they think fit.

The European political organisations within the scope of this regulation are to be given the task of promoting official European policies, which are often contrary to the declared positions of political parties. This constitutes direct interference in the political action of the European political parties and the national political parties of which they are made up. It would also amount to indirect interference in the political and electoral processes in the Member States, since it would – through the planned funding – give rise to ‘favoured’ and ‘non-favoured’ political parties, with subsequent repercussions on the results of the European Parliament elections.

Any regulation must therefore promote freedom of opinion and transparency, without any interdependence which would act as a constraint on the positions and activity of the European and national political parties.

- Report: Robert Sturdy (A6-0342/2007)

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. − I welcome this report, which seeks to ensure that the residue level of pesticides in or on food and feed is minimal. This is an important issue for animal and human health.

- Proclamation of a European Consensus on Humanitarian Aid (B6-0484/2007)

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) As we pointed out previously, we cannot support the ‘consensus’ on the EU's principles, objectives and strategies for the delivery of humanitarian aid in third countries, which requires us to promote so-called ‘humanitarian’ intervention as a ‘right’ or indeed a ‘duty’, and to use ‘coercive measures, including military intervention’, as a ‘last resort’, calling into question basic principles of international law.

Unfortunately, the consequences of such a policy are very visible (despite being concealed and omitted). The policy camouflages inadmissible objectives and interests under a cloak of ‘good intentions’, as if the constant denunciation of the military aggression and occupation of Iraq by the United States and its allies were not enough, with the hundreds of thousands of deaths that have resulted, and the pillaging of the country's enormous natural resources.

‘Humanitarian intervention’ is an instrument that the major powers use to justify their intervention in situations they have so often fuelled and aggravated by years of interference in pursuit of their strategic interests and in support of the unscrupulous manoeuvres of the multinationals.

Solving the serious problems affecting millions of human beings requires respect for national sovereignty, the peaceful resolution of international conflicts and satisfaction of the urgent needs of the economically poorest countries.

- Situation in Georgia (RC-B6-0481/2007)

  Roberta Alma Anastase (PPE-DE), in writing. − (RO) I voted in favor of this resolution hoping that it will have a concrete impact on the situation in Georgia and on its decision to firmly continue the democratic reform, as well as on the process to consolidate EU actions in this country and, in general, in the Eastern neighbourhood.

As Rapporteur on the Black Sea cooperation, I would like to reiterate the importance of creating an area of political stability and actual democracy in this region. My draft report specifies this field among other key priorities of regional cooperation, and the situation in Georgia confirms to us the imperative need to promote and consolidate cooperation in this field. I believe three elements are essential for this purpose: to consolidate the democratic reform in Georgia, to establish good neighbourhood relations in the region and Russia’s constructive involvement in this process and, finally, the EU’s profound and more active involvement in the actual stabilization and democratization of Georgia and, in general, of the Black Sea region.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) Just a few points about the European Parliament resolution on the situation in Georgia.

First, although it notes the deterioration in the political situation and the repression in Georgia, this is yet another expression of EU interference, euphemistically described as support for the ‘necessary political and economic reforms’ and ‘Euro-Atlantic values.’

Second, and as a consequence of this, it recognises the ‘political, democratic and economic progress achieved by the present Georgian President and Government’, even though the content of the resolution says the exact opposite and fails to mention the wave of repression to which the country's progressive circles have long been subjected.

Third, the resolution ignores the fact that it is the deterioration in the social and economic situation in Georgia and the living conditions of the majority of the population – with the fall in income and employment – that is at the root of the current social dissatisfaction and has intensified internal disparities, which those in power are seeking to use and manipulate, as they have also done in the recent past.

Finally, in response to these significant events, the EP ‘urges’ President Saakasshvili and the Georgian authorities, when it has ‘condemned’ others for a lot less.

- Report: Jo Leinen (A6-0445/2007)

  Carlos Coelho (PPE-DE), in writing. − (PT) The Charter of Fundamental Rights approved in Nice in 2000 is a list of common European values with which all citizens can identify.

These values result from the rich cultural heritage of the different EU countries, their constitutional traditions and laws, and characterise the Union not only as an economic entity but as a community of shared values.

The European Parliament has systematically requested that the status of primary law be conferred on the Charter, making it a central point of reference for the Court of Justice and national courts, and making it legally binding.

I am therefore very satisfied finally to see this confirmed and I am pleased to note that the draft Reform Treaty retains the substance of Part II of the Treaty establishing a European Constitution.

I am sorry that the Charter has been incorporated in the form of an annex rather than into the body of the Treaty as its importance warrants. I am also sorry that the United Kingdom and Poland have exercised their right to opt out of this commitment to fundamental rights, although recent statements by the new Polish government seem to indicate a different attitude and one that is much more in keeping with the common spirit.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) It is clear that this report on the Charter of Fundamental Rights is being used as a screen to resurrect the essence of the European Constitution and circumvent the sovereign will of the peoples of France and the Netherlands, who rejected it, in order to avoid holding referendums on the so-called Reform Treaty. This is inadmissible, and we have therefore voted against.

In a way, it is hypocritical to talk of defending fundamental rights when an attempt is being made to hide the content of this treaty from the people, avoid holding an open debate to clarify the issues and prevent citizens from expressing their opinion at the ballot box in national referendums.

However, we must highlight once again that the Charter is weaker than other instruments such as the Constitution of the Portuguese Republic, the European Social Charter and the Council of Europe’s Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which are internationally valid, more comprehensive and recognised as legitimate.

Finally, we must not forget that the main purpose of the Charter is to facilitate the neoliberal, federalist and militarist leap forward that is the aim of the so-called Reform Treaty.

  Robert Goebbels (PSE), in writing. – (FR) The fact that the European Union is once again preparing to approve the Charter of Fundamental Rights shows just how the people of Europe are being deceived. The initial Charter was amended, particularly as regards its judicial impact, to make sure that the UK was able to sign the Constitutional Treaty in Rome. This was a concession won by the British.

However, Protocol 7 of the future Lisbon Treaty, which arranges the opt-out for the UK and Poland, provides ‘for the avoidance of doubt’ that ‘the Charter does not extend the ability of the Court of Justice of the European Union’ to pass judgment on laws or regulations of these countries on the basis of the Charter, nor does it ‘create justiciable rights applicable to Poland or the United Kingdom’. This means that the rights set out in the Charter will not be Community rights. I will have nothing to do with such deception.

  Hélène Goudin and Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM), in writing. − (SV) All EU institutions are already bound by international law guaranteeing protection of human rights. This emerges quite clearly from the ruling of the European Court of Justice in the Racke case. Apart from this, all EU countries have ratified the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The Convention is binding on all the Member States and performs its function well.

On the other hand, a new text would pose a risk of legal insecurity in that the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg might make rulings which run counter to decisions taken by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, which already operates satisfactorily.

We oppose the idea of giving legally binding force to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in the version annexed to this report.

We think it wrong to give the President a mandate solemnly to proclaim the Charter before the signature of the Treaty and oppose any steps to have it published in the Official Journal of the European Union before the ratification procedure concludes with a positive outcome, if that is what happens.

Instead we call on the Member States to initiate negotiations in order to allow the EU to accede to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, so that the EU institutions will also be bound by these common human rights provisions.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) It would seem that the European Parliament has approved (?) the ‘Charter of Fundamental Rights’ (CFR) for the second time, seven years on from the first.

We should note here that the CFR was drafted by a so-called ‘convention’, created for the purpose, which reached a consensus based on the lowest common denominator under pressure from forces advocating the most reactionary positions, namely the British Labour government, led by Tony Blair.

The outcome of this procedure is a CFR that is much weaker on social rights than, for example, the Constitution of the Portuguese Republic or the European Social Charter, which Portugal has ratified.

For example, the defence of the right to work clearly and explicitly enshrined in the Constitution of the Portuguese Republic (Article 58) and the European Social Charter (Article 1) is ‘adapted’ and ‘modernised’ in the CFR and becomes the ‘right to engage in work.’

There are other examples, as can be seen in the ‘explanations prepared under the authority of the Praesidium of the Convention which drafted the Charter and updated under the responsibility of the Praesidium of the European Convention’ that drafted the ‘European constitution’. These ‘explanations’ are fundamental for interpretation of the content of the CFR but almost never accompany it. I wonder why?

  Jules Maaten (ALDE), in writing. − (NL) 'The peoples of Europe, in creating an ever closer union among them, are resolved to share a peaceful future based on common values.' So reads the first sentence of the preamble to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union which the EU leaders signed in Nice on 7 December 2000.

And this sentence at once contains the essential truth. In our Union we have shared values and standards which are now enshrined by the Charter as rights: freedoms, equality, human dignity, solidarity, citizens' rights and justice.

My view is that it would have been better if the EU had just signed up to the Council of Europe's European Convention on Human Rights. But ultimately this is an acceptable solution. It is an express recognition of human rights in the EU.

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. − I welcome, and voted for, the Leinen Report on the Charter of Fundamental Rights. However, I abstained on the amendment which urged Poland to make every effort to apply the Charter of Fundamental Rights fully – as a British Member, I thought this might be a little hypocritical.

  José Ribeiro e Castro (PPE-DE), in writing. − (PT) I abstained in the vote on this proposal because the Portuguese Constitution provides better protection for Fundamental Rights and because the opinion, held by some, that Community law has primacy over Member States’ domestic law could lead to very damaging legal disputes.

  Marek Siwiec (PSE), in writing. − I voted today in favour of the re-adoption of the Charter in its new form so that it will become binding on the European Institutions. My Socialist Party in Poland and Europe strongly supports the adoption of the Charter, and so do I. The Charter is a key instrument in our Union, giving rights to all citizens of the Union – individual rights as well as rights linked to citizenship. By this Charter we are plugging a major gap. An opt-out is not a real opt-out as the Charter remains binding on the Institutions and on Community law, even if some countries still hope that it is not going to affect domestic law. The Court of Justice will ensure that the Charter is applied correctly. The proclamation of the revised Charter and the reference in the new Treaty will make the European Union stronger as a common space of common values and common rights. That is why I still hope that the Charter will apply to all 27 Member States, without exception – including in first place my home country, Poland.

  Andrzej Jan Szejna (PSE), in writing. − (PL) I am voting in favour of the adoption of Mr Leinen’s report on the approval by the European Parliament of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the Union.

In my view the European Union’s Charter of Fundamental Rights ought to be adopted without reservation, and also by my own country, Poland.

In conjunction with adoption of the new reform treaty, the Charter will be a binding legal document ranking equally with the treaties. It is important for our citizens, and it is also an incentive to control the actions of the EU institutions in areas in which the Member States have granted them the right to act. Every citizen will be able to invoke the Charter directly and pursue his rights in courts throughout the European Union on the basis of EU law.

  Konrad Szymański (UEN), in writing. − (PL) The Charter of Fundamental Rights complicates the system for protecting fundamental rights in Europe. It makes the system even less intelligible to citizens, and many Europeans have doubts about it. That is why two Member States have decided on protocols safeguarding them against any unexpected effects of the Charter. And that is why I am voting against the Leinen report.

- Report: Ole Christensen (A6-0446/2007)

  Jan Andersson, Ole Christensen, Göran Färm, Anna Hedh, Dan Jørgensen, Christel Schaldemose, Inger Segelström and Britta Thomsen (PSE), in writing. (SV) We Swedish and Danish Social Democrats chose to vote in favour of Amendment 41 in the report. There are problems on the labour market due to insecure contracts of employment and wages on which it is impossible to live. They need to be remedied. In some countries this is done through legally imposed minimum wages. In other countries such questions are resolved through negotiations between the social partners. In the Nordic countries we have chosen the latter model. We Swedish and Danish Social Democrats consider that we should continue to be free to use our collective agreement model in order to guarantee employees decent wages.

As the amendment tabled calls for the matter to be regulated through the national systems of the Member States, we consider that this is reconcilable with the collective agreement model we choose to apply.

  Philip Bushill-Matthews (PPE-DE), in writing. − The PPE-DE Group is strongly supportive of the principle of flexicurity, and of helping employees as well as employers adapt to the challenges of globalisation. We have worked closely with other political groups as well as the PSE rapporteur to produce a report that was positive as well as balanced, and had reached substantial agreement on all major points.

However we have also made clear that we could not support the final report if two late amendments were passed. We could not accept the last-minute amendment (41) from the GUE/NGL Group concerning a forced reduction in working hours, which would have restricted individual choice as well as remuneration; nor could we accept their amendment 45 regarding an EU-wide minimum wage, as the Treaty confirms that this is a matter for EU Member States, is not an EU competence and has no place in this report.

We will continue to work closely with all political groups who aim to produce constructive ideas to help workers cope with the challenge of change. But we are not impressed by any Group who prefers to grandstand for electoral purposes rather than put the real needs of people first.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) We voted against because it is unacceptable for the European Parliament to support the European Commission’s fundamental objectives on flexicurity. By accepting that workers and employers have an interest in flexibility, the text approves the essence of the European Commission Communication, which seeks deregulation of the labour market, liberalises the right to dismiss workers without just cause, devalues collective agreements and weakens the trade unions and workers’ struggles, although the text is critical of the Communication in some respects.

There are repeated references in the text to the need for ‘flexible labour markets’, ‘adaptable contractual arrangements’, and an ‘adaptable workforce.’ This leaves no room for doubt about this report’s real intention, the result of an agreement between the two main political groups in the European Parliament, the PPE and the PSE, which includes the Portuguese MEPs in the PS, PSD and the CDS/PP.

We regret that the proposals we made have been rejected, including our opposition to the inclusion of the principles of flexicurity in the framework of the Lisbon Strategy, the review of the Employment Guidelines for the period 2008-2010 and the National Reform Plans, and the use of Community funds to finance attacks on workers’ rights.

  Hélène Goudin and Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM), in writing. − (SV) The employment policies of the Member States should be determined nationally by way of a broad and democratically anchored debate based on research and national experience. The employment policies of the various EU countries should develop out of a process of institutional competition.

We are now, happily, able to discuss the Danish model of flexicurity because the EU did not introduce a common labour market policy maybe 25 years ago. If that had been the case, some continental countries, led by Germany, would have implemented EU legislation which would have had devastating consequences for employment and growth in Europe and would have been well nigh impossible to change. The new Member States would have been forced to adopt the policy as part of the acquis communautaire and hence would have been compelled to start as new Member States under unreasonable conditions.

It is thanks to the fact that there is no common policy in the field that we can now set flexicurity, the Nordic model, the Anglo-Saxon model and the continental model against one another and compare them. It is thanks to this institutional competition to find good solutions that solutions exist in the real world which we can compare.

On the basis of the above arguments, we have voted against the motion in the final vote and against all amendments tabled which contain views on what form of employment policy the Member States should pursue.

  Carl Lang (NI), in writing. – (FR) The proliferation of new words is one of the symptoms of an incurable problem: a lack of talent or expertise despite the wealth of existing vocabulary. It is also a slide towards the uniform language used by an elite which has no homeland, no faith and no laws, and its propaganda machines.

‘Flexicurity’, which is supposed to be a method of achieving prosperity throughout Europe through a balanced combination of ‘flexibility’ in the economic field and ‘security’ in the social field, is a new Europeanist pro-globalisation gimmick.

For the European Commission this basically just involves relaxing labour law in order to combat unemployment. In reality, however, the main effect of this liberal concept will be to make it easier and cheaper for businesses to lay workers off in order to recruit cheaper labour. This will draw in yet more migrants from outside Europe, but it will also present a social threat by having a domino effect, making low-paid jobs a little less secure and going on to affect the higher-paid too.

Parliament’s Committee on Employment and Social Affairs tried to amend this text to mitigate the impact on employment, but this will not be enough to curb the ultra-liberal appetite of the Europeanists.

  Astrid Lulling (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) I voted for the Christensen report because it adopts an appropriate and widely supported approach to combining flexibility and security in manner. It makes it very clear that a flexible labour market can go hand in hand with job security.

The term ‘flexicurity’ is often demonised, but in this report we have managed to overcome the negative connotations of what should be a guiding principle for employment policy in Europe. Job creation is vitally important for combating unemployment in Europe, which remains too high despite the progress made in recent years. Flexicurity gives us a realistic prospect of achieving the aims of the Lisbon Strategy.

If we are to do so, we have to find ways of facilitating access to employment and of training a skilled, flexible, mobile and motivated labour force.

Having a job is the best protection against all forms of social exclusion. Europe must encourage the Member States to facilitate access to employment for those trying to enter or re-enter the labour market.

All legislation on employment and working conditions is a matter for the Member States, and I support the amendments which strengthen the principle of subsidiarity.

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. − I broadly welcome the thrust of the Commission’s paper on flexicurity. With this report, Parliament makes it clear that flexicurity should improve job security and promote employment security. No worker should be denied rights to equal treatment, to lifelong learning or to social security benefits.

  Jean-Claude Martinez (NI), in writing. – (FR) ‘Flexicurity’ is a smokescreen masking the commoditisation of work and of workers.

This smokescreen appears to have come from Denmark. After the Swedish model of the 1960s, the Yugoslav model of self-management of the 1970s, the everlasting Mao model, the ex-Soviet model, the Blairist and even the Zappatist model, we now have the Danish model. It is ‘Andersen-mania’, Margaret Thatcher disguised as the little mermaid to make us think that if we give ‘disposable workers’ a few allowances, some training and rapid re-integration we are making them more secure.

Denmark has more strike days than France, but never mind that. Flexicurity has made it a paradise of flexible labour markets and happy workers (though you have to wonder why they still go on strike…).

What is the truth in all this? The truth is that we are trying to create ‘Mindongs’ in Europe, like the Chinese ‘half-farmers, half-labourers’ working under the worst possible conditions.

The whole idea is to reduce the level of protection offered by the Social Security Code and the Labour Code.

‘Flexicurity’ is phariseeism applied to labour law. The economic result – as with the reduction in social security contributions, which has failed to end the imbalance in production costs between Asia and Europe – will be illusory.

  Bairbre de Brún and Mary Lou McDonald (GUE/NGL), in writing. − We welcome the fact that the report goes some way to rebalancing the Commission communication in favour of the protection of workers’ rights. While we welcome the recognition of the need to create quality jobs, resource lifelong learning, upskill and train workers on an ongoing basis, and have particular strategies to include younger workers and women, we regret that the commitments are vague and that there is an absence of concrete targets in those areas.

A dynamic and flexible economy must serve the rights and needs of workers as well as the interests of enterprise. We reject the one-sided version of flexibility which is presented.

We oppose the report due to the fact that in the face of ongoing casualisation and abuse of atypical workers, the EU and Member States have failed to act, particularly regarding temporary agency workers.

  Dimitrios Papadimoulis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) I voted against the Christensen report on flexicurity, because in the name of flexibility of labour relations it weakens the protection of regular employment and employee security. In spite of the efforts and proposals of the European Group of the Left, the European Parliament, through the European Right/Socialist compromise which it has approved, has adopted the basic philosophy – despite certain individual changes – of the Commission’s neoliberal proposals. In the name of competitiveness and company profit, the achievements of the trade unions are now looked upon as ‘inflexibility’ and ‘a burden’. Dismissals will become easier and will entail no cost for companies, and the cost of protecting unemployed young people will be shifted entirely onto the community. Companies’ responsibility towards employees is replaced by society’s responsibility towards the unemployed. Collective bargaining and the role of the trade unions are severely weakened in this new model. The European Left, in cooperation with the trade unions, through its proposals to the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and to the plenary, is pressing for the protection of all employees, regardless of the type of contract under which they are employed. It maintains that the right to take collective action is an important part of labour law. We call upon the Member States to promote regular employment and to secure and improve employees’ rights, with a high standard of social protection.

  Pierre Pribetich (PSE), in writing. – (FR) A fundamentally important amendment to the report by Ole Christensen on common principles of flexicurity has unfortunately been rejected by the majority of the European Parliament, and I have therefore voted against the report.

Amendment 41 on the promotion of a European wage policy proposed a minimum wage of at least 50% of the national average wage, and this seemed to me to be essential for combating the low pay that often leads to poverty.

Harmonising the minimum wage at European level could lead to vital progress in conditions of employment for Europe’s workers. I deeply regret that this vote has sadly once again prevented social Europe from making progress towards greater fairness and cohesion.

  Peter Skinner (PSE), in writing. − It is key for the labour movement across the EU that there is an established raft of basic rights which can be backed through legal means if necessary.

Given the pressures on the employment of millions of people in a modern liberalised economy, and given the effects of the pursuit of the internal market, it is essential that a proper and effective balance be created. I supported the elements in this report which addressed those concerns for the reasons I have just announced.

  Renate Sommer and Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE), in writing. − (DE) We voted against this report, because it is a ragbag of contradictory statements with no sign of a clear line on any major social issue. You can read absolutely anything you like into it. Above all, it gives the Commission a free hand to act without a proper legal basis. Furthermore, we reject the term ‘flexicurity’ as a meaningless piece of word-juggling.

  Catherine Stihler (PSE), in writing. − Flexicurity can only work if there is decent support given to someone who loses their job, in terms both of financial support and help to find new work.

  Lars Wohlin (PPE-DE), in writing. − (SV) The concept of flexicurity has now unfortunately gained such a foothold in the debate that it is not possible to avoid it. The conflict rages around whose definition should prevail. In somewhat simplified terms, the Conservatives lay the emphasis on flexibility and the Socialists on security. In the report on flexicurity on which we voted today in the European Parliament, it is fortunately the former definition which prevails. It is for that reason that I was able to support the report, despite a number of less fortunate considerations. Getting rid of the rigidity which, in particular, prevents young people and older workers from getting onto the job market must be given top priority if we are to defeat exclusion.

- Report: Paolo Costa (A6-0399/2007)

  Emanuel Jardim Fernandes (PSE), in writing. − (PT) The European Commission’s proposal for a new European tourism policy presented in its Communication ‘A renewed EU Tourism Policy: Towards a stronger partnership for European Tourism’, which is the subject of this report, deserves our full support.

The report strengthens and supplements the provisions of the Commission’s proposal, improving it by:

- defending the harmonisation of quality standards for tourist accommodation in Europe and supporting the setting up of a European ‘umbrella’ for quality management systems;

- protecting consumers, especially in the field of electronic tourism services (bookings and payments);

- in the field of accessible tourism, taking due account not only of tourists with reduced mobility, but also of the accessibility problems affecting regions with specific natural or geographical characteristics, such as the outermost regions;

- promoting sustainable tourism (economic, social, territorial, environmental and cultural);

- strengthening passengers’ rights in the field of air transport;

- promoting destination ‘Europe’ and European tourist destinations.

I voted in favour for these reasons.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) While welcoming some aspects of this report, such as the promotion of tourist accommodation quality standards, the protection of consumers, the improvement of accessibility to tourist destinations and tourism for all, we regret the rejection of our proposals, which highlighted the need:

- to safeguard workers’ rights and good-quality jobs by investing in the training and development of human resources, ensuring secure employment contracts and fair and dignified wages;

- to take a transversal approach to the sector in Community policies and funding, through the creation of a specific Community programme to complement Member States’ initiatives.

- to reduce the seasonal nature of demand, minimise the impact of resource use and waste, and develop a tourism available to all without any kind of discrimination.

We welcome approval of the proposals that aim:

- to guarantee sustainable tourism that supports other upstream and downstream economic activities, values the landscape and our cultural, historical and environmental heritage and promotes territorial cohesion;

- to oppose the emergence of tourist facilities based on mass tourism, which would have a strong negative impact on local communities, the environment and the historical and cultural heritage.

  Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. − I voted in favour of the Costa report on tourism policy. The tourism industry plays an important role in the economies of every European nation and is absolutely vital in many rural areas such as the Scottish Highlands and Islands. It is important that we in the EU give our full support to the development of a tourist industry which takes account of local economies, cultural and linguistic diversity, and environmental well-being.

  Zita Pleštinská (PPE-DE), in writing. − (SK) With regard to the possibilities that new technologies offer the tourist industry, tourists are increasingly avoiding intermediaries and travel agents, and making tourist reservations, mainly for travel and accommodation, by electronic means.

Cases often arise where consumers are disappointed when they do not obtain the services for which they have paid in advance. I was recently informed about practices at the Victoria Garden Suites Hotel in Strasbourg, when Slovak tourists were downgraded from a three-star to a two-star hotel and treated as if they were second-class citizens. The hotel did not refund them the difference between the services they had paid for and those actually provided, although it was little enough to demand for this.

This development of the use of information technology for tourist services requires a consumer and personal data protection framework for electronic bookings. It is important that consumers receive information that is correct, not deceptive, and that is up-to-date and unambiguous. In the interests of consumer protection, certification of the sites that provide information and offer tourist services (reservation and payment) of an electronic nature would be helpful.

Nothing is worse for tourism than the dissatisfaction of European consumers, hence I have fully supported the report on ‘A renewed EU tourism policy: towards a stronger partnership for European tourism’, just as the rapporteur, Mr Costa, suggested, and I particularly identify with his focus on consumer protection.

  Brian Simpson (PSE), in writing. − I voted in favour of this report as it contains many good ideas on how to progress our tourism policy. However, I want to highlight the importance of industrial heritage and how this can help regenerate old industrial areas and still provide us with culture and history.

The preservation of our industrial heritage is just as important as the preservation of ancient artefacts or geographical phenomena. I come from the region that gave birth to the Industrial Revolution, a revolution so fundamental to the lives of so many that it deserves recognition as part of our unique European culture.

Yet resources given to industrial heritage both at national and European level are small compared to other tourism sectors.

For example, the European body for Heritage and Museum Railways ‘FEDECRAIL’ leads the world in the area of railway preservation and yet receives little help from the European Union

The European Union should recognise the importance of industrial heritage and prioritise this particular branch of tourism so that young people can understand the significance of our industrial past.

Surely the time is now right to recognise the potential for industrial heritage to play a major role in any future European tourism policy.

  Renate Sommer (PPE-DE), in writing. − (DE) I endorse the report on a new EU tourism policy. It highlights opportunities for EU action in the realm of tourism.

Although the EU has no overall powers in this area, it can still take measures to promote tourism. In this way, the Union can help to enhance the competitiveness of the tourism industry, which is a significant economic factor and an even more significant source of employment.

I attach particular importance to the aim of promoting sustainable tourism, in other words a form of tourism in which environmental, economic and social elements receive equal consideration. Sustainable tourism is essential as a basis for the development and continuation of tourist activities and is a crucial factor in the preservation and enhancement of our natural and cultural heritage. Conservation of the natural heritage plays a key role in the continuing success of this economically important industry and enables European tourist destinations to hold their own in the face of international competition. Besides, we must not forget that the EU invariably serves as a shop window too. In numerous areas of activity our example is being followed more and more frequently in many parts of the world. This imposes a heavy responsibility on us. I would therefore ask my fellow Members, particularly those who come from regions associated with tourism, to support the quest for sustainability.

  Margie Sudre (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) The new EU tourism policy must make better provision for consumer protection, which is why I am calling for the certification of internet sites offering tourist services. Consumers must be offered a clear and transparent service which meets the relevant security standards when it comes to making reservations and payments.

Despite genuine progress in promoting ‘destination Europe’ through the creation of a tourist destinations portal, I would urge the Commission and the Member States to continue their efforts to develop isolated regions with great tourist potential (particularly the outermost regions), where tourism is the main sector of activity and vital for their economic and social development.

I would also urge professional bodies in the sector to agree on a harmonised accommodation rating system and to set up public-private partnerships for that purpose.

Lastly, I would urge the Commission to conduct an impact study on the consequences of seasonal tourism at regional level and in the past. If we have a better understanding of this phenomenon we will be able to combat it more effectively.

  Lars Wohlin (PPE-DE), in writing. − (SV) Right at the start, in recital A, the report notes that there is no legal basis for a European tourism policy. It then goes on to speak of the important role tourism can play in promoting social integration and the importance of increased cooperation in providing facilities for tourists. There is a great deal about the collection of statistics and common measures for quality assurance and consumer protection. There are also considerations on the need to protect, conserve and restore the European cultural heritage.

Parliament calls on the Commission to provide the Member States with a guide to improve political coordination in the development of tourism at national, regional and local levels. The European Parliament also wants to introduce a European Heritage label in order to increase support for those elements which are considered worth preserving (European cultural routes and monuments are mentioned as examples).

In my view, and in existing legislation, tourism policy is a national matter. The tourism industry has to develop in competition with the tourism activities of other countries, and each country must be left free to form its own policy. I have therefore voted against this report.

- Report: Alain Lipietz (A6-0409/2007)

  Daniel Caspary (PPE-DE), in writing. − I have decided to vote in favour of the Alain Lipietz report on ‘Trade and Climate Change’ at the November mini-plenary session in Brussels. The report has merit, and it addresses many of the concerns we all share. However, I have decided to vote against some of the amendments and paragraphs because I believe that global warming has to be addressed through sustainable measures which do not have an adverse effect on world economic growth, or the long-term prospects of Europe’s social model.

I am very sensitive to the issue of climate change. The European Union has taken the lead in proposing far-reaching solutions on how to tackle climate change. I believe that Europe’s proposals have become the benchmark for any future discussion, and believe they are compatible with our economic model.

I believe that global trade has been beneficial to the world economy, but at the same time I acknowledge that more needs to be done, especially in the transport sector, to reduce harmful emissions. But world trade as such should not be distorted.

  Edite Estrela (PSE), in writing. − (PT) I voted for the Lipietz report on trade and climate change because I believe that Europe should be a world leader in the fight against climate change and, for this reason, I believe that the European Union’s trade policy must be substantially changed in order to promote a low carbon economy.

The report highlights the need to develop production, consumption and trade patterns that mitigate climate change and its economic impact. Measures are therefore necessary to encourage local production as a means of reducing the need for transport, and to introduce common European Union standards and labelling schemes that aim to raise consumer awareness of the environmental implications of different products.

  Christofer Fjellner (PPE-DE), in writing. − (SV) We moderates succeeded today in persuading the European Parliament to vote against the proposal to introduce tariffs for goods from countries which have not signed the Kyoto Protocol. Similarly we persuaded the European Parliament not to endorse the view that the market economy is to blame for the world’s environmental problems. We have therefore voted in favour of the report on trade and climate change.

Trade is not in itself a threat to the environment – on the contrary. Trade creates the prosperity we need in order to meet future environmental challenges. It gives us the ability to make more effective use of scarce resources and lifts people out of poverty, which is the root of most of the world’s environmental problems. Openness and trade are also the precondition for technology transfer, which will enable developing countries today to have a better environment more quickly than we could ourselves.

Transport which does not bear its environmental costs, on the other hand, is a major problem. We moderates consider that Parliament is adopting the wrong approach in today’s vote in promoting proposals to block and limit trade. Parliament should instead focus on forcing transport to bear its environmental costs. The concern we all share for the environment must not become a pretext for protectionism, because protectionism is a threat to development and hence a threat to a good environment.

  Glyn Ford (PSE), in writing. − Mr Lipietz’s report deals with an important issue. If we are serious about trying to control the production of ‘greenhouse’ gases we must ensure that these costs are factored in on each and every occasion. Trade – free trade – is an important motor for the global economy and it is something we must support. Nevertheless, we cannot continue in the long term to ship goods thousands of kilometres around the globe, with virtually identical goods travelling in the opposite direction, without ensuring the full costs are covered. Yet this transition will need to be carefully managed if some of the poorest people in the world are not to bear the burden of the industrialised world’s profligacy in carelessly abusing the planet’s environmental resources. Europe has a responsibility to protect those people whose livelihoods have been built, at no fault to themselves, on a failing to value the long-term viability of the planet rather than short-term profit.

  Hélène Goudin and Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM), in writing. − (SV) Junilistan thinks that the EU has an important role to play in the fight to reduce mankind’s effect on the Earth’s climate. As one of the main players in world trade, the EU has the possibility of exerting an influence on the environmental effects of production and international transport.

There are, however, grave risks associated with this report. We can read both in and between the lines that a policy based on these considerations will open the door to the protectionist tendencies which many interest groups and countries in the EU endorse. Special interest always seeks to present itself as a champion of the public interest. To support this report would therefore be very risky. As a result we could end up with increased protectionism and hence high costs to the world’s poor and the EU’s consumers.

The EU should instead continue on its chosen path as a model and an ally to all countries in the world which want to act responsibly on climate change. Junilistan has therefore opted to vote against this report.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) We completely agree with the report when it states that ‘the current economic model, which entails constant maximisation of consumption, production and trade, is unsustainable as this results in ever-increasing demand for resources and transport and a growing quantity of waste and emissions’ and that the current trading system produces ‘a global division of labour which is based on a very high input of transport of products’, which could be produced locally in a more sustainable way.

However, we would like to highlight certain negative aspects, such as the call for agreement on the removal of tariff and non-tariff barriers to ‘green goods and services’ as part of the current WTO Doha Round of negotiations, and the implicit acceptance of the negotiation of Free Trade Agreements, which contradicts what the report said earlier about the current trading system.

We also strongly oppose the introduction of the ‘polluter pays principle, ideally through the global extension of the Emissions Trading Scheme’, which we reject because of the consequences it would have.

  Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. − I voted in favour of the Lipietz report on trade and climate change. The issue of climate change is one of the most pressing of the day and requires real action at national, EU and global levels.

Whilst supporting today's report addressing many of the important international issues, I would also like to highlight the Scottish Government's proposals for a Climate Change Bill. The government has set a mandatory long-term target to achieve an 80% reduction in Scotland's emissions by 2050. I believe that this is to be commended and hope that other EU countries adopt equally ambitious targets in their own efforts to combat global warming.

  Syed Kamall (PPE-DE), in writing. − While there is a broad consensus on the need to reduce harmful emissions, the author of this report called for measures that would restrict trade with poorer countries – condemning their citizens to poverty, disrupting global supply chains and introducing unrealistic penalties.

Conservatives believe that the best way to reduce harmful emissions is through more emphasis on technology, agreeing realistic targets and increasing trade with poorer countries so that they can afford to invest in cleaner, greener technology and processes.

  Diamanto Manolakou (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The motion for a resolution is dressed up in cheap environmentally-friendly colours and generalised expressions of good intent, to conceal its reactionary content which bears the stamp of imperialist groupings and organisations.

It criticises air and road transport for being major generators of CO2 as compared with sea and rail, and yet it sends out the message that freedom of choice (for the multinationals) is fundamental to world trade.

For the transport sector, it calls for greenhouse gas trading, which has failed to reduce CO2 emissions but has proved to be a profitable stock-exchange mechanism for capital. It supports the targets of the international monopolies for generous funding through the ‘Clean Development Mechanism’ (CDM).

It allocates to the European Investment Bank the role of an ‘environmentally-friendly’ supervisor which will act ‘in accordance with advice from the OECD and G8’, and demands that future proposals should be those dictated by the WTO.

The essential point is that natural resources are still being plundered by the multinationals, forests are being depleted, reserves of clean water are being reduced and degraded, desertification is spreading, GM crops are becoming more widespread, toxic chemicals are causing pollution, armed conflicts and imperialist intervention are perpetuating themselves, greenhouse gases are building up, billions of people endure capital’s plunder and profiteering, and this resolution will provide back-up and assistance.

We, the MEPs of the Communist Party of Greece, will therefore vote against the motion.

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. − I welcome this report, which sets out a number of realistic measures on how trade might be used as part of the fight against climate change. Solutions such as granting zero tariff rates to products with low greenhouse gas production/consumption values; the prohibition of exotic woods importation, a policy of labelling for energy efficient products and integrating aviation into the emissions trading scheme should all be progressed.

  Olle Schmidt (ALDE), in writing. − (SV) Mr Lipietz’s report on trade and climate change touches on two areas in which the EU has most power to exert an international influence. It is thus of the utmost importance that we in the European Parliament should make our views known on the matter. All countries in the world need to have a stake in the international economy through trade. Only a developed trading system and economic development provide a real basis on which to lift people out of poverty and influence the environment. Europe’s commitment to the environment and development must continue to be a catalyst for a sustainable economy built upon trade and not a barrier to it. I therefore regret that the report which was voted through today takes a line which does not wholeheartedly favour trade and development. With great misgivings I nevertheless chose to vote for it, since the most problematic formulations had been removed.

- Report: Luisa Morgantini (A6-0432/2007)

  Jim Allister (NI), in writing. − In the vote on Amendment 6 on the Morgantini Report on Advancing African Agriculture, we had a telling insight into the affinities and sympathies of the GUE/NGL Group and the wider left family. Coming out as the friend of tyrant Mugabe and opposing opposition to his presence at the Lisbon EU-African Summit, they showed themselves in their true colours. Believing Mugabe to be a despicable despot who has brought his country to its knees, I was very happy to vote against Amendment 6 as a means of registering outrage at his behaviour and his intended presence at the Summit. The fact that Parliament, though by a narrow margin, adopted it, is an appalling boost for that tyrant.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) We denounce the unacceptable political manoeuvre led by the most reactionary sectors of the EP to try to use a report on ‘African agriculture’ to criticise the legitimate participation of the President of the Republic of Zimbabwe, a full member country of the African Union, in the forthcoming EU-Africa summit meeting. This manoeuvre has to all intents and purposes been defeated.

With regard to the report itself, we believe it contains a number of positive points, such as its criticism that basing support for ‘advancing African agriculture’ to ‘facilitate trade’ solely on Economic Partnership Agreements is a form of blackmail to promote the liberalisation of trade in agricultural products.

Encouraging many of these countries to make their agricultural economies dependent on the EU is an attempt to bind these countries to an agreement that imposes on them an agricultural model based on monoculture for export, resulting in obvious and serious economic, social and environmental problems for both the people of many African countries and for the people of the EU Member States.

We therefore believe that helping African agriculture means supporting the socially responsible development of an agricultural model based on its own specific needs and on the food sovereignty and security of each country.

9. Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes

10. Transfers of appropriations: see Minutes

11. Decisions concerning certain documents: see Minutes

12. Forwarding of texts adopted during the sitting: see Minutes

13. Dates for next sittings: see Minutes

14. Adjournment of the session

  President. – I declare the session of the European Parliament adjourned.

(The sitting was closed at 12.20 p.m.)