Verbatim report of proceedings

Monday, 21 April 2008 - Strasbourg

1. Resumption of the session

IN THE CHAIR: MR PÖTTERING
President

(The sitting was opened at 5 p.m.)

  President. − I declare resumed the session of the European Parliament adjourned on Thursday, 10 April 2008.

2. Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting: see Minutes

3. Follow-up to a request for the defence of immunity: see Minutes

4. Membership of committees and delegations: see Minutes

5. Signature of acts adopted under codecision: see Minutes

6. Corrigendum (Rule 204a): see Minutes

7. Documents received: see Minutes

8. Oral questions and written declarations (submission): see Minutes

9. Lapsed written declarations: see Minutes

10. Petitions: see Minutes

11. Action taken on Parliament’s positions and resolutions: see Minutes

12. Order of business

  President. − The final version of the draft agenda as drawn up by the Conference of Presidents at its meeting of Thursday, 17 April 2008, pursuant to Rules 130 and 131 of the Rules of Procedure, has been distributed.

The following amendments have been proposed:

Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday:

No changes

Thursday:

The UEN Group has requested that in the debate on cases of breaches of human rights the item on Iran be replaced with a new item on Georgia.

  Hanna Foltyn-Kubicka, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (PL) Mr President, I propose that we should discuss the situation in Georgia instead of Iran or Chad. The situation in Georgia is urgent, since the Russian Duma has adopted a resolution calling upon the President to consider the question of recognition for Transdniestria, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and an increase in the numbers of Russian forces in the region. The territorial integrity of Georgia is guaranteed by 36 UN resolutions adopted in 1993. In addition there is President Saakashvili’s peace plan for Abkhazia. I believe that this is a priority matter, which is why I am proposing this change.

(Applause)

  Hannes Swoboda, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (DE) Mr President, I do think we should wait for this Parliament’s delegation to visit Georgia in a week’s time, when it will look in particular at the Abkhazia question. After all, a number of delegation members are present here. We can put this item on the agenda after the delegation’s visit in a week’s time, not perhaps as an item for urgent debate but certainly as a matter for serious discussion. First, however, we should wait for the report from the parliamentary delegation.

(Parliament rejected the amendment)

(The order of business was adopted)

13. One-minute speeches on matters of political importance

  President. − The next item is one-minute speeches on matters of political importance.

  Carmen Fraga Estévez (PPE-DE). - (ES) Mr President, as some of you will know from the media, a Spanish freezer vessel, the Playa de Bakio, based in Bermeo, carrying 26 crew aboard, 13 Spanish nationals and 13 crew of African origin, was seized yesterday when fishing for tuna in international waters 250 miles off the coast of Somalia.

For some time now, the fisheries sector has been very concerned at the absence of security in that part of the Indian Ocean where piracy has become rife and where a French yacht was seized recently on 11 April.

In view of this situation, Mr President, I would like to ask Parliament and the Community institutions as a whole to take whatever steps are necessary to expedite the immediate release of the crew and the vessel, and to protect the Community fleet fishing those waters, now considered to be the most dangerous in the world.

  Ioan Mircea Paşcu (PSE). - Mr President, a few weeks ago, together with Mr von Wogau, the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Security and Defence, I visited the EUBAM Mission in Odessa, Ukraine. Its mandate is to help Ukraine and Moldova manage their common border better, by providing both expertise and support.

Once there, we could see that the Mission, through the quality and professionalism of its people, has managed to build a solid reputation of professional authority useful not only in passing on expertise to its counterparts, but also in mediating between them on important questions of mutual interest. Moreover, by flying the EU flag as the only embodiment of our Union in that large and important area, the EUBAM Mission is a very efficient ambassador for our institutions, thus contributing to the concrete implementation of both our security strategy and our neighbourhood policy there. It has most certainly set an example worthy of being applied in other areas of interest to us.

  Graham Watson (ALDE). - Mr President, your speech at our recent part-session in Brussels on the events in Tibet was extremely well received by the House, and I think it enjoyed the support of all the Members present. It quite clearly reflected the public opinion in the European Union about the recent repression in Tibet.

Considerable concern was also expressed by the Commission and by a number of Member States in Council. It is surprising, therefore – and to my group disappointing – that the Presidency-in-Office of the Council has decided not to invite the Dalai Lama to come to Brussels to meet ministers. It therefore seems to me all the more important that this House pursue your suggestion that the Dalai Lama should come, and I wonder whether I might ask you to get in touch with the Dalai Lama’s office to see whether he could advance the visit from the current schedule foreseen for December to an earlier date, since clearly the interest in this House and in Europe in discussing the events in Tibet before December is very great.

(Applause)

  Bogusław Rogalski (UEN). - (PL) Mr President, I wish to speak on the same issue. The Olympic flame has been extinguished with the blood of the Tibetans, blood spilled in Tibet every day. The closer we get to the opening of the Olympics, the greater the Chinese reprisals against their own citizens and against the inhabitants of Tibet.

At the last part-session in Brussels, we adopted a resolution criticising human rights violations by the Chinese authorities. We also called for the Chinese to resume negotiations with the Dalai Lama. Unfortunately these calls were ignored by the Slovenian Presidency. I think that Parliament should react decisively to the fact that the Dalai Lama has not been invited to any official meeting with the European Union by the Slovenian Foreign Minister, Dimitrij Rupel.

Parliament is the conscience of Europe and this conscience must not be silenced by any pronouncements by any minister holding office in the European Union.

  Mikel Irujo Amezaga (Verts/ALE). - (ES) Mr President, piracy has now become one of the worldwide threats to maritime safety.

According to statistics compiled by the International Maritime Bureau, pirate attacks have tripled over the last decade: whereas there were 90 incidents of piracy in 1995, in 2007 the figure had risen to 263.

As we speak, 26 crew members of the fishing vessel Playa de Bakio have been seized off Somalia and perhaps, as my fellow Member said earlier in this House, we should not only show solidarity with their families, but also request the European Union to take action in this matter and to make every effort to free these fishermen.

It is not enough for us to sign agreements with various African States. We also have to ensure the safety of these vessels.

The problem is European in scope and must be tackled as such.

  Mary Lou McDonald (GUE/NGL). - Mr President, as you are aware, there will be a referendum in Ireland on 12 June on the Lisbon Treaty.

I want to raise with you a matter of very deep concern in Ireland. It has emerged through the media that the Commission, and committees of this Parliament, are actively colluding to suppress information. Let me quote Commission Vice-President Margot Wallström, that the Commission is willing to tone down or delay messages that might be unhelpful in advance of the referendum on the Lisbon Treaty; reports have been carried in the press of a letter that was sent to parliamentary committees urging them not to deal with sensitive political issues that might arise from Lisbon until the Treaty has been ratified.

I want to say to you that these types of tactics are unacceptable. The Irish people should have their debate with full information. They deserve the full and unvarnished facts, whether in relation to corporation tax or the outworkings of the defence and security provisions of the Treaty. As a minimum – I am sure you will agree – the people deserve the full facts.

So I call on you today to clarify publicly that committees will not delay or suppress debate on these sensitive matters, and I would equally urge the Commission to do likewise.

  Georgios Georgiou (IND/DEM). - (EL) Mr President, I apologise for the delay, but I have just arrived in Parliament.

I believe that it would be unrealistic for anyone to talk about cross-border cooperation in the case of Greece, which is the country that receives the fourth highest number of illegal immigrants, after Spain, France and Sweden.

Now what talk can there be of cross-border cooperation when, on the other hand – is this not the case, Mr President? – we have to deal with a country engaged in just that: Turkey, which is doing that job; in other words, Turkey has men who are professionally engaged in transporting illegal immigrants from Asia to Europe.

In addition, the financial assistance received by Greece is minimal – I am sorry that I do not have enough time to go into the relevant details – and I must tell you that if Europe does not help, I believe that it is Europe that will have to foot the bill for the people who today are pouring into Europe, via Greece and the Aegean sea, with its 2 000 islands.

  Slavi Binev (NI). - (BG) I take the floor in order to draw your attention to a canker affecting the rights of over a million citizens in Bulgaria’s capital city. This is a problem which illustrates clearly the corruption schemes which, regrettably, have crept into all areas of life in Bulgaria over the past several years. For eight years in a row now, with the obvious blessing of both the town hall and the government, the Sofiyska Voda company has been amassing huge profits at the expense of ordinary citizens without delivering even at a minimum level on its obligations undertaken under the concession agreement. Instead of having the agreement terminated, however, the concession holder receives additional loans amounting to millions of euro. The government authorities in Bulgaria, both central and municipal, keep turning a blind eye to the numerous protests by citizens’ groups which have finally had to approach Mr. Barroso, the European Commission representative, both through official and unofficial channels during his recent visit to our country. Since Bulgaria and its institutions do not have the will to protect the rights of the civil society, I trust that the authorities of the European Union will do so.

  Nicolae Vlad Popa (PPE-DE). - (RO) In April, for the first time Bucharest was present on all media channels only in a favourable light, on the occasion of the NATO Summit that took place in Romania.

Many did not think that our country could organize a summit of this size: 3,000 officials from 49 countries and 3,500 journalists, since the Bucharest Summit had the greatest participation and the most complex agenda in NATO’s history.

I would like to point out three major Summit conclusions: Croatia and Albania were invited to join NATO; NATO will install an anti-missile shield complementary to the American one – this shield will protect NATO countries that are not covered by the American shield; the NATO leaders undertook to increase their troops in Afghanistan in order to fight the Taliban, to share the difficulties of military operations and limit restrictions in using their troops.

  Maria Matsouka (PSE). - (EL) Mr President, let us pay tribute to the memory of Nikos Aslamazidis, of the Saint-Nazaire dockyard, who went on hunger strike. We must once again raise the issue of protecting workers from modern-day slave trading.

Let us talk about unemployment, under-employment, and job insecurity, and also about agencies which hire out workers, or, perhaps I should say, exploit them. These employment agencies treat workers like modern-day slaves: they use them until they are worn out, pay them peanuts, move them around at will and arbitrarily get rid of them. How are we protecting the workers? The Bolkestein Directive makes ambiguity an art form and allows them to be thrown onto the social slag heap. The increasingly popular flexicurity policy is a new way of deregulating employment relations resulting in less stable employment and greater insecurity job. As a result, we now have disposable workers, who struggle daily to survive with dignity.

The creation of different kind of Europe whose priorities are full employment, improved working conditions and a fairer redistribution of wealth, is not only feasible but imperative. The sacrifices of the workers are essentially a struggle against the new imposition of medieval terms of employment against which all progressive forces must really fight as one.

  Magor Imre Csibi (ALDE). - (RO) Deforestation has reached an alarming rate at a global level, namely 13 million hectares a year. The phenomenon is closely related to the illegal cutting of trees and illicit trade in wood products.

We could continue to shut our eyes to the massacre of the forests, believing that we, Europeans, have advanced systems of biodiversity and consumer protection.

In EU, approximately 50 per cent of wood imports from tropical countries and 20% of wood imports from Europe and the Russian Federation come from illegal sources.

Therefore, we contribute fully to illegal deforestations in the Amazon and what’s more, the phenomenon is also widespread in EU Member States such as Estonia, Romania and Bulgaria.

We need to have a consistent and honest approach toward the issue of illegal deforestation and illicit trade in third countries, but particularly on European Union territory.

Therefore, I request the European Commission to submit as soon as possible a legislative proposal by which only wood and wood products coming from legal sources could be traded on the European market.

For this purpose, I have launched a written statement in the EP and I encourage my colleagues to join us in the fight against illegal deforestation.

  Georgios Papastamkos (PPE-DE). - (EL) Mr President, the increase in prices and the impending food shortages are assuming worrying dimensions. I draw your attention to justifiable concerns over recent developments during the agricultural negotiations at the World Trade Organisation (WTO).

The European Commission is conducting the negotiations. It must act strictly within the negotiating mandate of the Council and within the framework of the revised common agricultural policy (CAP). The Commission must ensure the viability, competitiveness and multifunctional nature of European agriculture. The need for a quality food supply to Europe now appears pressing; it must guide the negotiating position of the EU.

  Maria Badia i Cutchet (PSE). - (ES) Mr President, on Wednesday 23 April UNESCO is celebrating World Book Day. That is also the day on which Miguel de Cervantes died and William Shakespeare was born.

Miguel de Cervantes, the greatest figure in Spanish literature, is universally known for his Don Quixote; it is generally agreed that this book is the first modern novel and one of the finest works of literature in the world.

The English playwright, poet and actor William Shakespeare was born on a different 23 April, according to the Julian calendar, and is regarded as the most important writer in the English language and also one of the giants of world literature.

This is the day chosen by many countries of the European Union as the feast day of their patron saint. This is the case in Catalonia, where it is traditionally the feast day of San Jordi, St George, a day for celebrating the Catalan language and culture. I think it would be recognition of European cultures and literature for this Parliament to agree to join in these celebrations on a cultural and literary day which is so widely celebrated in the European Union.

  Jaroslav Zvěřina (PPE-DE). - (CS) Mr President, allow me to point out that our decisions sometimes lead to quite unexpected results. Today the enthusiasm for biofuels and their use in the fuel mix is subsiding somewhat. Not only are biofuels driving up the price of agricultural commodities; they are also contributing to faster devastation of the rainforests. We should learn a lesson from this for future legislation. Some of our other laws may have similar adverse effects, such as the recent trend towards voluntary regulation of the automobile industry. We must not therefore be too hasty to legislate and we must take time to consider the laws and adopt a more responsible approach. We would do well to remember the old adage ‘look before you leap’.

  Hanna Foltyn-Kubicka (UEN). - (PL) Mr President, I would like to say a few more words about freedom of expression in Russia. The Moskovsky Korrespondent daily newspaper has disappeared from news stands because it showed an interest in Vladimir Putin’s supposed divorce. What takes place in the full glare of publicity in France is covered with secrecy in Russia. Clearly any information concerning the marital status of a Head of State should be in the public domain. Moreover, people are not even allowed to ask questions about such matters, as was shown by the recent attack by Vladimir Putin on a female journalist from Niezavisima Gazieta, which reduced the woman to tears.

The rules governing standards of behaviour in the relationship between the authorities and the media recognised in the civilised world still do not apply in Russia. There, the media are a tool controlled by the authorities and if they do not conduct themselves in accordance with the authorities’ wishes they are closed down. Journalists are intimidated, and in extreme cases physically liquidated, as was the case with Anna Politkovskaja.

Freedom of expression is the foundation of democracy. Once again we can see that the foundations of Russian democracy are very weak.

  László Tőkés (Verts/ALE). - (HU) Mr President, in recent years Hungarians have been beaten up in the streets of Slovakia, Serbia and Romania, simply because they have been speaking in their native language – Hungarian. This very weekend aggression has been renewed and blood spilt in Kolozsvár, in Transylvania. The victims were journalists, Tibor Zágy, István Ambrus and János Fancsali, who were attacked from behind on the street at night by three young Romanians and brutally beaten. They were jeered at and insulted, called filthy foreigners and told to go back home where they belonged. In a similar incident on Saturday, another Hungarian, Mr Attila, was knifed in the main square in Szabadka/Subotica, in the Vojvodina in Serbia. This is the place where, on 15 March 2008 – Hungarian Revolution Day – there was an anti-Hungarian demonstration, organised by a neo-fascist Romanian group, the New Right, in Kolozsvár, where, the same day, a young Hungarian was assaulted. It is a matter of urgency that we join forces with our Romanian cousins to suppress aggressive nationalism. We look forward to legislation being adopted by the Romanian authorities and the culprits being punished in an exemplary fashion.

  Daniel Strož (GUE/NGL). - (CS) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to take this opportunity to mention a serious issue: the constant attempts to revise the history of World War II. These are repeated attempts, which take different forms and which sometimes take place in the European Parliament. Most often, in fact in the overwhelming majority of cases, they manifest themselves as attacks on the Czech, or rather Czechoslovakian, so-called Presidential Decrees. In the former Czechoslovakia, these Decrees, based on international law, were used to regulate legal issues relating to the defeat of Nazi Germany. I know for a fact that some German and Hungarian Members of the European Parliament are planning further action this year in opposition to these Presidential Decrees. Consequently, I would ask the Members of the European Parliament not to support such activities and to strongly condemn them. I am sure that we agree that any revision of the history of World War II is entirely unacceptable.

  Marie Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou (PPE-DE). – (EL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let me call your attention to the fact that from today Written Declaration No 33 is open for signature. It concerns where young people stand in the EU’s policies. Everyone knows that young people are affected by unemployment. This is what we must focus on for both the present and the future of the EU.

We therefore call on the Member States to take young people into account in all relevant policy sectors. They must enter with them into a structured dialogue. They must plan policies in education and life-long learning; and also employment, social inclusion, health, the independence of young people, mobility, fundamental rights and non-discrimination. This will give us hope for better prospects in the matter of young people, who are difficult to find, owing to the problem of demographics.

  Riitta Myller (PSE). - (FI) Mr President, one in three fatal road accidents in Europe is caused by drunk driving. On the sunny shores of Spain last Saturday evening at least nine Finnish tourists lost their lives and 19 were seriously injured when a drunken driver with one per mil alcohol in his system crashed his sport utility vehicle into the bus which was carrying them. The accident was made even more serious by the fact that several passengers were not wearing the safety belts fitted in the bus.

There should be some serious thought given at European Union level to how these sorts of appalling incidents and such completely unnecessary loss of life can be avoided in the future. At present the per mil limits vary in the EU between zero and 0.8. They should be made uniform and as close as possible to zero throughout all the EU countries. Furthermore, there needs to be compliance with the rules on safety belts and drivers should be made sufficiently aware of these. We also need to take sufficient account of the consequences of people ignoring them.

  President. − Thank you, Mrs Myller. We all offer our deep sympathy to the victims’ families.

  Filiz Hakaeva Hyusmenova (ALDE). - (BG) European citizens are concerned about the rise in food prices. The overall jump in prices which is felt in Western Europe is more painful in Eastern Europe because of low income levels. A new leap in prices in expected, as a result of financial markets instability and the anticipation of a global economic crisis. The International Monetary Fund called for decisive action to control food prices. The general rise in prices is linked to energy costs, and the European Union is energy-dependent. Hence, discussions on food prices ought to address not only rational farmland use and exploring alternative energy sources. In addition, soaring food prices can be placed under control by regulating prices of traditional energy sources. This demands, once again, a reconsideration of the use of nuclear power as part of the EU energy mix. If nuclear power facilities which are available in Member States are switched on at full capacity, the shortage of energy could be overcome and this would influence prices of goods in the consumer basket.

  Ewa Tomaszewska (UEN). - (PL) Mr President, the Polish Parliament was one of the first legislatures to consider the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty and passed a bill giving its consent for the President of Polish Republic to sign the instrument of ratification.

Many EU Member States have not yet taken any decision on this question. The Constitutional Treaty was blocked following the vote taken by the citizens of France and the Netherlands. I do not propose to refer to the substance of the two treaties. We are all entitled to our own opinion on this.

I want to draw attention to the fact that here in the Chamber, and elsewhere, critical remarks have been made about Poland and the ratification process by representatives of countries which have made no progress at all on this up to now. I regard those remarks as unjustified and ill-intentioned.

  Milan Horáček (Verts/ALE). - (DE) Mr President, according to Amnesty International’s annual report, more than one third of all death sentences worldwide are carried out in China. The exact number is probably much higher and therefore a state secret. Sixty-two states apply the death penalty, sometimes for non-violent crimes such as adultery, tax evasion, prostitution or homosexuality. Iran, Saudi Arabia and Yemen also execute young people under the age of 18.

The European Union must therefore do all in its power to uphold the elementary human right to life and seek a worldwide moratorium on the death penalty. It should address China in particular, heading up these sad statistics, in an endeavour to bring it closer to applying these universal human rights, in accordance with the Olympic motto ‘One World, One Dream’.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Mr President, the Portuguese company Cerâmica Torriense has taken disciplinary action against Pedro Jorge, a worker and trade union leader at the company, with a view to his dismissal, after he participated in a Portuguese radio-television programme where all he did was tell the truth.

In this television programme, he used himself as an example of the situation in which workers in many companies find themselves, that is, they have had no pay rise since 2003. We would like to demonstrate our solidarity with workers and trade unionists who are the targets of repression. We think that the company’s behaviour is unacceptable. Its persecution and intimidation of this worker and active trade unionist is contrary to democracy and freedom and deserves our strongest condemnation.

  James Nicholson (PPE-DE). - Mr President, last Monday the Commission launched its task force report on Northern Ireland by Commissioner Hübner, and I am very pleased to see her in the Chamber here this evening, so she can at last hear what I have to say on this subject. Unfortunately, though this report contains some good points, it did not go far enough to cover this destructural deficit we experienced by lagging so far behind the rest of Europe after over 30 years of terrorist violence. It is also most unfortunate that the Members of this Parliament were not properly consulted or kept informed; this has never happened before – a major opportunity has been missed by the Commission and the First and the Deputy First Minister in Northern Ireland, and not one extra euro has been given. Unfortunately, this has now been seen as a long exercise that did not in the end give any real positive result.

Mr President, the peace in Northern Ireland is still fragile. It has come a long way, and it has taken a long time. But it is still fragile, and the difficulties that still lie ahead should not be underestimated. I believe more can be done, more could have been done and more should be done to ensure we provide a very strong base to this peace process that many of us have worked so hard to achieve over such a long period of time.

  Csaba Sándor Tabajdi (PSE). - (HU) Mr President, on 11 May Serbia will go to the polls. We all know that the Western Balkans will not be stable unless there is stability in Serbia. However, all the indications are exceptionally negative. There is Kosovo, with the loss of 16% of the country’s territory. Nationalism casts a shadow over everything and it is conceivable that the nationalists, the Radical Party, Koštunica and the Socialist Party, and Milošević’s party will form a coalition. Serbia is not moving towards Europe. At the same time, the European Union is making every mistake it could make. I pray that Javier Solana will not make a statement, as with every one of his statements Javier Solana damages the prospects for Tadić’s pro-European party. It was a huge mistake to allow Haradinaj, the Albanian guerrilla, to leave The Hague. It was a huge mistake to announce a trade agreement with Kosovo at this point in time. It was a huge mistake to keep talking about the Stabilisation and Association Agreements (SAA) (which The Netherlands thwarted in January) and saying that the European Union is doing good, that it is helping, that it is making visas easier, and trying to retrieve the irretrievable, the Union is attempting at last to help the democrats, the pro-Europe parties. Thank you.

  Toomas Savi (ALDE). - Mr President, the protests that disrupted the Olympic torch relay in Europe have backfired on us, as there are now several anti-Western demonstrations going on in China.

In principle, everyone has a right to feel betrayed that the Chinese authorities have not fulfilled their commitment to improving the human rights situation in that country, and the ongoing violence in Tibet continues to cast a shadow over the Olympics in Beijing.

However, I cannot go along with the idea that aggressive protests such as those that took place in London and Paris addressed this issue in a proper manner. Our inclination to take advantage of the Olympics to introduce some democratic values for the people of China is going to be met with extreme reluctance, as they feel insulted by those protests.

An internal change inspired by the will of the Chinese people is needed to bring about the fall of the Communist regime in China. Anti-Western demonstrations are quite vivid proof that our recent acts have led to the opposite of what we had hoped for.

  Ioannis Gklavakis (PPE-DE). - (EL) Mr President, according to the European Commission’s data, in order to protect fisheries stocks, we are reducing the Community fleet annually by 2%. Thus from 2003 to 2006 the reduction is of the order of 10%. Despite this, the reduction in the fleet does not correspond to smaller catches, because of the improvement in fishing technology.

On the other hand, while the EU is reducing its fishing fleet, countries in Africa and the Pacific, such as Australia, New Zealand and China, are building more and more boats and increasing their fishing fleets. The Community fleet is thus shrinking, while at the same time the fleets of third countries are growing. This means that we are not achieving anything!

Although it imports 40% of the fish it consumes, the EU is sufficiently aware to make an effort. It is therefore vital for us to include this subject in international talks. We must ensure that others also reduce their fishing fleets.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (PSE). - (RO) In order to best use the opportunities provided by globalization, the European Union should modernize its social policies and invest mainly in human resources.

Starting in the ‘90s, expenses of social protection have remained around 28% of the gross domestic product.

During 2000-2007, the number of jobs increased by 13 million, while the unemployment rate decreased from 9% to 7%.

At the same time, approximately 80 million European citizens are below the poverty threshold. The poverty risk among children is 19% in the European Union.

The Lisbon Treaty emphasizes the importance for the European Union to have a social market economy.

Social changes that take place in the context of globalization refer to unemployment, the reform of the pension system, the reform of taxation systems, fighting poverty and invetsments in education and the child care system.

Education could play a vital role in compensating for the socio-economic disadvantage and for opening the way for children’s succesful development.

Member States should also improve their health systems and fight poverty among the elderly as well.

  Thierry Cornillet (ALDE). - (FR) Mr President, I just wanted to remind Members that on Wednesday we will be celebrating the first World Malaria Day. Until now it was called Africa Malaria Day. This year, for the first time, it will be commemorated as World Malaria Day.

I wanted to remind Members that this global problem, which, by its nature, is associated with poverty, affects 107 countries in the world, and that in 90 of those countries it constitutes a major public health problem, since 40% of the world’s population lives in malaria-stricken regions. The number of reported malaria cases worldwide is somewhere in the region of 350 to 500 million per year, with more than 60% of cases being reported in Africa, leading to 90% of malaria deaths. Every 30 seconds a child dies in Africa from malaria. This means that, by the end of my speech, Mr President, two children will have died from malaria.

The disease is also believed to inhibit growth, as malaria reduces GDP by USD 12 billion per year. On Wednesday, a working lunch will be held on the subject at 1 p.m. in Room C 2.1.

  Nicodim Bulzesc (PPE-DE). - (RO) In relation to the report on volunteering, I would like to emphasize the importance of these actions in the countries newly integrated into the European Union, namely the role of volunteering for improving the economic situation and social cohesion.

Romania, as well as other countries in the European areas, has taken shy actions in the field of promoting volunteering, although the European policies on recycling waste, reducing carbon emissions and environmental protection could be implemented and motivated by the involvement of politicians, together with young people, in volunteer actions.

The impact is so strong that it could trigger a favourable reaction of the state institutions and contribute to changing the mentality of a generation.

I propose the inclusion of volunteering into the education system and interregional programmes based on projects for establishing connections between Member State citizens.

I propose criteria of symbolic stimulation for people participating in volunteer actions and I request the help of the European Commission and the European Parliament.

  Milan Gaľa (PPE-DE). - (SK) The European Foundation for Democracy was launched in Brussels last week. I welcome the creation of this pan-European initiative, whose fundamental task is to promote freedom and democracy beyond the European Union’s borders and to support the opposition in countries that are not free.

Many of us spent part of our lives under totalitarian regimes. I believe that today, now that are free, we have to help those courageous women and men who strive for freedom and democracy in their countries. I have personal experience of giving financial support to the families of Cuban dissidents.

I also believe that we need to find ways of supporting the activities of the European Foundation for Democracy from the European Union budget. In this way we can join the struggle to promote freedom and stand alongside figures such as Václav Havel, Richard von Weizsäcker, Jacques Delors and other politicians who have agreed to become patrons of this Foundation.

  Kyriacos Triantaphyllides (GUE/NGL). - (EL) Mr President, the Council has decided to wage a war of nerves with the UN by dealing with the situation in Kosovo through unilateral initiatives irrespective of the rule of law or international law. Thus the decision to send the EULEX peace-keeping force to Kosovo to take over the role that until recently had been played by UNMIK is a tactical error. In Article 5 the Council decision notes that there will be a transfer of mission from the UN to the EU force once the formers mission has ended.

Fortunately, there are countries, such as Spain, which oppose such initiatives. According to Mr Moratinos, the Spanish Minister of Foreign Affairs, the initiatives contravene international law.

Finally, Slovenia and France warned Serbia that it had to accept EULEX, or else risk not joining the EU. I consider this to be unacceptable, to say the least.

  Zita Pleštinská (PPE-DE). - (SK) The blank front pages of Slovakia’s daily papers – a protest against the approval of the media law that will introduce non-democratic press standards in Slovakia from June 2008 – remind me of Belarus, where the government does not respect the opposition and where there is no freedom of speech or freedom of the press.

I believe that a Member State that is celebrating on 1 May 2008 the fourth anniversary of its accession to the European Union should not adopt laws that are contradict the basic democratic principles of the European Union.

Mr Pöttering, I greatly appreciate your words and your clear stance in favour of press freedom in Slovakia. I would also like to thank my colleagues Mr Joseph Daul and Mr Michael Gahler for their support. I trust that the representatives of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament will not adopt a passive approach to this matter either.

I also appeal to all European politicians of a democratic persuasion to make every effort to ensure that the Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought is not awarded to Slovakia.

  Marian Harkin (ALDE). - Mr President, I should like to say a few words about the position of agriculture in the current WTO negotiations. I am deeply concerned about the direction being taken by Commissioner Mandelson in the negotiations with regard to concessions on agriculture. On a number of occasions, I have put the question to Commissioner Fischer Boel in this House, and each time she has reassured me that Commissioner Mandelson is staying within his remit.

However, with the ministerial meeting scheduled for 20 May in Geneva, and Commissioner Mandelson’s willingness to sacrifice agriculture to get a deal – with, I might add, nothing in return on non-agricultural market access and services – I am very concerned.

At our last part-session in Strasbourg we discussed the CAP, and many Members spoke of the need for food security and on the issue of air miles on food products and the growing of food for fuel. All of this will have serious implications for European food supply.

If Commissioner Mandelson gets his way and reduces import tariffs beyond what he was mandated to do, he will flood the European markets with imported food. The outcome of his actions will be to severely damage and, in some cases, destroy European food production. We can only do this once and then it is done permanently. As parliamentarians, we have a responsibility to ensure not just sustainable quality and traceable food, but also food security.

  Anna Záborská (PPE-DE). - (SK) I would like to point out that Cardinal Alfonso López Trujillo, President of the Pontifical Council for the Family, died in Rome yesterday at the age of 72 .

Throughout his life he promoted traditional family values and opposed abortion. As the head of the influential Latin American Bishops Conference, he was considered a possible papal candidate after the death of John Paul II in 2005. In 2006 he criticised scientists involved in embryonic stem cell research. In his view, the destruction of embryos was comparable to abortion.

Cardinal Trujillo always responded to today’s world events in a clear and timely manner. I had several meetings with him, which demonstrated how we, as Christian politicians, could benefit from his opinions. We will miss his voice. May he rest in peace.

  Marios Matsakis (ALDE). - Mr President, freedom of the press is a fundamental principle of democracy and we rightly expect the Turkish penal code to be amended so as to respect this principle. However, in order to be persuasive, we have to make sure that this principle is properly applied in the EU Member States too. I would ask colleagues to consider, objectively, whether the press in Europe is really democratic and free. The answer is ‘not really’. The press in the EU is to a large extent manipulated and directed by non-journalistic economic and political interests. The media, in many cases, present the truth not as it really is, but as certain media barons wish the public to perceive it as being. The time has come for us to look critically at how the press functions in the EU and take urgent corrective action. We should be firm with Turkey on freedom of the press, but at the same time we should take action in our own countries against press corruption.

  Oldřich Vlasák (PPE-DE). - (CS) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, trade and cooperation help to bring countries and individuals closer together, as does sport. In 2008 we have an anniversary that is particularly important for European countries: it is the 100th anniversary of the International Ice Hockey Federation. To commemorate this event, a group of Members from European hockey-playing countries, led by the Slovak Member of the European Parliament, Mr Peter Šťastný, organised an exhibition in the European Parliament in Brussels, reminding us of both the successes as well as the difficult times when athletes were oppressed in some countries under the communist regime. Thanks to Mr Šťastný’s contacts, the Stanley Cup was brought over from Canada especially for this occasion and was put on display, for the first time, in Belgium and in the European Parliament.

In conclusion, I would like to express my thanks to you, Mr President, and to Commissioner Mr Ján Figeľ, for launching and sponsoring the exhibition, whose motto is ‘Uniting people through the passion for a sport’, and of course to all those who visited this exhibition and will pass the message on to others.

  President. − Thank you. It was an impressive event. I would be interested to know whether you are aware of any media reports.

That brings us to the end of the list of speakers. All those who asked to speak, in writing or by raising their hand, have taken the floor.

  Georgios Toussas (GUE/NGL). - (EL) Mr President, this is the third time I have taken part in the one-minute speech procedure. I am asking the Presidency for permission to speak, but you are not giving it to me. Why do you not let me have my say?

  President. − Mr Toussas, I have just heard that you may have asked to speak. Normally, Members put requests to speak in writing to ensure that they appear on the list. You are not entered in my list. But I will give you the floor as the last speaker. I would ask you to put your request in writing next time. Then you will not be overlooked if there is any speaking time left.

  Georgios Toussas (GUE/NGL). - (EL) Mr President, for some days now, economic migrants employed on farms have been suffering in appalling working and living conditions. Employed in the strawberry fields of Nea Manolada, in the Prefecture of Ilia, Greece, they have been on strike, asking for their daily wage to be increased from the humiliating amount of EUR 23 to EUR 30.

Large-scale strawberry growers and their hired thugs attempted to intimidate the foreign workers. In an attempt to forestall a large rally planned by the workers for yesterday in the square of Pyrgos, Ilia Prefecture, the workers’ camps were attacked, shots were fired in the air, and many workers were savagely beaten. We condemn this barbaric attack, to which the police and the legal authorities turned a blind eye. We ask for measures to be taken immediately to protect economic migrants.

  President. − That concludes this item.

14. Commission: budgetary framework and priorities for 2009 (debate)

  President. − The next item is the report by Jutta Haug, on behalf of the Committee on Budgets, on the 2009 budget, Section III - Commission: budgetary framework and priorities for 2009 (2008/2024(BUD)) (A6-0084/2008).

  Jutta Haug, rapporteur. − (DE) Mr President, Commissioner Hübner, ladies and gentlemen, this year’s budgetary procedure is special because it is the last one to obey the rules that have applied in the past. As of next year we will be establishing our budget according to the procedure set out in the Lisbon Treaty.

That means our Parliament will have to concentrate more carefully because we will have to express our political will in budgetary items and budgetary figures at a single reading. We will no longer be able to rectify, to amend compromises we have reached, or to make up for mistakes at a second reading.

The first and indeed only reading must remain and must serve as a workable basis for negotiations with the Council up to the end of the year. It is therefore important for us to emphasise that alongside the 2009 budgetary procedure we expect to make preparations together with the Council and the Commission to ensure that we conduct the budgetary procedure in accordance with the Lisbon Treaty.

Our current budgetary procedure is, however, somewhat different already. At the suggestion of the Working Party on Parliamentary Reform, the Committee on Budgets has decided it will no longer submit our usual guidelines in response to the Commission’s Annual Policy Strategy in the form of an initial motion for a resolution in plenary, but will instead present our proposal on the budgetary framework and priorities for 2009. The groups are responsible for the APS resolution, which will address all the policy areas. We in the Committee on Budgets have concentrated on the overarching budgetary concerns we consider especially important and have set them out in 11 paragraphs.

I want to draw particular attention to three aspects. Firstly, it is clear that our budgetary cloth has been cut very closely, i.e. it is a very tight fit. The margins for the individual headings are very small. We cannot fund political priorities that would urgently need budgetary flanking measures, such as playing a practical role in climate policy, without putting earlier priorities at risk. The same applies to funding growth and employment or a sustainable Europe.

If we take, for example, Heading 1A we see that we can under no circumstances finance any new agencies with available funds. We will have to stick to our old, but simple and eminently reasonable principle of ‘new tasks, new money’.

Secondly, it is clear see that Heading 4 is chronically under-funded. The picture there remains the same year after year. We expect the Commission to present us with a preliminary draft budget that has analysed the requirements precisely and is realistic. We want at last to use the flexibility instrument for the purpose for which it was introduced, namely for unforeseen needs. We do not want it to have been swallowed up, in part or even in full, by the end of the year.

Thirdly, we are firmly resolved to inform the Commission before Parliament’s summer recess of our intentions regarding pilot projects and preparatory actions. We expect the Commission to leave us adequate margin for manoeuvre for this parliamentary instrument in the preliminary draft budget, and to do so for all headings.

We certainly noticed that it has not included the pilot projects and preparatory actions in the tables attached to the Annual Policy Strategy for 2009.

In conclusion, we are resolved not to go beyond the financial framework but are very clearly aware of the restrictions and problems and therefore hope for good cooperation with the Council and the Commission.

IN THE CHAIR: MR ANTÓNIO DOS SANTOS
Vice-President

  Danuta Hübner, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, I wish to start by informing Ms Haug and the other Members of this House that the Commission has not only examined this resolution, but can also agree with a significant number of points, not least in respect of the principles of budgetary discipline and sound financial management.

We appreciate this opportunity to hold an exchange of views at an early stage in the 2009 annual budget procedure. In that spirit I also fully share the view expressed in your draft resolution that we should start reflecting on the consequences of the Lisbon Treaty on the budget procedure.

The Commission has also taken note of Parliament’s continued support for activity-based budgeting and its proposal to come forward with ideas for pilot projects and preparatory actions before the summer. This will no doubt improve the possibility of a smooth and timely implementation.

The Commission also appreciates Parliament’s detailed examination of the 2009 APS, which was the subject of an intensive debate last March. The APS serves as a consistent reference framework for preparation of the preliminary draft budget and the Commission’s legislative and work programme, although it does not predetermine the final outcome, which will take account of the European Parliament and Council priorities.

It is on this basis that the Commission will adopt the preliminary draft budget for 2009. In terms of policy development and programming implementation, 2009 is the third year of the current programming period and should be a year of consolidation. Accordingly, the Commission has not proposed, in the APS, any major changes in financial programming. It has, however, proposed three main initiatives with a limited impact on the allocation of financial resources in 2009.

Firstly, as part of our policy on the integrated management of the external borders, there is a reinforcement of Frontex in the budget, as already decided, in 2008, by the budget authority. Secondly, to follow up the EU’s new strategy on Central Asia adopted by the Council in June 2007, the Commission is proposing to frontload assistance to that area in 2009, while keeping the total allocation over the period the same. Thirdly, in line with the Bali road map, it has proposed reinforcing support for the environment and the sustainable management of natural resources in developing countries. In making these proposals, the Commission has taken care to carefully limit the impact on the available margins, and will continue to do so when presenting its PDB.

I shall conclude by stressing an important point. During the course of the 2008 budget procedure, a number of joint declarations were agreed with regard to agencies, both executive and centralised, and the detailed information that should be available to the budget authority. The Commission will implement those provisions during the 2009 budget procedure, and I am confident this will afford Parliament a clearer picture of the resources available.

  László Surján, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (HU) Thank you for giving me the floor, Mr President. I am sure that Jutta Haug’s report will get the support of Parliament and I congratulate her on her work. I would like now to express a few thoughts.

The first is that Parliament is trying, with its hands tied, to work out a budget to meet the new challenges. We have heard about those just now. We support the enhanced role for growth and job creation, since this will be one of the key elements in the development of underdeveloped regions, or it should be. I am delighted that the Commission has this safe pair of hands as its representative, with responsibility for regional development.

A very important point in this report is that European citizens must be informed about how their money is being spent and how we are committed to spending their money to get as much value as possible.

We are waiting for the Lisbon Treaty to be ratified and so cannot behave as we would hope to at the end of the year, when all of a sudden, to coin a phrase, just like the rabbit being pulled out of the hat, the agreement which will regulate our work will magically appear. We have to work towards that. The European People’s Party is voting for this report and hopes the amended motions will be supported, especially those concerning small and medium-sized enterprises.

I am not in full agreement, however, with Mrs Haug that we are negotiating in time. The previous budget will have to be in place, and we can agree it only if by some happy chance we have requested in advance items which the Commission also supports. We will have to properly think through how we do that in the future so that Parliament can send its own message sooner to the Commission. Thank you for your kind attention.

  Göran Färm, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (SV) Mr President, as Mrs Haug said, this is the last budget to follow the old model, at least if the new treaty is ratified, but it is also a budget which is a prelude to longer-term budgetary reform. At the same time, we are, of course, heading towards the mid-term review. This being the case, it is natural for us to view budgetary issues from a longer-term perspective.

We consider, and it is important in the resolution, that important new political priorities must also be borne out in the budget. For example, at the moment we clearly have insufficient funds under heading 1, sustainable growth, etc. and under heading 4. We therefore expect a courageous proposal from the Commission for the mid-term review, but we must also start as early as next year’s budget.

We have some points to raise which are particularly important. Firstly, I am thinking about climate and energy policy. I am budget rapporteur for the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy and we have, for example, the major Strategic Energy Technology Plan, the SET plan, we have the measures for energy efficiency and so on, all of which have insufficient budgetary resources.

The second point I am considering is heading 4, particularly everything that is happening in the Balkans. Last year we had a major debate on investment in Kosovo. This investment must continue and it must be long term. Furthermore, it must take place at the same time as finding additional support to help Serbia and Bosnia draw closer to the EU.

The third thing we would like to focus on is the quality of the budget. We have sometimes had rather too many pilot projects and preparatory actions, for example. Now we should focus more on ensuring that these kinds of measures really are implemented successfully. One of the things I am thinking of here is what I myself have proposed regarding preserving the cultural heritage of the war-torn Balkans. We must now ensure that this really does become a permanent investment.

The fourth area I am thinking about is the food crisis. We are now in a situation where the rising price of food really may have an impact on the EU’s budget. We must not ignore this.

My conclusion is that in a changing society, we must also be prepared to change the EU’s budget.

  Anne E. Jensen, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (DA) Mr President, as many people have mentioned, 2009 will be an exciting year for the EU in many ways. The European Parliament elections and the new appointment of the Commission, together with the anticipated entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, will make the practical work in connection with the 2009 budget quite difficult. This is why we have decided to allow this year’s budget to be a general test of the new rules, so that we can gain experience. In future, we should start the budget process earlier in the year and involve the technical committees in a better way. In addition, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Haug, for her excellent initiatives in connection with this.

Today we are discussing the first announcements concerning the EU’s budget for 2009. It is of course important that there is a clear link between the political priorities, both before and after their implementation in the Commission’s annual legislative programme, so that the EU’s budget appears as an integrated political instrument. We have a problem here, as the multiannual financial framework is too constrained on many points. The EU now has a common energy and climate policy, yet there is no common funding to support this policy. The component of the budget that finances research, innovation, education and transport is clearly inadequate. Similarly, the frameworks for legal and asylum policy and for culture and health policy is much too constrained. In addition, the EU’s foreign policy is chronically underfunded – priorities such as Kosovo and Palestine indicate the challenges that we face. Therefore, it is important that we now discuss the forthcoming mid-term review of the budget to ensure that the EU can continue to finance important political priorities after 2009. We need flexibility and better opportunities for reprioritisation within the framework.

  Zbigniew Krzysztof Kuźmiuk, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (PL) Mr President, Commissioner, on behalf of the UEN Group, I wish to draw your attention to the following issues in the debate on budgetary priorities for 2009.

First, if the Lisbon Treaty is ratified by all the Member States, in 2009 powers will be transferred from the Member States to the EU, giving the European Union new areas of responsibility. This, in my opinion, will have a significant impact on expenditure from the Union’s budget.

Second, the year 2009 – according to expert forecasts – will in all probability be the fifth successive year in which there has been a steady increase in the prices of foodstuffs. This will cause increasing social problems among the poorer Member States, and also in the countries to which the European Union gives food aid. The Union’s budget for 2009 should allow for more support both for growth of agricultural production in Europe, and for the export of agricultural produce by the Union.

Finally, my third point concerns the prevention of climate change, which is one of the budgetary priorities for 2009. This will put additional burdens on the economies of Member States, unfortunately without making any allowances for the delays in their development. This will put the new Member States in a particularly difficult situation and could lead to serious and detrimental economic and social consequences in those countries.

  Esko Seppänen, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (FI) Mr President, Commissioner, the rapporteur, Mrs Haug, shows immense technical skill and professionalism in her work. Our group supports the call in the report for solidarity within the Union and a balance in regional development, and wants to see greater transparency and clarity in the budget.

It is important to give attention to the mid-term review of the budgetary framework for the years to come in 2009, even though the outcome of the new negotiations will not yet have an impact on next year’s budget. Our group has always made the comment that the Union’s budget lacks the tools for building the EU’s social dimension. That is one of the reasons why we could not accept the final draft budget proposals in December.

Our group also believes that the Union’s trend towards militarisation will continue if the Lisbon Treaty is adopted. It will add new elements to the work of the Union: a security and defence policy and permanent structural cooperation. We observe how the Council is continually proposing new appropriations for the Union’s budget and how Parliament is ready to accept them. An attempt to include the Athens financing mechanism in the joint budget is the conclusion one reaches from the determination with which the Council proceeds towards Union militarisation and from its consistent calls for more military appropriations.

We also note that next year’s budget contains no clear budget policy on the costs the Union will incur for Kosovo and how they will be paid. There are unforeseen costs looming for the commitment of some Member States. This is for the promotion of the national independence of an ethnic-based community which is unique in the European context.

  Margaritis Schinas (PPE-DE). - (EL) Mr President, we are today inaugurating the 2009 budget, with its various special features. It is the last budget of the current parliamentary term and of the Barroso Commission. In all probability, it will be the first budget to fall between the current and new legislative frameworks. This budget will be brought in by the Lisbon Treaty, and as you know, it involves the European Parliament in many significant areas of competence.

When there are many areas of competence there are also usually many responsibilities. In this context I should like to make four points about the 2009 budget. The first point is that the budget must have added community value and not merely give the impression of the end of an era. I welcome what the Commissioner said. The reinforcement of Frontex, for example, is a qualitative element showing that even in the last year of the five-year cycle of the Commission and the Parliament we can tackle new challenges.

My second point is that it must be a developmental budget, not one that will fund micro-programmes and modest priorities. In the prevailing atmosphere of economic crisis surrounding us, we must emphasise problems requiring developmental responses.

The third point is that for any new policy priority we must also have new possibilities of funding. To be plain, new targets mean new money.

Finally, as 2009 will be a year of elections, I appeal to the Commission. When you present the preliminary draft budget to us, do so in a simple and comprehensible way. It is time for the citizens of Europe to be able to understand, easily the budget, which is about them.

  Costas Botopoulos (PSE). - (EL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, today’s debate on the Haug report, I believe, represents a first essential step towards the politicisation of the budget procedure. One way or another, 2009 will be a very full political year for Europe and our Parliament: parliamentary elections will be taking place, I hope the new Lisbon Treaty will be implemented and quite a number of changes will come into force in own Parliament. In the midst of all these developments, the budget will undergo fundamental changes. This is what is being prepared for in political terms in this report.

Let me focus on four important points in the procedure and report. Firstly, it is important to react in good time to prepare for the new situation. The next budget, which, as we have all said, will be the first of the new procedure, must be based on foundations already laid down so that it can work correctly.

I should like to emphasise the second point because the Socialist Group in the European Parliament has been calling for it for many years: opening up the procedure to the other committees. Here, the rapporteur’s initiative is very important. We have debated not only with the Committee on Budgets but also with the other committees about the policy priorities.

Thirdly, we must strive both now and every year to reflect the policy priorities of this Parliament according to what the budget says. Here, I believe that the primary issues are the huge subject of poverty, agriculture, development and technology.

Fourthly and lastly, and I am just finishing, Mr President, is the importance of the pilot programmes. They give us a vital glimpse at what will happen over the coming years in the EU.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Mr President, among the important aspects affecting the 2009 budget is the planned review of the Community budget. The exact form of this review has yet to be defined, but we are concerned about some of the objectives already indicated for the review.

Moreover, with regard to the guidelines adopted by the Commission and the Council, it is clear that there will be a repeat of what happened in 2007 and 2008, namely, that spending will once again fall short of the limits laid down in the multi-annual financial framework, already insufficient to meet the needs of real social cohesion in the European Union. In addition, there are increasing signs that the allocation for ‘expenditure’ on social cohesion will not be used. At the same time, there is an increase in the allocation for the EU’s external action, namely, intervention in theatres of war, which we reject.

In brief, insufficient funds for priorities we agree with and more funds for priorities we reject.

  Reimer Böge (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I want to begin by strongly supporting the words of the rapporteur and also by appealing to Parliament’s specialist committees really to concentrate on projects with European added value when it comes to what I hope will be prompt consideration of the pilot projects and preparatory actions.

Addressing the Commission and the Council, let me add that in the course of the debate we finally want an answer to the question how we can at last restore health to our foreign and security policy that is suffering from several years of chronic under-funding, to bring an end to the annual disputes in this area that benefit nobody and are also damaging to the Commission and the Council.

The Commissioner said she would respond to the outcome of Bali in the preliminary draft budget, along the lines of formulating a new Asia strategy. But I would like to know when the Commission intends to present proposals on the budgetary implications of the Reform treaty, for the period up to 2013. Or are we supposed to wait for the next financial programming period? After all, we are concerned here with new aspects of immigration policy, climate change, energy policy, judicial cooperation and foreign and security policy. We have heard nothing on those subjects.

Let me add that as part of this budgetary procedure we must create the framework for implementing the new treaty once it has been ratified, which means that we must – proceeding with due care and sensitivity – take account of the need to adjust the agreements, in relation both to the ratification process and to the legal basis. That is most important. There are three aspects here. Where do we need preliminary agreements to ensure the appropriate transition from the old to the new treaty? Where do we need transitional agreements to ensure legal certainty? And where do we need a little more time to get subsequent agreements underway on the basis of the necessary legislative procedures?

I want to make it quite clear – to the forthcoming French Presidency too – that any agreements we can reach in regard to those three aspects will depend on the results, and we must retain a degree of flexibility so that we do not set everything in stone from the outset and then have to break it up again with a sledge-hammer.

  Jan Mulder (ALDE). - (NL) Mr President, first of all I wish Jutta Haug bon courage in this important task, which she is taking on for the second time. 2008 will after all be a very important year, not only because we have to draw up the ordinary budget for 2009 – as many speakers have said – but also because we have to work out a procedure for agreeing the 2010 budget under the new treaty. This year is the time to demonstrate exactly what Parliament can and cannot do.

There is still a considerable lack of clarity over agriculture. From a careful reading of the treaty it seems that the Council can, this time, set the prices and quotas unilaterally. How does that sit with our new budgetary powers on agriculture for category II? We are supposed to have equal powers. Sorting that out has to be a priority. Food and energy policy remains important and perhaps we can resolve this within the 5% margin afforded us by the Interinstitutional Agreement. I urge the Commission to give thought to it.

  Ville Itälä (PPE-DE). - (FI) Mr President, Commissioner, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Haug, for her excellent work and cooperation. She does indeed show professionalism and at this crucial stage the budget is surely destined for a happy outcome at the end of the year if this cooperation continues.

Is our budget sufficiently transparent for us to be able to gain the public’s confidence when the elections take place in 2009? At the same time, however, we are preparing for a post-Lisbon time, and this is especially true of foreign policy, for example, and we need to prepare ourselves for a time when Parliament too shows that it has the will to contribute to this new approach to foreign policy.

I want to say something important while this budget is still being drafted. I hope that the Commission will produce an initiative which the rapporteur could then develop. It relates to the Baltic Sea Strategy. I have heard that the Commission is working on such a strategy and I have also heard that Sweden, when it eventually holds the Presidency, intends to make the Baltic Sea Strategy a top priority.

This strategy will be of no importance if it does not have any money behind it. At present we have many different pilot projects here and there. This entire Baltic policy is a patchwork quilt, both in terms of its finances and politically. That is why we need a separate heading entitled the Baltic Sea Strategy, so that we can implement the right kind of environmental policy, the right kind of transport policy and even the right kind of energy policy, as we know that a gas pipe will be passing though the Baltic Sea from Russia to Germany. That is why we need this initiative, and I hope that the Commission will show some on this occasion.

  Valdis Dombrovskis (PPE-DE). - (LV) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, from the procedural viewpoint the EU’s budget for 2009 can be seen as preparation for two important issues. Firstly, with the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty the EU budget procedure has changed significantly and we need to do the necessary preparatory work to ensure clarity and successful work on the European Union’s budget for 2010. Secondly, we need to speed up the review of the EU budget, including issues concerning the reform of the common agricultural policy and the UK rebate, in order to ensure a successful mid-term report on the financial perspective. The policy priorities set out by the European Commission for 2009 – promoting economic growth and employment, combating climate change and fostering sustainable development – are to be endorsed, but they have to be implemented with the necessary support from the EU budget. Unfortunately, the restricted budget amount within the ceiling laid down in the financial framework means that the resources needed to finance the new priorities must be sought within the confines of the existing budget, and we have to redistribute resources. It is possible that we will have to change the restrictions on obtaining individual EU budget resources. For example, the restriction currently in force for the Structural Funds, that only 3% of resources from the relevant operational programme may be channelled towards energy efficiency measures, prohibits new Member States from reviewing their priorities for obtaining Structural Funds in accordance with the new priorities on Europe’s energy strategy and climate change. Thank you for your attention.

  Ingeborg Gräßle (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I want to give my views on two of the priority points, namely our rapporteur’s criticism that EU budgeting lacks transparency, and the Commission’s staff policy.

As rapporteur on the budget I am asking the Commission to address the point of budgetary transparency and to put forward proposals for the next planned reform of the budgetary system. The information contained in the actual budget is absolutely inadequate and these lists of numbers are actually no use to us at all. So far the Commission has been producing a lot of accompanying documents, which only devalues the budget itself. Why not include more information within the budget itself from the outset, which would remove the need for some of the reports that have been requested and please both the Commission and Parliament. I will work on those foundations for the next budgetary reform and would ask my fellow Members, even at this stage, to support the preliminary activities, because I would like to have several studies carried out on the subject.

My second point is this: in its December resolution on the 2007 budget, Parliament called for a progress report on staff screening, wanting it by 30 April 2008. I assume we will receive that report in a few days’ time. This screening that Parliament called for has now turned into one of the Barroso Commission’s major success stories. The President of the Commission is setting himself up as a reformer, but he can only continue to be taken as a reformer if he draws conclusions from the screening before the end of this Commission’s term. That means he must undertake a critical review of decentralisation and take the first steps in that direction.

He owes that not only to the taxpayer and to Parliament but also to his staff, which is currently wasting its time and skills on far too much in-house administration and bureaucracy. The Commission also owes it to itself, as given the challenges facing the EU and the important management tasks it is undertaking, we believe that – also in view of the 2009 budget, which as you know does not provide for any new items – it can succeed with those tasks only if it also embarks on the appropriate measures and changes within the administration.

  Péter Olajos (PPE-DE). - (HU) Thank you, Mr President. As one of those who drafted the 2009 budget, I would like to thank Jutta Haug and László Surján for their sound preparatory work. To be able to produce a good end result we had to be disciplined and harmonious in our work since we often had to explore new routes. And we can be quite confident about the environmental protection concerns in the parts of the APS (Annual Policy Strategy) that are known. I welcome all three of the Commission’s initiatives. As a member of the Central Asia Delegation, I particularly welcome the European Union’s new Central Asia Strategy and the increased support. I also welcome its intention to promote sustainable development practices in developing countries, especially in biodiversity and energy. This is not simply our moral duty. It is in our own interests. With my fellow Members, I am sure that we will be able to put forward many research projects for support, since this is what our citizens expect. Thank you very much.

  Danuta Hübner, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, I would like once again to thank Ms Haug for the report and also all the speakers for their comments: not only those related directly to the 2009 budget, but also those comments that went beyond 2009, which are very useful in the context of our reflection on the policy agenda and on the future reform of the budget.

Concerning the Baltic Sea strategy, I would like to react to two very concrete points which were raised. Firstly, on the Baltic Sea strategy: the Commission is working on this strategy, and I have the pleasure of chairing the inter-service work on this strategy. It is envisaged that it will be on the agenda of the Swedish presidency, which means the second half of 2009. However, we are at the stage of consulting and taking stock of the situation in the region and also considering ideas for this strategy. With regard to any budget consequences, it is far too early to talk about this today.

Concerning the new Treaty and the consequences for the policy agenda, one issue is the consequences of the Lisbon Treaty for the institutional change and the new legal frameworks.

The other thing is the policy agenda and, as you know, both the Council and the Commission are currently involved in the reflection and very concrete work, mostly on the legal frameworks and new institutional challenges. However, reflection on the policy agenda is also taking place, as you know, as a result of the requirement to have the budget review. I believe that towards the end of this year – or very early in 2009 – the Commission will come forward with the new policy agenda, and only then can the budgetary consequences be considered and taken care of in a reasonable way and with reasonable responsibility.

Concerning transparency, I have taken note of all your points on screening results and shall forward them, especially to Commissioner Grybauskaitė, but I think to the entire college, and I would like to confirm what you have just said.

With regard to 2009, my understanding is that we are now aware of the guidelines which were expressed by both arms of the budgetary authority. The preliminary draft budget will be based on sound estimates of the need to achieve all those priorities that have been already agreed and which are ahead of us. There is no doubt that the Commission will need good ongoing cooperation with you to attain these results. I would also like to say that good cooperation will also be essential in the context of long-term challenges, both the institutional and the policy agenda ones. Thank you very much for the debate.

  Jutta Haug, rapporteur. − (DE) Mr President, I thank all the speakers in this debate. I am, of course, also grateful for the good wishes and praise I have received. Let me also thank the Commissioner.

If I have understood correctly, the Commission is supporting us all the way and promising a preliminary draft budget that will take account of everything we want taken into account. We have once again made our priorities plain. They are neither few in number, nor are they exactly small: tackling climate change, creating growth and employment, a social Europe, research, training, education, aid for the poorest countries in the world, fulfilling our tasks in the world. It is not easy actually to finance all that.

I wish the Council had been listening, for then it would have seen that – thank God! – all, or at least nearly all the parliamentary groups stand united here. For that, I warmly thank all concerned.

  Reimer Böge (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner Hübner has just said that the Commission and the Council are both already working on matters relating to transposition of the Lisbon Treaty. That is wonderful! However, as Chairman of the Committee on Budgets, I would like to insist on behalf, I believe, of all fellow Members that Parliament is treated as an equal, including in regard to the forwarding of documents and non-papers on everything that will have to be discussed and negotiated jointly in the coming months, rather than as a second-rate institution. Unless we are certain of that, we will face major problems at the end of the procedure, at the end of the year.

It is in the interest of the Commission and of the Council to ensure completely equal treatment in information policy too, in regard to documents and matters under consideration.

  Danuta Hübner, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, I would just like to say very clearly that I cannot imagine that these three institutions would not work together. The same is true, I assume, when it comes to Parliament working with the Commission and with the Council.

This is our common Treaty, our common achievement and our common task. I can only pass your words on to President Barroso, but I am sure that everybody is fully aware of this responsibility.

  President. − The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Tuesday, 22 April 2008.

Written statements (Rule 142)

  Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The Lisbon Treaty, which is due to come into force on 1 January next, will bring an unprecedented strengthening of Parliament’s prerogatives. Before the end of this year, we will have to sign an interinstitutional agreement taking account of the extension of codecision and the end of the distinction between compulsory and non-compulsory expenditure.

In that context, we should emphasise that we are determined to press our case in the mid-term renegotiation of the financial framework for 2007-2013 and through the policy reorientation that we want to achieve, based on a budget that is fully commensurate with our ambitions and does not undermine the principles of solidarity that we hold dear. While we must always be concerned to make our policies more efficient, we shall have to guard against any possible attempt at renationalising the CAP and regional policies.

It is also important that we should be able to facilitate the emergence of new and useful policies through the budgetary tools that Parliament has at its disposal in the form of the flexibility instrument, pilot projects and preparatory actions.

In addition, the European Commission needs to improve budgetary transparency so that we can properly monitor the use of public funds.

  Gábor Harangozó (PSE), in writing. – We ought to prepare for the changes set to take place in 2009 with the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty and the European elections as they will have a major impact on the budget. The new elected Parliament and designated Commission will indeed have to deal with new budget procedures.

It is therefore necessary to present for 2009 transparent and viable budgetary framework and priorities. Among other aspects, it is essential to ensure that the budget matches the priorities with sufficient resources. In this respect, I am glad to notice that our rapporteur, Mrs HAUG, puts the emphasis on the importance of the principle of solidarity as one of the cornerstones of European policies, especially with regard to cohesion and structural policies.

With new challenges ahead and the new inter-institutional balance within the institutional triangle it is even more essential to ensure coherence between policy priorities and the financial resources that are made available. There are growing concerns that the re-prioritization toward competitiveness, climate change or sustainable development would be made at the costs of other priorities budgets. Adding new priorities in the future should at no cost hamper the achievement of other political priorities such as solidarity.

  Monica Maria Iacob-Ridzi (PPE-DE), in writing. – (RO) I would like to emphasize certain aspects related to the article reaffirming the importance of the principle of solidarity in this report.

The cohesion policy continues to draw one third of the European Union’s annual budget. Nevertheless, we cannot ignore the fact that this field has become less and less important, as compared to the increases recorded in the competitiveness policy for economic growth and employment. For instance, as compared to 2007, budget line 1a – for competitiveness – has recorded an increase of 18.4%, while 1b – which covers the field of cohesion – only a 3.1% increase.

Moreover, we should take into consideration the effects of the Lisbon Treaty’s implementation on the cohesion policy. Structural funds – which are currently non-mandatory expenses and on which the Parliament has the last say in the budgetary procedure – will become the subject of a joint decision of the Council of Ministers and the Parliament. Nevertheless, it is known that every year, the Council operates important reductions of the European amounts designed for the cohesion policy.

For this reason, I believe it is very important to achieve the objectives of the Lisbon strategy, yet without neglecting the disparities continuing to exist between the European regions.

15. Proposed hearing of the Commission on crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes committed by totalitarian regimes (8 April 2008) (debate)

  President. − The next item is the Commission statement on crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes committed by totalitarian regimes.

  Jacques Barrot, Vice-President of the Commission. − (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to report on the hearing on crimes committed by totalitarian regimes in order to address legitimate concerns raised by Parliament.

On 8 April 2008 the Commission and the Slovenian Presidency held a hearing on crimes committed by totalitarian regimes. This hearing was requested by the Council in April 2007 during the negotiations on the Framework Decision on combating racism and xenophobia. The purpose of the hearing was to gain a better understanding of how the Member States have coped with the legacy of totalitarian crimes and of the nature of the methods and practices that have been adopted in order to face up to this challenge.

The hearing focused on two main themes: the recognition of totalitarian crimes, and reconciliation. Given the sensitive nature of this issue and to prevent the matter from being exploited in any way, the Commission was keen for this debate to be, first and foremost, a debate among independent experts and academics from a variety of backgrounds who were committed to a scientifically based approach. The Member States were invited to attend, as was the European Parliament, and I am delighted that many MEPs were given the opportunity to take part in the debate. The hearing was conducive to constructive and dispassionate debate. In general, four issues emerged from the discussions that were of particular concern to the Commission.

Firstly, there is the feeling that the old Member States should be made more aware of the tragic past of the new Member States. This lack of recognition should be carefully reviewed so as to avoid the Union being divided on such a serious matter, one which should actually unite us.

Secondly, it emerged from the debates that establishing the truth is a prerequisite for reconciliation. The spirit of reconciliation that informs the process of European integration is more important now than ever before. The various experiences of reconciliation discussed during the hearing demonstrated how complex this task is, but also that there is reason to be optimistic. They show that respect for fundamental rights is an essential factor in achieving genuine reconciliation.

Thirdly, there seem to be many different ways of dealing with the issues of recognition and reconciliation. There is no one-size-fits-all model, and each Member State must find whichever one best suits its circumstances.

Finally, the debates revealed that the European institutions are being called on to address these issues more fully. During the hearing, a group of participants submitted a document in which they put forward a large number of proposals for action. The Commission has noted this call for greater European involvement on these issues; however, it must be emphasised that it is up to each Member State to find its own way of dealing with the remembrance of these crimes and of addressing these issues. The European Union cannot replace the Member States in this task. The European Union has very few powers to act in this area. Its role is to facilitate this process by encouraging discussion, fostering the sharing of experience and best practices, and bringing the various players together.

All contributions to the hearing must now be analysed; however, I should like to reiterate the Commission’s determination to continue the process set in motion by the Council Declaration of April 2007. The Commission must report to the Council two years after the Framework Decision on combating racism and xenophobia enters into force, after which time, it will be possible to hold a political debate.

In the meantime, the Slovenian Presidency plans to publish the contributions received during the hearing. For its part, the Commission intends to initiate a study to gain a factual overview of the various methods, legislation and practices used in the Member States to deal with the issue of remembering totalitarian crimes.

With regard to the importance of the educational and citizenship aspects, the Commission will also consider how existing Community programmes can be further used to raise awareness of these issues across Europe.

In conclusion, it is important to promote an objective and dispassionate discussion of these issues, and to move forward gradually within the limits of the powers of the Union. The Commission is naturally prepared to participate fully in this process.

  Vytautas Landsbergis, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – Mr President, while talking, debating and approaching an essential common position on the evaluation of crimes of totalitarian regimes in Europe, one obstacle is most evident as a barrier to more rapid moral and legislative success.

That main obstacle is the hardly understandable position of today’s Russian Government. As far as the crimes committed in the Stalinist past of the USSR are concerned, instead of distancing themselves with proper condemnation of gross crimes against humanity, war crimes and other wrongdoings, Russia’s ruling elite is not following the good example of denazified Germany.

No, the Soviet Führer, Stalin, is praised, his own and his gang’s crimes denied or marginalised and the victims humiliated and mocked. This strange political behaviour, so detrimental to Russia itself, cannot tear out the truth about deeds but continues to affect wrongly our European standards and fairness of evaluations.

We should realise how such hypocrisy and double standards are helpful for various neo-Nazis etc. If anyone says: well, before official Russia changes its mind, we have to freeze ours and follow the Kremlin’s mind or postpone our evaluations and decisions, that is an entirely and deeply wrong stance.

No matter how harshly Russian-State-hired political historians will try to rewrite the European history of the facts, the two bloodiest international tyrannies of the 20th century, along with the smaller national dictatorships, should and will be assessed properly. This has to be the best way Europe can assist the Russia of the future.

  Jan Marinus Wiersma, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (NL) Mr President, our group helped to bring about this debate because we are concerned at the growing number of party-political interpretations of the past. I speak here not just as a politician, as a Social Democrat, but as a historian too. Interpretations of this kind often perpetuate myths which can be a breeding ground for xenophobia, for example, because they only present one side of the story. That, of course, is very dangerous in a Europe of great diversity, including ethnic diversity.

There are no easy answers to difficult questions of history. That misconception is often created by those who put a populist spin on historical events. Falsifying the past is also used to make people forget it, for example denying the Holocaust or covering up the crimes of other totalitarian regimes. And there is also the danger of being selective. Historical criteria are sometimes applied to one situation and not to another. Sometimes no distinction is made at all and one situation is judged in the same way as another. The result is that people get confused and do not know how they ought to feel about the past – the politicians have hijacked historical truth because it is all too easy to draw comparisons.

Our group sees this as especially important this year, as this year we commemorate the Prague uprising, the Prague Spring, but also Kristallnacht. We think it is important that Commission and the Council should give a lead and encourage a debate based on facts, based on scientific research. Not in an attempt to reach some kind of common position, but to ensure people realise that our discussion is based on correct information. And to ensure that the debate can be continued properly.

Once again I should stress that the aim here is not, of course, to airbrush important and terrible episodes out of our history. Of course not, the aim above all is to learn from them. But we have to make sure that history is not misused. This is an important moral issue. I think it is important to make the point once again that in our debate this afternoon and this evening we should also give the floor to a number of fellow Members who have had personal experience of the consequences of totalitarian regimes. For us this is an important debate, which we shall certainly be taking further in the course of the year.

  Sarah Ludford, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, I believe that all the wrongs committed by totalitarian regimes – whether fascist, communist or Stalinist – must be thoroughly exposed. But I am not in favour of criminalising in themselves the denial or condoning of such crimes, whether the Holocaust, the Shoah, genocide war crimes or crimes against humanity committed by any totalitarian or authoritarian regimes, any more than I am in favour of the criminalising of the so-called public provocation or apology for – or glorification of – terrorism. In all these cases, I believe that freedom of speech should be paramount, and that criminal law should only be brought in when there is clear incitement to hatred, to violence or to terrorism. Any freedom of expression is essential to establishing the truth.

One theme of the hearing was redress for injustice, and it is not possible to have justice without truth. The greatest illustration of this was in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa. And I believe that one of the proudest achievements of the European Union and its Member States in the last decade was the establishment of the International Criminal Court. But there are still many people walking the planet who are walking with impunity, and I believe that we are not doing enough in Europe to bring them to justice. I do not know what happened to the spirit that led the EU to support the International Criminal Court, when it came to being honest about collusion in torture flights and secret prisons. We have had no satisfactory response from the Member States to our report of a year ago about such collusion.

We learn in the United States that torture at Guantánamo Bay and elsewhere was mandated at the highest level of the Bush Administration. This has led to a tragic loss of moral authority and reputation for the United States. Yes, we must bring truth to these crimes – but do not criminalise what needs to be thoroughly discussed.

  Wojciech Roszkowski, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (PL) Mr President, the two most cruel totalitarian regimes of the 20th century, German Nazism and Soviet- and Chinese-style communism, committed heinous crimes. The total number of victims probably exceeds 100 million dead and martyred in the Holocaust and through mass executions and deportations, artificially generated hunger, in death and concentration camps.

The Nazi system murdered people on racial grounds; the communist system for reasons of social class. The ideologies which provided the foundations of these systems excluded whole groups of citizens from the rule of law and designated them for death or for physical and social degradation in order to construct a new, allegedly better society. A special kind of hatred was held towards religions. Within these systems not only was there a monopoly of power, but also one of language, which was turned into a tool of propaganda and terror.

Today, more than 60 years after World War II ended, more than a dozen years after the fall of Soviet communism, it is amazing that within the European Union there are still people who refuse to recognise that communism was a criminal system. Many ruses are being used to relativise communism’s past. What moral argument is there to support the contention that the victims of Nazism are more important than those of communism? Why are we unable to produce some common resolution on this?

Commissioner, this is not a matter for individual Member States only. If the Union considers itself to be responsible and competent to deal with racism and xenophobia, it should muster sufficient courage to deplore communist crimes too. I say this not only as a politician, but as a historian. The similarities between both these systems do not necessarily lead to arguments about their compatibility. To stress the uniqueness of communist crimes does not diminish the Nazi crimes at all, and vice versa. Put simply, common decency and remembrance of the countless victims of these regimes requires condemnation of both. The working group we have set up in Parliament, called United Europe United History, which already has some 50 Members, will be soliciting just such a condemnation.

  Daniel Cohn-Bendit, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I think our duty in this matter is threefold. First, we must manage to formulate a uniform European interpretation of war and the reasons for war, that is to say a common European memory.

There is no point in continuing with this unending discussion and comparing Stalinist crimes with Nazi crimes. Those are two separate examples of totalitarianism, two separate criminal systems, although they do sometimes have structural similarities. Surely we can take the whole debate about openness, democracy, etc., as expressing a common interpretation. The common response is, for example, the European Union, or the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which basically reflect the lessons learned from those two totalitarian systems that created such destruction on our continent.

Secondly, if we look around us in the world, we see Rwanda, Bosnia, Darfur, and so on. That means the destruction of human beings is continuing. What we need – as Baroness Ludford rightly said – is the International Criminal Court, and common rules. Today we must seek to ensure that all civilised states recognise the International Criminal Court so that crimes of that kind, which differ, which are not all the same, but which are all crimes in some form, really can be brought to justice.

We will only be able to counter such crimes if we can bring those responsible to justice, wherever they are, whether in Guantánamo, in Darfur, or in Bosnia, among Bosnian Serbs. Justice will prevail only if those responsible can be taken to court. Those are the lessons of history and that is why I believe that Commission initiatives of this kind are interesting if, in the end, they lead us to formulate a common, anti-totalitarian position.

  Francis Wurtz, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (FR) Mr President, we will support any move to eradicate racism and xenophobia, promote fundamental rights and, even more so, condemn unreservedly war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes of genocide. This we will do, whatever the time or the place. In this fight, there can be no taboos, neither with regard to the crimes of the past nor in connection with the tragedies currently taking place all over the world.

In terms of European history, this naturally applies to Nazism. This also applies to the fascist regimes of Mussolini, Pétain, Franco, Salazar, as it does to that of the Greek Colonels. We are also quite prepared to reiterate a radical condemnation of the atrocious crimes committed under Stalin. What happened during the colonial period must not be forgotten either.

Our unwillingness to compromise must surely apply even more to the racist, xenophobic and overtly neo-fascist tendencies that are still tolerated today at a very high level in some of the Member States, both new and old, of the European Union. There is only one thing that might be deemed unacceptable, not by our group especially but by those who have made personal sacrifices in the fight against the worst genocide in modern history, and that is the attempt surreptitiously to trivialise Nazism by placing it in a generic category that includes, in particular, Stalinism and even the regimes existing in central and eastern Europe prior to the fall of the Berlin Wall.

I should like to quote you three statements made recently from among many more on this subject, all of which speak for themselves. Firstly, this excerpt from a statement made by the German Union of Survivors of the Neuengamme Concentration Camp. I quote:

(DE) ‘The Neuengamme Association has always opposed equating National Socialism with Stalinism.’

on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (FR) Next, this comment made by the Advisory Board of Former Prisoners of Buchenwald. And I quote: ‘Those who seek to generalise distort the significance of Nazi barbarism in Germany’s history.’

Finally, these words spoken by the Secretary General of the Central Council of Jews in Germany, denouncing those who venture to draw a comparison between the former GDR and the Nazi regime; and I quote: ‘Any attempt to draw a parallel between them is to diminish the magnitude of the denial of rights, deportation and mass extermination of millions of innocent men, women and children during the Nazi dictatorship.’

Thank you for devoting some thought to these statements.

  Bernard Wojciechowski, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – (PL) Mr President, war is one thing, the destruction of nations and crimes against humanity quite another. Not every war aims to exterminate the losing side, and a nation can be destroyed without war. Often overwhelming hatred against the conquerors and oppressors filled the souls of those being wronged – this is how Hannibal and Mithidrates saw the Romans. But this is not comparable to the feelings of enmity born in the souls of the criminals of the 20th century.

The history of that century came to be much more than just a sum of wrongs suffered by certain nations. It became an addendum to the history of humanity, and of inhumanity. Kant, the philosopher, formulated the following imperative: act so that humanity, in whatever shape, is for you an end, and not merely the means to an end.

The origin of the crime of genocide has often been fiercely debated. It would be better to ask why nobody prevented such crimes at the right time. In totalitarian politics, everything was planned and calculated. Its first prescription was not to reveal anything prematurely, to pretend to be a friend until the last moment. I mention this because today openly para-fascist and para-communist groups exist in many countries. This is why the first two sessions of the European Hearing, on the subject of history of totalitarian crimes, were so important. Let us speak plainly in order to clearly define what may not under any circumstances be subject to the so-called historical revisionism.

Genocide is not a phenomenon which can be opposed by a single nation. It must be opposed by the society of the entire civilised world. This is one of the reasons why it is a common task for the European Union.

IN THE CHAIR: MR MAURO
Vice-President

  Slavi Binev (NI). - (BG) During the 20th century, in addition to the totalitarian regimes of communism and nazism, there is another fact: the atrocious assaults against the human rights of the Bulgarian and the Armenian people by the Ottoman Empire. For almost five centuries, under the rule of the Ottoman state, the violence against the Bulgarian people was marked by the features of genocide. A considerable part of the Bulgarian population was taken away into slavery, exterminated or forcibly converted to Islam, which is basically a purposeful ethnic cleansing. Another undeniable fact is the forcible deportation and killing of over one and a half million Armenians by the Turkish authorities between 1915 and 1917. All of these acts against Bulgarians and Armenians fully match the elements of crimes defined in UN instruments on the prosecution and punishment of genocide. The recognition of genocide against Armenians and Bulgarians would send a clear signal to the Republic of Turkey to assume its liability and apologize for the five centuries of oppression against the Bulgarians and for the crimes and mass murders committed, and to compensate the heirs of refugees for the suffering and for the private estates stolen from them which remain on Turkish territory.

  Christopher Beazley (PPE-DE). - (FR) Commissioner, forgive me, but I was very deeply shocked by your introduction to this debate. You told us that the Commission had held a dispassionate debate on crimes against humanity. You spoke of how complex this task is, and, in conclusion, you said that the European Union had very few powers in this area.

When she was two months old, the wife of your Estonian colleague, Sim Kallas, with whom you are well acquainted, was deported by Stalin, along with her mother and grandmother. Another of your colleagues, Mr Frattini, who will soon be leaving us, said in his letter to Mr Landsbergis: ‘Your history – referring to Lithuania’s suffering under Stalin – your history is our history.’

Commissioner, in your reply, perhaps you could explain things in greater depth, as it may be that I have misunderstood. I believe that it is here in Parliament and in the Council that a great deal has been done to remember the forgotten dead. For we do not talk like politicians; we address the general public. There are people still living today in Poland and in the Baltic States who have lost their parents, their grandparents, but no one remembers them. I do not believe that a debate on the suffering of six million Jews can be dispassionate. Therefore, the length of such a debate and the manner in which it is conducted are extremely important factors. As your colleague would say, the history of central and eastern Europe is our history. The problem for us British and for us French is that we were Stalin’s allies at the end of the War. It took 30 years for the British to admit that Katyn was a Stalinist crime. The perpetrator was not Hitler.

  Helmut Kuhne (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, we Social Democrats have been persecuted by every totalitarian and authoritarian regime of the 20th century, whether by the Nazis or by the thugs of Stalin, Franco or Mussolini – the list is long. That is why we not only have no problem with but actually welcome a reappraisal of the crimes under Stalinism. We can only applaud it.

Yet this reappraisal should follow the rules of historical methodology and not be confused with the rules governing criminal court proceedings. We must guard against confusing these matters. It is not a question of counting up the victims or of a re-run of the Nuremberg Trials; this time we are trying an ideology rather than identified criminals.

There are, however, also points at which we must quite clearly say ‘no’ and we Social Democrats have identified a few of them. We say ‘no’ to the attempt to establish a new framework for interpreting European history, which emerged from the speeches made by some Members of this House at a conference held on 22 January this year. We are deeply opposed to the view that the extermination of European Jews by the Nazis came from a conception of history that was developed by the Soviet regime. We reject that view.

We reject it all the more firmly because in 2006 we found that another colleague from the same ideological spectrum sent a roundmail to all Members of this House in which he described the two Latvian Waffen-SS divisions as part of the German forces, thereby playing down their role. We reject that interpretation too, especially in connection with the first sentence. We also reject the assertion that the West did nothing to bring about change in what was then the Soviet-ruled part of Europe.

It was the CSCE in Helsinki that first gave the civil rights movements in those countries room to breathe, with the successful and happy result we see today as we welcome representatives from those countries to our House. These are points we insist on and will continue to pursue.

  Ģirts Valdis Kristovskis (UEN). - (LV) Mr President, at the European Parliament we are accustomed to talk about common values, about a common and truthful history, but sometimes misunderstandings arise. Commissioner Barrot, I think that you said rightly that in Europe it is still necessary to establish the truth. What we are talking about is reconciliation, but perhaps not to the extent that Mr Cohn-Bendit has proposed. Thank you, though, to Commissioner Frattini for the hearing that was organised. I was able to participate and also on various occasions to speak in the hearing. I think that the debate was pithy. Unfortunately, what was missing was a clear, resolute, focused statement on further action. Unfortunately, Russian representatives repeatedly continued to explain away the crimes committed by totalitarian communism in the territories occupied by the USSR. Russia’s reaction is no surprise, but what will the European Union do? Will it continue to maintain double standards? Will it demand the acknowledgement of Nazi crimes in the denial of events or their gross trivialisation in the Member States? Will it demand that custodial sentences of up to three years be imposed? Will it, at the same time, turn a blind eye to the crimes of the USSR’s totalitarian regime? Some of the victims of the Soviet totalitarian regime are still alive, but the European Union’s position does not offer them any satisfaction – in fact, worse than that, it continues to humiliate them. We are talking about EU citizens. The European Parliament ought to range itself against such injustice. Unfortunately, we repeatedly see the chairs of the political groups deciding not to table a resolution on this issue. Therefore, we cannot have a written record of the thoughts we are expressing here today. Commissioner Barrot, I call upon you not to depart from this important goal, but to strive for a uniform understanding and truthful history in the name of reconciliation. Thank you.

  László Tőkés (Verts/ALE). - (HU) Mr President, the anti-Ceauşescu uprising in Romania started at my church. I have had painful experience of what communism really is and it is therefore with a sense of satisfaction that I note that the European Union’s attention is once again focused on the criminal actions of totalitarian regimes. In cases of crimes against humanity committed in the eras of national socialism and communism the world still applies a double standard. Unlike the case of fascism, there has yet been no trial of communism. Both types of dictatorial regime suppressed freedom, human rights and churches. They crippled the lives of their national minorities. The huge scale of human and social tragedy is common to fascism and communism. Political, historical, human and moral restitution has hardly begun and must be continued. Take the example of Romania and the Tismăneanu report. It is my conviction that, for the regime change begun there in 1989 to be complete, the events of the past must be confronted. Real European integration of former communist countries requires not just truth and restitution but also the condemnation of dictatorship.

  Tunne Kelam (PPE-DE). - Mr President, in just the same way as the Baltic Sea became an internal EU sea in 2004, so the historical experiences of the 10 new Member States that suffered under the totalitarian rule of communism have become an all-European problem.

I absolutely agree with Mr Cohn-Bendit: we need a uniform or common interpretation of our common history. So it is not a question of condemnation; it is a question of moral and political assessment of all the crimes. We are called upon to guarantee that all crimes against humanity, all acts of genocide and classicide and all war crimes should be treated equally. Justice belongs to all citizens of Europe without any exception.

In that sense, I am a bit disappointed with the Commission statement, because the main theme is that the assessment of communist totalitarianism will be an internal affair for every relevant country. I am afraid it is going to deepen double standards, because clearly Nazism and fascism are not considered to be internal matters in any of the EU Member States. Every emergence of neo-Nazism and racism is viewed as a direct threat to the common values of Europe.

So, what do we need to do? There are still tens of millions of living victims of communist regimes, as well as their descendents. As things stand today, they are bound to feel like second- or third-class victims. The famous ‘never again’ is still not guaranteed for them.

Lastly, this is not a problem of the past. The absence of a political and moral assessment is continuously shaping our present day and is distorting our common future. Could one imagine the return of the Soviet KGB leadership to power in Russia or a revival of communist political forces in Germany if there had been an assessment of the communist system at the end of the Cold War?

  Józef Pinior (PSE). - (PL) Mr President, Commissioner, I would like to open today’s debate with a reminder of the leader of the Polish Socialist Party, Kazimierz Pużak – who may be considered to be a symbol of this debate. Arrested for the first time in the early years of the 20th century, in 1911, Pużak, the leader of the Polish Socialist Party, the leader of the underground Socialist Party during World War II in the struggle against Nazism, and arrested again by the NKVD in 1945, died tragically in a Stalinist prison in Poland on 30 April 1950.

For us Socialists, democracy, the fight for human rights, for the rule of law, and the principles of liberal democracy were always the foundations of politics. This is our inheritance in today’s Europe. At the same time, Commissioner, I address you in particular; history is today, regretfully, the subject of manipulation, a kind of crusade, colonisation undertaken by the populist right, by nationalist movements. This creates paradoxical situations where we have the nationalist right which wants historical research, new tribunals, but at the same time opposes the Charter of Fundamental rights as part of European law. An unbelievable paradox, indeed.

Democracy, the rule of law, liberal democracy, these are the foundations of contemporary Europe. The unity of Europe, the Charter of Fundamental rights, the rule of law prevailing all over the world, no acceptance of torture – this is our response stemming from the legacy of the 20th century: the struggle for democracy, the struggle against all manner of dictatorships and against totalitarian regimes.

(Applause)

  Dariusz Maciej Grabowski (UEN). - (PL) Mr President, genocide is defined in international law, and that definition is based on the UN Convention. As a Pole – a citizen of a country afflicted by genocide – I believe that this definition should be expanded by two elements.

It should stress that, as a rule, the purpose of genocide is the liquidation of the feeling of national identity, through the extermination of the intellectual and cultural elites. Poland may serve as an example. During World War II the Germans and the Russians murdered there, in the first instance, the intelligentsia, the professors, the clergy. Secondly consideration should be given to how to punish under international law historical lies, false propaganda, and refusal to acknowledge guilt about genocide. An example here is the attitude of Russia in relation to Stalinist crimes, and also towards the Katyń massacre.

Poland supports the admission of Ukraine to the European Union. However, so that history should not divide but unite, we believe that Ukraine should acknowledge the crimes committed against the Poles and the Jews during World War II – when more than 150 thousands of people died.

The European Union should be an organisation which provides an example of uncompromising fight against genocide to the whole world. This is why, as politicians elected by nations, we should condemn communism as a criminal ideology and a criminal system.

  Miguel Angel Martínez Martínez (PSE). - (ES) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, a memory of historical events is essential for the process of European construction. For this process to be fully successful, it is vital to understand that it represents the elimination of nationalism, totalitarianism, intolerance, autocracy and war, and the establishment of Europeanism, freedom, respect, democracy and peace as the values which govern the way we live together in Europe.

This is the lesson which we must teach the young people of today: the events of the past and the progress of the present, without hiding the crimes and mistakes which had to be overcome and pointing out the sacrifices entailed in overcoming them.

To know our history is the antidote to falling into the same trap twice.

It is only by knowing the truth, the whole truth, that we can move forward. We must firmly denounce the barbarities of our past without diminishing them, much less falsifying them; without falling into the Manichean logic of the Cold War, equating the West with good and Eastern Europe with evil. We will explain that there were democrats and totalitarians, but without hiding the fact that both Western and Eastern Europe had their totalitarians, both equally odious and criminal.

As a Spanish democrat, I sympathise with democrats who were victims of Stalinism in their countries, but I also ask them to show solidarity with those in Spain who lived through the oppression and suffering imposed by the dictatorship of General Franco.

We understand the tragedy of our fellow Europeans in Eastern Europe who went from one form of totalitarianism to another, but they must also understand our tragedy, which entailed maintaining the same criminal form of dictatorship and oppressing our people.

It is only by knowing the truth, the whole truth, that we can move forward. Lastly, we will remember that in Tehran, Yalta and Potsdam, Stalin was not alone; leaders of Western powers shared in his decisions. Therefore everyone had their share of responsibility for the partitioning of Europe and for the oppression, punishment and suffering that many millions of Europeans were to experience at the hands of one totalitarian regime or another.

Certainly central and eastern Europe bear a much greater responsibility for Stalinism, but it is also true that, for my country, the responsibility lay mostly with western democracies who accepted the Franco tyranny established by Hitler and Mussolini as part of their free world and were complicit in his misdeeds.

Mr President, we have achieved much together as a united Europe, and Europe will be that much stronger, and offer greater guarantees of freedom and democracy, the more its construction is founded on an awareness of the progress represented by sharing in a project which identifies and rejects the dark side of our past in order to build a future dedicated to the values which unite us.

  Mirosław Mariusz Piotrowski (UEN). - (PL) I would like to express my satisfaction that today’s debate on the matters related to bloody totalitarian systems has been possible. It is regrettable that the debate is so short and perfunctory. The fact that the usual principle of adopting a suitable resolution has been abandoned provides food for thought.

It is also curious that at various levels within the Union German national socialism, popularly referred to as Nazism, is being considered and mentioned before anything else. International socialism, that is communism, is avoided in silence. These systems were linked not only by their common ideological roots, but also by practical cooperation. Communism has its origins with Rosa Luxemburg, Liebknecht, Marx, Lenin and Stalin, and led to the planned deaths of tens of millions of inhabitants of central eastern Europe. Many bloody crimes, for example the Katyń massacre, are taboo topics to this day, and these crimes may not be called by their proper name, genocide.

The building of a democratic Europe is possible only on the foundations of truth, including the truth about anti-human communist totalitarianism. We owe remembrance and justice not only to the victims of inhuman systems; first of all we owe it to present and future generations so that this situation does not happen again.

  Libor Rouček (PSE). - (CS) Mr President, the 20th century in Europe was the century of totalitarian and authoritarian regimes, of Nazism and fascism, of communism and its most terrible offshoot, Stalinism, of various right-wing dictatorships in Spain, Portugal, Greece and other countries. The horrors and crimes that are the legacy of these regimes must never be forgotten: I therefore welcome this discussion on the past. However, this discussion should take place on the basis of strictly non-partisan, objective and scientific criteria. Under no circumstances should it be abused for political purposes; unfortunately, this is often the case.

For example, if we look at many of the new Member States of the European Union, including my own country – the Czech Republic – we see continuous attacks on everything left of centre, on everything leftist. Right-wing politicians, journalists and so-called historians, many of whom used to be members of the former communist regime and obtained the title of doctor or engineer from the communist regime’s educational establishments, constantly attack social democratic parties as if they were some kind of communist or post-communist parties, in spite of the fact that it was in fact social democrats who, both at home and in exile, fought communism for 40 years. Czech social democrats died in communist prisons; they organised the first anti-communist revolt to take place in the entire former Soviet bloc, in Plzeň on 1 June 1953; they were on the front line of the Prague Spring; they formed the opposition in the 1970s and 1980s. I myself had to go into exile, where one of my jobs was as editor of the Voice of America. In spite of this, the Social Democratic Party is constantly being denounced as a post-communist party.

Commissioner, I would therefore like to know what the Commission intends to do to ensure that the discussion about the past is not abused for present-day political and ideological goals.

  Justas Vincas Paleckis (PSE). – (LT) Mr President, it is essential that we talk about the crimes of the totalitarian regimes of Hitler, Stalin and others frankly and honestly – starting with the former Soviet Union and finishing with Spain. The neighbouring countries, especially Russia, Ukraine and Belarus, should sincerely offer to participation as well.

The occupation and annexation of the Baltic states in 1940 was not typical, as it had been attempted to cover it up under the guise of social liberation. This was facilitated by the fact that – let us say that for 14 years Lithuania had been under an authoritarian regime, which had quashed democracy and abolished free elections.

A year ago the European Parliament opened an exhibition in which horrific data were presented by the Genocide and Resistance Research Centre of Lithuania. During the three years of Nazi occupation in Lithuania 240 thousand people were murdered, among them 200 thousand Jews. Over 47 years of Soviet Union occupation nearly 80 thousand Lithuanian people were murdered by the repressive bodies, in exile or in forced labour camps. The immeasurable pain and tragedies behind these numbers must be revealed to Europe.

The actions and principles of Stalin and other communist leaders who encouraged the extermination of millions of people in the name of class struggle were criminal. The communist movement has survived for 160 years and has different faces in different countries; however, all communist regimes were antidemocratic. At the same time, with Eurocommunism gaining strength, resistance to Moscow’s dictate was getting stronger too. Let us remember such names as Imre Nagy and Alexander Dubček, the attempts of communists to escape from the vicious circle of dogmas and crimes that other communist party members ruthlessly tried to stifle. Can all the leaders of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, such as Stalin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev and Gorbachev, be tarred with the same brush? The dictatorial single-party system was destroyed not only by the efforts of dissidents, not even by pressure from the West, but mainly by the activities of the communist party members who strove for change, democracy and the implementation of the human rights.

I doubt that the EU will ever have a common history policy. Nevertheless, it is important to get better acquainted with each country’s past so that we are able to appreciate democracy and adopt a brighter future outlook.

  Zita Pleštinská (PPE-DE). - (CS) This is an important day, a day of moral satisfaction for all the victims of totalitarian regimes. My father, Štefan Kányai, spent nine and a half years in a Russian gulag. In his book he describes the crushing reality accompanying the cruelty of Stalinism, which is something we must remember! I thank you on his behalf.

I also thank you on behalf of Bishop Ján Vojtaššák, Monsignor Viktor Trstenský, Štefan Putanko, Štefan Janík and thousands of other brave sons of the Slovak nation who were victims of communism.

The Slovak priest František Dlugoš writes the following in one of his books: ‘To investigate the events that took place during the 40 years of the communist regime, to find out people’s destinies, means revealing the soul of the nation.’ Following today’s debate, I can add ‘the soul of Europe’.

I welcome this debate because examining this unique period in time, and the events that took place during this period, can be very beneficial for us now and in the future.

  Danutė Budreikaitė (ALDE). – (LT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, for the first time in EU history, with the help of debates on the assessment of totalitarian regimes at EU level, attempts are being made to cause people to consider the crimes of both communism and Nazism to be the terror of totalitarian regimes that caused damage to countries and their people. Public condemnation of the crimes of communism, after equating them with those committed by the Nazis, would have a positive impact on EU law, education and culture.

Crimes committed by the European Nazi regimes have received global damnation, with Nazi parties being banned and Nazi propaganda being punishable by law. At the same time the damage inflicted by communist regimes has not yet been properly ascertained. Some European countries still have legal communist parties.

Lithuania is calling on the EU Member States to prepare official reports on the damage caused by crimes committed by totalitarian regimes, particularly Stalinism, and to ask the inheritor of the Soviet Union’s obligations – the Russian Federation – to compensate this damage. Lithuania has evaluated the damage inflicted during half a century of Soviet occupation at LTL 80 billion. Europe should show its solidarity in demanding that those responsible for the damage compensate the EU Member States, as Nazi crime perpetrators have been made to do.

  Jacques Barrot, Vice-President of the Commission. − (FR) Mr President, I would like to thank all MEPs who have taken part in this debate, at what is clearly a critical stage. We have heard some particularly moving accounts of past events which some of you have experienced at first hand.

I should very much like to clear up any misunderstandings. In the case of Mr Beazley, in particular, I do think that there has been a misunderstanding. I made a speech that had been prepared for me, but I have to say that I may well have been misunderstood. Every Member State has responsibilities, it has to be said. However, the Union most certainly does intend to face up to its responsibilities. We want the truth, we want the whole truth, and if the Commission opened the debate – it was my colleague, Franco Frattini, who opened the debate at the hearing – it is precisely because we want to get to the bottom of the truth. This must be made quite clear. We want not only each Member State to be held individually responsible for honouring this duty to remember, but also all EU citizens to feel a sense of solidarity and involvement in the tragic events that have taken place in some of our Member States. In this respect, I would like to say, and, in fact, I did say in my opening statement, that I am aware that, in the west especially, we have not always grasped the full extent of the atrocities and heinous crimes experienced by our friends from those Member States that have been subjected to various forms of occupation and have lived under Stalinist occupation.

Therefore, I have come here today, in person, because I would like to reassure you that the Commission will continue this discussion and will ensure that it provides the basis, in particular, for the study that we are going to carry out in order to look at how the various laws and practices have actually been applied in the Member States with a view to remembering totalitarian crimes.

Obviously, the Council statement does not refer specifically to Stalinist crimes but speaks generally of totalitarian regimes. However, it is quite clear from the context in which this statement was adopted, particularly in the Member States that were behind it, that the issue of remembering Stalinist crimes lies at the very heart of this process. I believe that this has to be said, and, when I opened this debate, I emphasised that any form of totalitarism, any totalitarian regime that has resulted in a denial of the human person and his fundamental rights, is totally unacceptable. In this regard, and some of you have emphasised this point, knowledge about experiences of other types of totalitarian regimes may be helpful in identifying the means by which the very acts of abuse and barbarism that you have condemned actually came about.

I therefore believe that this study must be very broad in scope and clearly should not disregard any form of totalitarism. Nor should this debate provide an opportunity for base political exploitation. The Commission is naturally aware of this risk, but were the European Union to remain silent on the tragic past of some of our Member States, this would serve only to increase such a risk and to create a great divide between the new and the old Member States. This is why we must move forward together.

Therefore, Mr President, I should just like to ask what, essentially, is the purpose of all this? It is so that we may guard against any form of revisionism, any historical untruth.

Secondly, we must also, by remembering, prevent these totalitarian regimes from returning to haunt us. Finally, we have a duty of reconciliation that is clearly associated with this approach. However, I would also urge that we must look to the future, and some have emphasised the need to move towards the introduction of a directly binding European law to prevent these totalitarian regimes from ever returning to haunt us.

I should like to reassure you, ladies and gentlemen, that, quite apart from these few words of response, I am personally entirely convinced that we all, as Europeans, have a collective duty of solidarity to establish the truth, our truth as Europeans, without disregarding or diminishing the crimes that have been committed under various totalitarian regimes. In this respect, I believe that our friends from Eastern Europe need especially to appreciate that we are committed to seeking the truth and will not rest until it is known.

  President. − The debate is closed.

Written statements (Rule 142)

  Lasse Lehtinen (PSE), in writing. – (FI) Mr President, the most precious gift we have from our examination of history is events we know about – facts. The more facts we know about, the better. Interpretation is always a separate process. Everyone should be able to examine and interpret the events that have taken place; that is an ingredient in freedom of speech. Political history can rarely be symmetrical in terms of its content but the effort has to be made. There are still many areas left unexplored in recent history, thanks partly to political correctness. Dictatorships and dictators get very special treatment. The crimes of the Nazis deserve no understanding, but communism should not be earning any bonus points either.

  Marianne Mikko (PSE), in writing. – (ET) On 8 April the public hearing held by the Slovenian Presidency and the European Commission dealt with an extremely important topic for the European Union.

In the 20th century Europe lost millions of intellectuals and enterprising citizens because of totalitarian regimes. The wounds that were inflicted on our history have not healed to this day.

The dictator of the Soviet Union, Joseph Stalin, wiped my homeland and the other Baltic countries from the map. For half a century we were not allowed to have our own national anthems or flags; and our capital city was Moscow.

Stalinism and Nazism evolved together and divided Europe with an iron curtain. Hitler and Stalin’s brutality knew no national borders.

As a Social Democrat I condemn dictatorships whatever their guise. I also stress that Stalinism and Nazism served as direct examples for other totalitarian ideologies.

Metaxas, Franco, Mussolini, Salazar and a host of lesser dictators perpetrated crimes of their own, following Hitler and Stalin’s brutality. Their scope remained within the borders of their own countries and for that reason the countries concerned should have responsibility for establishing the true cost.

An awareness and the study of each other’s history is essential so that the citizens of the countries of Europe can start to develop an awareness of the fact that they are also European citizens. We need an assessment, based on shared values, of the crimes committed by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the KGB.

Soon, seventy years will have passed since the conclusion of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. The atrocities of Stalin’s apparatus of coercion are still not viewed on a par with Hitler’s war machine.

As a first step on behalf of common approach to history I would urge our governments to designate 23 August as a Europe-wide Day of Remembrance for the victims of Stalinism and Nazism.

  Katrin Saks (PSE), in writing. – (ET) Unfortunately it is a fact that although nearly all westerners are aware of the concentration camps of Nazi Germany, most of them have heard nothing about the gulags. A survey recently conducted in Sweden among 15-20 year-olds showed that their basic knowledge of communism is very poor, almost non-existent. A study showed that 90% of Swedes have never heard of the gulags, while 95% knew what Auschwitz was.

Unfortunately, my father had experience of both types of camp and therefore I cannot accept the idea that the suffering under the Soviet regime can be considered second-rate, as if there is a fear that talking about it reduces the significance of the crimes of Nazism. That attitude must be changed. This is not always the simplest of matters for the Socialist Group in the European Parliament as several of the parties within it have a communist past. Awareness-raising in the Socialist Group is therefore of even greater importance.

I remember debates on this same issue when the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, of which I was a member, condemned the crimes of communism a couple of years ago. At the time I was one of the people who took the floor and, thanks obviously to the fact that there are so many countries within that organisation with experience of the Soviet regime, condemnation was achieved more quickly than in the European Parliament.

I am entirely convinced that if the European Union truly espouses its own declared values, it must very clearly express its attitude to the past in terms of those values. This is not to rewrite the past, as several critics of this matter have claimed. It is to establish the historical truth.

  Andrzej Tomasz Zapałowski (UEN), in writing. – (PL) In the 20th century Europe has experienced many acts of genocide. Some of these acts are spoken of much and often, whilst others are shrouded in silence. In the press we read most frequently about the Nazi and communist genocides.

One act of genocide over which there is permanent silence is the murder of hundreds of thousands of Jews, Poles and Ukrainians in Polish territory under German occupation during World War II, perpetrated by Ukrainian nationalists from the so-called Ukrainian Insurgent Army. A significant part of the cadres of this Army served earlier in Nazi SS units. This genocide had the character of genocidum atrox, savage murder, perpetrated with extreme cruelty. The total population inhabiting a specific territory was annihilated. The victims were put to death and parts of their bodies were cut off or ripped out. At present people who participated in these murders are seeking ex-combatant status in Ukraine.

I wish to stress that nothing can justify genocide, not even an attempt to gain freedom and sovereignty for one’s own nation.

16. Cross-border cooperation to combat terrorism and cross-border crime (debate)

  President. − The next item is the report by Bárbara Dührkop Dührkop, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, on the initiative of the Federal Republic of Germany with a view to the adoption of a Council Decision on the implementation of Decision 2007/.../JHA on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime (11563/2007 - C6-0409/2007 - 2007/0821(CNS)) (A6-0099/2008).

  Bárbara Dührkop Dührkop, rapporteur. − (ES) Mr President, the report which we have produced for debate and approval today embodies a 2005 initiative, in which the seven Member States decided to step up cross-border cooperation in all areas relating to terrorism, organised crime and illegal immigration.

The German Presidency proposed incorporating part of this agreement in the Community acquis by means of a framework decision, that is to say under the third pillar, on the lines of what was done with the Schengen Agreement, leaving aside, however, the matter of illegal immigration which, according to the Tampere mandate, should come under the third pillar.

It is therefore regrettable that clear Community powers were not included in the international treaty, since this not only creates judicial confusion, but leaves us with two legal frameworks of reference.

The first was negotiated in a less than transparent manner. National parliaments were not consulted, nor was the European Parliament. We were only consulted at the last minute, in haste and in a non-binding manner as the instrument was about to be incorporated into the Community acquis.

The report of our unfortunate fellow Member Fausto Correia sets out the position of the European Parliament on this matter.

Today we are pleased to be able to say that the Council consultation is being presented on the basis of the codecision procedure. This is a consultation which does not confine itself to the agreement itself but includes its preamble and annex, which we appreciate, because, although they are technical, they contain provisions which are of great political significance. Many of them are designed specifically to ensure the protection of personal and sensitive data.

However, we are sorry that the Council has still not approved the framework decision on the definition of data protection in order to lay down certain minimum rules. It is incongruous for the Council to prepare to adopt this decision rather than its own general law. Nor was the European Data Protection Supervisor consulted at any time.

Briefly, the report provides for cooperation in terms of exchanging data on DNA, fingerprints, vehicle registration numbers and personal and non-personal data. The aim is to be able to compare the DNA profile of a person with the future databases of 27 national contact points.

The report clearly indicates that common guarantees must be laid down for the protection of data and the right of defence of suspects and guilty parties. Only the non-coding parts of DNA, in other words the zones containing no genetic expression, may be transferred.

All shared information must indicate the stage of the proceedings affecting the person concerned and the database from which the information was obtained.

The European Parliament must be consulted again if the Council wishes to alter the initiative of the Federal Republic of Germany in any way and particularly regarding the number of loci needed to make accurate comparisons.

I would also remind the Council that the Conference of Representatives of the Governments of the Member States called for the possibility of incorporating this framework decision in the new Lisbon Treaty system, in order to allow recourse to the Court of Justice.

I would also like to point out that, in the paragraph relating to officers and the possibility of cross-border cooperation, I do not agree with the part approved in committee, which gives officers powers to detain and to take statements in a Member State other than their own.

Finally, ladies and gentlemen, bilateral cross-border cooperation has always existed but this decision will be a first in terms of Europe-wide cooperation. It is true that there is concern, serious concern, that, despite good intentions, the proliferation of networks may lead to abuse and possibly to serious mistakes.

Protecting the innocent is without doubt the foremost concern of everyone and of our House in particular, given that it represents all our citizens.

  Jacques Barrot, Vice-President of the Commission. − (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, following the political agreement reached in the Council on 13 June 2007 on the first part of the legislative package aimed at transposing the Prüm Treaty into European law, Germany has submitted the initiative that we are about to discuss, namely the implementation of the decision which is the subject matter of the first part and its annex.

Mrs Dührkop, the Commission has consistently supported the integration of the Prüm Treaty into the European Union. This is an instrument of major importance that will significantly strengthen police cooperation between the Member States by enabling them to take more effective action to combat terrorism and cross-border crime, for example by facilitating the exchange of the DNA profiles and dactyloscopic data of wanted persons.

The removal of checks on persons at the internal borders of the EU, between the signatory countries of the Schengen Agreement, is a major step forward in the process of European integration. However, it is our duty to ensure that this area of free movement is also, of course, an area of security and justice.

Improving police cooperation between the Member States’ authorities, while fully respecting fundamental rights and, in particular, data protection, is essential for guaranteeing greater security within the European Union for the benefit of our citizens.

The draft decision that we are discussing today constitutes follow-up action required to ensure the full technical and operational implementation of the decision on which the Council reached political agreement in June 2007. This agreement aims to transpose the essential provisions of the Treaty of Prüm into the legal framework of the European Union.

The Commission has also consistently supported the need to involve Parliament in the procedure for amending the annex to this instrument. In the Commission’s view, the provisions on data protection laid down in the decision of June 2007, as well as in the draft currently being debated, will be supplemented by the provisions of the Framework Decision on data protection in the third pillar. They clearly need to be supplemented, as you have said.

For its part, the Commission generally welcomes the amendments that you propose, Mrs Dührkop. However, as this is an initiative put forward by the Member States, Mr President, the Commission will submit its detailed position on the amendments during discussions in the Council.

This is my response, and I would like to conclude by thanking your rapporteur once again for having been kind enough to highlight the means and conditions for the proper implementation of this decision.

  Herbert Reul, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there are few issues on which the citizens of Europe broadly agree that Europe is making serious efforts on their behalf. What we are debating here today is a significant issue of that kind: cooperation among Member States in order successfully to combat cross-border crime and terrorism. I am very glad we managed to reach a consensus in committee too, thanks to the preparatory work and the very fair cooperation with the rapporteur. That means that while we may not agree on every single point, we are broadly in agreement and want to play our part in making headway in this matter.

The Prüm Agreement process was very laborious and took a long time. We only advanced bit by bit. Yet it is a good thing that we now have European agreements on the exchange of data, that national databases are being linked up and that we can use those national databases to pursue and prevent crime.

I would have liked to see more progress in certain areas of this whole project. That is why I am taking this opportunity not just to talk about what we have achieved to date but also to say this: of course this decision also includes a few points that may apply tomorrow and the day after. For instance, we want to use joint police forces more efficiently and quickly and we want police forces from one Member State that have specific skills to be able to operate in another Member State. Mrs Dührkop Dührkop has just pointed out that there are certain difficulties. Yet it is important to drive this process forward, to ensure that we have more European responsibilities here and carry out more joint actions. In the end we may find that a very good way to promote the European idea is by demonstrating to people that we are trying to resolve important issues in a manner they too consider positive.

  Alexander Alvaro, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (DE) Mr President, I believe I am speaking on behalf of my group when I say that we had excellent cooperation with the rapporteur. We cooperated very closely, as Mr Reul has just said. Nonetheless, we have to ask why it is so urgent to take a decision, why it has to be taken now and, in particular, before the end of the year. We would have been very happy to see the Lisbon Treaty rules apply here, such as judicial review, as also proper participation in the sense of codecision with the European Parliament.

As regards the data protection aspect that was addressed here, Prüm has its own data protection rules, and then there are the implementing rules and the treaty rules. Indeed Mrs Dührkop Dührkop also noted the need for a framework decision in the third pillar. If we take a careful look at the categories of data regulated by the Prüm Treaty, we see that it is more than necessary to have framework legislation on the matter. We must also ask why so-called special categories of data are included, such as data providing information on sexual orientation, health, political and union activities, and religious belief. That goes far beyond the basic data needed in relation to organised crime. There are restrictions on the use of that data yet it remains incredible that it can be used at all.

In the case of DNA data, we strongly support the rapporteur’s view that – if that data is necessary and if it can be exchanged – it must be clearly restricted and used only for the purpose for which it was intended. Furthermore, it must be made clear that Member States which do not have national DNA databases are not obliged to establish them.

I want to finish by saying that it would be very sensible – as personal exchanges of views with police authorities have brought to light – if, instead of concentrating on legislative measures, we financed programmes to assist the exchange of personnel between police forces. That would be sure to improve cooperation in the Union.

It is astonishing that the funding has not yet been clarified given that the decision is to be taken very soon. Before spending money, people should know how much is to be spent, before taking a decision people should know how much it costs.

  Athanasios Pafilis, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (EL) Mr President, the German Government’s initiative and the report we are debating are not innocently technical, as they are being made out to be. They are about the technical and administrative conditions necessary for the swift and successful application of preventive data recording enacted by the Treaty of Prüm, which was incorporated into EU legislation a few months ago. DNA data, fingerprints, personal data and information of all kinds is gathered, processed and exchanged automatically in every possible detail, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, between the repressive mechanisms of the Member States and the EU. Every citizen and worker in the EU may be under preventive surveillance and recorded as data. The security forces act on the slightest suspicion that someone might at some point in the future commit offences or endanger public order and security. In other words, everyone is guilty until proven innocent.

The report we are discussing takes things a step further in data recording legalisation, opening the door to the recording and exchange of data relating to political views, religious or philosophical convictions and party political or trade union membership. Why do you need all of this? To tackle organised crime? That is a lie! You want to record data on everyone in the world! You want to ban and intimidate anyone who questions your policies! For this reason, we, the MEPs of the Communist Party of Greece, are voting against the report.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, since the 9/11 attacks if not before, the EU has concentrated its technical security measures almost entirely on combating terrorism. Now, it is certainly right actually for us not to make it easy for potential assassins to download bomb-making instructions from the Internet and of course closer cooperation among Member States is to be welcomed. Yet, in the fight against terrorism we cannot allow innocent citizens to become targets or awkward critics to be silenced.

I believe there is a dangerous trend worldwide constantly to erode the basic liberties for which our forefathers fought so hard. We are running the risk of becoming a profoundly illiberal society, by passing on passenger data, by Internet surveillance. I hope we do not soon find that every nonconformist who attends a demonstration supports a referendum, or even dares to criticise the EU is branded a potential terrorist.

Of course it is important to be vigilant – but not to the detriment of civil liberties. And of course we must not allow other areas, such as combating organised crime, to suffer as a result. We must not underestimate the dangers of ever-expanding parallel societies, migration-based violence and potential ethnic and cultural conflicts.

  Urszula Gacek (PPE-DE). - Mr President, when talking about incitement to terrorism in the age of the internet and the age of new technologies we are talking about completely new challenges and completely new threats and, as my colleague has said, we must strike a very fine balance between infringing the civil liberties of various political organisations and combating threats to our security and the security of our citizens.

In recent weeks, speakers from the Council of Europe, for example, have raised various concerns and asked us to adopt in full various recommendations presented by the Council of Europe. We must be selective as to what aspects of the Council of Europe’s very valuable work we transfer to the European Parliament, because Parliament has its own, unique role to play in this matter.

In dealing with the new threats posed by terrorism, the most difficult problem we face will be to actually define what incitement is, and whether justified criticism of governments could ever be considered to be incitement to terrorism. That was one of the arguments presented recently, at a meeting of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, by Mr Dick Marty from the Council of Europe. He seemed to have little faith in our democratic structures, suggesting that various articles could be misused by governments. I have more faith than him in our democratic procedures, and believe we will be able to handle this issue sensitively, but also with the prudence it demands of this institution.

  Sarah Ludford (ALDE). - Mr President, there are 4.3 million individuals whose DNA is on the UK national DNA database and available to police. That is 7% of the UK population – at least five times higher, as a proportion, than in any other country. That figure includes 150 000 children under the age of 16, of whom 25 000 have never been charged with an offence. Britain’s most senior police forensics expert has even suggested that children as young as five should go on the DNA database if they exhibit behaviour indicating they might be potential criminals in later life. This is taking predictive policing to a ridiculous level.

My party believes this to be the realisation of Orwell’s ‘Big Brother’ Britain. The DNA of innocent people should not be exchanged, and at the very minimum, in line with the advice of the European Data Protection Supervisor, there should be precise limitations on what data can be exchanged and a health warning in that exchange if the person has no criminal record.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE-DE). – (PT) Mr President, Vice-President Barrot, ladies and gentlemen, today we are debating a second decision to establish rules necessary for the implementation of another initiative that already has the political agreement of the Council, but has not yet even been adopted.

I am aware that there has been a series of initiatives to combat terrorism and cross-border crime in order to strengthen security and vigilance, but I regret that the same attention has not been paid to increasing the protection of fundamental rights. The European Union still has no standard set of procedural safeguards and no adequate third pillar legal instrument on data protection, as Vice-President Barrot has just recognised in his speech.

I ask you, Commissioner, to help us explain to the Council that this situation is unacceptable, especially if we take into account that most of the measures to combat terrorism and promote police cooperation have involved the collection and exchange of personal data. This latest initiative is yet another example and it is all the more serious as it involves the collection, storage and sharing of DNA data and fingerprints, etc. The data protection standards set out in Chapter VI of the Prüm initiative, which ensure more specific guarantees, are not self-sufficient and, in order to function correctly, they need a complete and general framework, which can only be effectively guaranteed through the framework decision on third pillar data protection.

It was with great satisfaction that we approved this initiative, in which essential aspects of cooperation in the Prüm initiative will be transposed into the Union framework. However, we cannot leave the job half done. It is also essential to ensure the existence of a clear and effective judicial framework for data protection.

  Jacques Barrot, Vice-President of the Commission. − (FR) Mr President, in my opinion, Mr Coelho has just provided a very clear and objective picture of the situation.

The proposal initially put forward by the Commission was certainly more ambitious, and we regret, in particular, the decision’s more limited scope. However, the purpose of the decision is to lay the foundations required to ensure a minimum level of protection in the third pillar. Without the adoption of such a decision, we would have no general rule applicable in the third pillar, which would be even worse. We hope that this decision will be adopted as soon as possible, once Parliament has delivered its opinion on the new text that the Council has submitted to Parliament for the second time.

As I said earlier, when thanking the rapporteur, Mrs Dührkop, once again, clearly, in the Commission’s view, the provisions on data protection will be supplemented by the provisions of the Framework Decision on data protection in the third pillar.

With these closing remarks, Mr President, I should like to thank all of the speakers for their contributions to this debate.

IN THE CHAIR: MR SIWIEC
Vice-President

  Bárbara Dührkop Dührkop, rapporteur. − (ES) Mr President, I would like to thank all those fellow Members with whom it has been a pleasure to work on this report. I will not answer you individually, but in general.

All of us are particularly concerned about the need to strike a balance between combating terrorism and crime and, at the same time, rigorously protecting private and public rights because no one may be stripped of his civil rights for the sake of the fight against terrorism.

Such a balance is sometimes difficult to achieve, but it is up to us democrats to be constantly on the lookout for any abuse in this area.

Secondly, reference has been made to police cooperation: this is vital. I live in a region where terrorism exists. I have police protection myself, and when I have to go to France, I have to ask my local police to send a form to Madrid, who will then ask France for permission to cross the border with a gun, and that takes a week. I realise that we ought to have a swifter, less bureaucratic method, so perhaps there could be a European police permit. I think, I believe that European police forces have more or less the same training.

Furthermore, Mr Alvaro, as Sarah Ludford and Mr Coelho also mentioned, we urgently need the Framework Decision, and this is a matter which we want to put to the Council. We need minimum standards of data protection. This is a fair demand on the part of all citizens.

  President. − The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Tuesday, 22 April 2008.

  John Attard-Montalto (PSE), in writing. – Today we are fortunate that law enforcement agencies have tools at their disposal such as DNA data, automated fingerprint identification and vehicle registration data. I am all in favour of having a common database of all the necessary tools to fight terrorism and cross-border crime. It is a fact that data protection is essential but in the fight against terrorism and international crime it is secondary.

Not only am I in favour of sharing databases but I am also in favour of having compulsory national databases. The majority of European citizens and residents are law abiding and should not fear having their data, be it DNA and fingerprinting, available on a common European database.

Malta is a neutral state but where terror is concerned we are not neutral. The targeting of innocent civilians can never be justified. Terror is one of the most hideous crimes at par with genocide and war crimes.

At present the norm is that terrorists are tried in national courts. The time has come to consider an international judicial structure specifically for trying terrorists.

  Anneli Jäätteenmäki (ALDE), in writing. – (FI) There needs to be greater cooperation between the border control authorities, customs, the police and the security authorities to improve the safety of Europeans.

The purpose of the Prüm Convention is to deepen cooperation between EU countries to counter terrorism, cross-border crime and illegal immigration.

The Prüm Convention will strengthen security within Europe. A smooth flow of the exchange of information between the security authorities, especially border control authorities, will be a key priority.

There must be weighty reasons for information exchange between the EU countries. Clearly, breaking the law is a good reason for this as is sufficient evidence of intended wrongdoing.

Information exchange needs to respect the protection of law-abiding European individuals so that abuses of human rights do not take place as a result of breaches of privacy.

The purpose of cooperation in matters of security is to keep Europe a safe place to live in and to protect law-abiding citizens.

Cooperation in matters of security must protect Europeans against criminals in order to make our everyday lives as safe as possible and to enable our children to live without fear.

17. Cost of obtaining a visa for Belarusian and Ukrainian citizens (debate)

  President. − The next item is the Commission statement on the cost of obtaining a visa for Belarusian and Ukrainian citizens

  Jacques Barrot, Vice-President of the Commission. − (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for the questions that you have asked me on the European visa rules applicable to Ukraine and Belarus.

Firstly, in the case of Ukraine, the Agreement on readmission and the Agreement on the facilitation of issuance of visas, both of which entered into force at the beginning of 2008, represent an important milestone in relations between the European Union and Ukraine. On the one hand, they will promote people-to-people contacts, which in turn will help improve mutual understanding and strengthen relations in all areas, and, on the other, they will commit both sides, the European Union and Ukraine, to close cooperation to combat illegal immigration.

The first priority is to ensure the speedy, operational and harmonised implementation of the Agreement on the facilitation of issuance of visas to Ukrainian citizens. To ensure that this Agreement is properly and uniformly applied, draft guidelines have been drawn up and approved by the Member States and the Ukrainian authorities. These guidelines should be finalised and adopted in the near future by the Joint Committee established by the Agreement.

As stated in the preamble to the Agreement between the European Community and Ukraine on the facilitation of the issuance of visas, the introduction of a visa-free travel regime for the citizens of Ukraine is recognised only as a long-term prospect. The process that will lead to the introduction of such a regime depends mainly on the satisfactory implementation of the Agreement on readmission and of the Agreement on the facilitation of issuance of visas.

I should like to emphasise that the enlargement of the Schengen area in no way affects the arrangements for carrying out checks at the borders between Ukraine and those Member States which became part of the Schengen area on 21 December 2007. Those Member States have been applying the Schengen rules on external border checks since their accession, and since September 2007 they also carry out checks on persons in the Schengen Information System – SIS.

However, to make travel easier for Ukrainian citizens living in the border area, agreements on local border traffic have been signed between Hungary and Ukraine, and between Ukraine and Poland. Moreover, the Commission has called for amendments to the agreement between Ukraine and Hungary with regard to the demarcation of the border area in order to bring this agreement into line with Community rules; this is also the case for the agreement between Ukraine and Poland. That is all I have to say about travel for Ukrainian citizens living in the border area.

The situation for visas, on the other hand, is different. Prior to 21 December 2007 those Member States that did not yet fully apply the Schengen acquis were not bound by the Schengen provisions on visa fees. These Member States could therefore waive this fee for all Ukrainian citizens. However, this is now no longer possible. Nevertheless, the standard visa fee of EUR 60 does not apply to Ukrainian visa applicants. As confirmed by the Agreement between the European Community and Ukraine that entered into force on 1 January 2008, the fee for processing visa applications of Ukrainian citizens will remain at EUR 35. In addition, the Agreement exempts broad categories of Ukrainian visa applicants from the visa fee, which means that more than 50%, I repeat, more than 50% of Ukrainian nationals now wishing to travel to Schengen countries benefit from a full waiving of the visa fee.

I should now like to turn to Belarus. In its Communication on strengthening the European Neighbourhood Policy, dated 4 December 2006, the Commission emphasised the importance of facilitating the issuance of visas for relations with the countries covered by the Neighbourhood Policy. The Commission restated the European Union’s willingness to develop Action Plans with neighbouring countries and to enter into negotiations with them in order to facilitate the issuance of visas and the granting of permission for readmission.

Belarus is one of the countries covered by the Neighbourhood Policy, but it has to be said that no Action Plan has been developed with this country yet owing to its overall political situation. This is why there are no plans to open discussions on the possible facilitation of the issuance of visas and on readmission with Belarus at this stage.

Nevertheless, I should like to emphasise that the existing acquis on the issuance of short-term visas provides for exemption from visa fees for some categories of persons, such as children under the age of six, students and researchers. In addition, under the current rules, the Member States may, at any time, cancel or reduce the visa fee in justifiable individual cases, for example for humanitarian reasons, to protect cultural interests or on foreign policy grounds.

Furthermore, the neighbouring Member States – Poland, Latvia and Lithuania in particular – always have the possibility of negotiating local border traffic agreements with Belarus. This would be a means of facilitating border crossing and the movement of border residents between Belarus and its neighbouring countries, whilst promoting contacts between local communities. Border residents holding a special local border traffic permit would be exempt from the visa requirement. Poland and Belarus have already entered into negotiations to that end.

This concludes what I wanted to say, whilst emphasising the pertinence of the questions that you have asked and bringing you up to date with the most recent developments in this matter.

  Urszula Gacek, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – Mr President, I thank the Commissioner for coming and presenting the latest position of the Commission on visa issues for the Ukraine and Belarus. A month ago, a delegation which comprised members of most of the mainstream opposition in Belarus visited Strasbourg at the invitation of the PPE-DE Group to discuss how the political situation is developing in that country, but also during that visit colleagues may have seen their appeals to this Parliament to support their efforts to reduce the visa fees they are currently paying, which are indeed prohibitive for the majority of Belarus citizens.

If we really want to encourage Belarus to pick a pro-European route in future – which we sincerely hope will be the case – the strongest arguments we have are those which the Belarus citizens can see with their own eyes. It is very difficult for them, in the regime in which they live, to have a real insight into what freedom and democracy, human rights and rule of law really mean. It is difficult to promote a civil society. It is difficult to show them that Europe is open and friendly and supports their move towards a full democracy. The best way we can do that is to allow those citizens access into Europe not at rates which will frighten or prohibit entry by most citizens.

Commissioner, you very rightly said that specific groups are excluded, and that is indeed children, and people with family contacts; it is people who are visiting the European Union for cultural or scientific or educational reasons, and I would encourage individual member countries to make use of that legal provision to let those people actually make use of those facilities. But it is very sad that Serbia and Russia are treated on better terms than Belarus’s citizens.

  Hannes Swoboda, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (DE) Mr President, first I want to thank the Commissioner for the very precise information, as ever, he has provided on this issue.

I myself have experienced the problems of visas and visa restrictions in the Balkans and I still come across them today, although things have eased up a little. Let us take Serbia for instance, since it has already been mentioned. In spite of the present simplifications, in the context of Yugoslavia – i.e. a communist regime – it had far more contact with the West, with the European countries, in the past than it has now, which means there is something wrong with the whole system. We really do need fundamental changes.

The Commissioner rightly pointed out that in Ukraine more than half of all applicants enjoy exemptions of one kind or another. I wonder what kind of system exempts 50% or more. I admit, however, that this is not his fault.

Let me now turn to Belarus. I was happy to support the proposal from Mrs Grabowska and Mr Paleckis because I find it very difficult to accept that the citizens of that country should suffer twice over because of a bad regime: not just under the regime but also because we are not formulating any plan of action in face of that bad regime.

Sometimes we have to choose to act more unilaterally and decide on our own initiative to do something specifically to help those who receive no help from their own regime or government. The Commissioner indicated that to some extent that is already the case. Yet more needs to be done and we need to conduct a more aggressive policy toward Belarus. For instance, I would be interested to know – and perhaps the Commissioner can answer me at a later date – which countries grant which exemptions. Which European Union countries are particularly helpful and which are perhaps less so? Surely it is important to adopt a European Union stance and if some countries take a liberal approach it would be a disaster for others to be very restrictive.

I would ask the Commission and the Council – given that we know that they bear the main responsibility – to work together with us to ensure that we can offer the citizens and all concerned in Belarus more advantages than we have done – laboriously – in the past.

  István Szent-Iványi, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (HU) Mr President, Ukraine and Belarus have a key role to play in the Eastern dimension of our Neighbourhood policy.

With Ukraine the aim is democracy, a market economy, consolidation of the orientation towards Europe while with Belarus the aim is the democratisation of the country. Relaxation of travel requirements is a flexible and valuable tool for this. Since 1 January citizens of Ukraine have benefited from a simplified visa regime, though the majority of them feel that the position today is harder than it was before, since getting into their major target countries, Poland, Hungary and Lithuania, is now more difficult than it was previously. This is seen as a backward step, since the EUR 35 visa fee is a large sum of money for them, and the administrative burden and procedures are extremely complicated. So we have to show that for Ukraine the immediate aim, the granting of visa-free travel, will happen very soon, and until we can do this, the granting of visas without a fee will have an impact on an even greater number of people, as well the relaxation of the administrative burden.

As for Belarus, we have to make it clear that Europe does not have a problem with the people of Belarus but with its oppressive regime. We would wish its citizens to be able to travel more easily and so we have to relax the EUR 60 visa fee, a huge amount of money, as in Belarus it is equivalent to half the average monthly wage, and we also have to reduce the administrative burden, as the complicated regulations are difficult to comply with. In this way we can reach a position where the citizens of Ukraine and Belarus feel that they are close to Europe. Thank you.

  Adam Bielan, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (PL) Mr President, the European Union will not guarantee the security of its Eastern border by ignoring the interests of Belarusians and Ukrainians. We should support visits to the Union by the widest possible groups of people specifically from Ukraine and Belarus, and at the same time isolating the Lukashenka regime. Democratic processes and the changes in the mentality of our Eastern neighbours, for example as far as their perceptions of NATO in Ukraine are concerned, will take place more quickly thanks to personal experiences of visits in the European Union countries.

At the moment Belarusians must pay EUR 60 for a visa. This is equivalent of one third of average salary and precludes most of the society from visiting. This situation suits the Lukashenka regime, since the more contacts with Western Europe are restricted, the easier it will be to control Belarusian society. The visa requirement isolates the Belarusian youth and those people who have opposition sympathies. The West should want to maintain contacts with these social groups. Expensive visa charges lead only to an increase in the activity of the visa mafia and to other pathologies on the borders. Such barriers also cause tangible losses to tourism in Poland. Skiers from Ukraine and Belarus have visited Polish mountains in large numbers in recent years. They have tended to arrive in early January, when the Orthodox Christmas begins. By now Polish skiing resorts are empty.

Ladies and gentlemen, especially now, when at the NATO summit in Bucharest Vladimir Putin threatened to cause the break-up of Ukraine and stated that, and I quote, ‘Ukraine is not even a state, and one part of its territory is Eastern Europe and another – a large one – was gifted to it by Russia’, a clear signal is needed that the European Union will not tolerate such threats against its nearest neighbour in international politics.

I appeal for the fastest possible commencement of a dialogue on specific actions so that the Ukrainians will not require EU visas. I wish to state clearly that a real vision of a contemporary and safe Europe is not possible without Ukraine.

  Elisabeth Schroedter, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, official EU policy towards Belarus is known as a policy of ‘differentiation’: on the one hand it is critical of the dictator Lukashenko while, on the other, it seeks to encourage and facilitate dialogue with the people. But charging EUR 60 – a third of a month’s salary in Belarus – for a visa flies in the face of that policy. As a result, ordinary people in Belarus regard EU policy towards them as a policy of empty words!

This issue has completely obscured our Schengen policy and is actually undermining the credibility of EU foreign policy. We cannot allow such a situation to continue. The democracy that we want to see developing in Belarus can come into being only if we make it easier for people from Belarus to see for themselves how democracy works in our countries. Any other approach would simply play into Lukashenko’s hands. So we need to make a change and the Council told us, in its answer, that the reason why no change has yet been made is that the Commission has not tabled the necessary proposal.

So, please, get to work! Put a proposal before the Council that will make it easier – in the interests of promoting democracy in Belarus – for people there to obtain visas.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE-DE). – (LT) Madam President, whatever has been said about the cost of visas for Belarusians and Ukrainians, there is no doubt that urgent decisions should be taken on this issue and that they should be taken by the European Union.

On the subject of visas, the European Union has signed a visa facilitation agreement with Ukraine, as well as with Russia, Moldova and the Western Balkan states. However, negotiations on the agreement with Belarus have not even begun, because Alexander Lukashenko is not interested in offering Belarusian citizens the possibility of seeing the standard of life in the free world, especially if they find it to be much higher than that in Belarus.

The issue of the cost of visas remains important not only for Belarus, but for Ukraine too. The fact that Ukrainian citizens have to pay EUR 35 for a Schengen visa does not solve the problem, because only certain small groups of Ukrainian citizens qualify for the visa facilitation regime. The case of Belarus is even more eloquent – Belarusians have to pay more for a Schengen visa – that is, they have to pay the price for Lukashenko’s dictate.

Is the visa regime adequate in view of the situation on the EU’s Eastern border? I do not think so. According to statistics, Poland alone issues about 600 000 visas to Ukrainian citizens each year; as a comparison, the number of visas issued by all the Schengen countries in the same period is only 300 000. Prior to joining the Schengen area, Lithuania, Latvia and Poland maintained very low visa prices for Belarusian citizens: Lithuania and Poland charged only EUR 5 and Latvia issued visas free of charge. Poland, Lithuania and Latvia used to issue 400 000 visas to Belarusians, i.e. three times more than the number issued by the old Schengen countries.

Would you say it is a good thing that only 26% of Belarusian citizens have ever visited an EU country, and that 60% of Belarusians have never seen a foreign person during the last three years? Of course not. We, the European Union, must find an efficient way to solve this issue, as we know from our own experience that it is better to see the EU once than to hear about it a hundred times.

  Genowefa Grabowska (PSE). - (PL) Mr President, Commissioner, as a co-author of a question on the cost of visas for Belarus I wish to thank you for today’s explanations and to draw your attention to several additional matters. The point is that Belarus is not only a close neighbour of the EU. It is also the closest one of my country, Poland, hence my concern and my intervention on behalf of the interests of those who live in that country.

After Schengen enlargement you said that the cost of visas for Belarusians went up. In reality the cost went up by a factor of 12, from EUR 5 to 60. In Belarus EUR 60 is the monthly salary of a medical doctor under training. EUR 60 for many Belarusians is a real barrier preventing them from obtaining a visa and from visiting EU neighbours. We can already see that after the visa price rise there has been a visible and drastic fall in the numbers of Belarusian citizens travelling to the EU. This happened at a time when the EU wishes to establish direct contact with its citizens and when the policy of good neighbourliness is enshrined in the Lisbon Treaty. It is therefore a painful paradox for this country, even if it is ruled undemocratically.

Please believe me that the decision to increase visa fees is an excellent present for the Lukashenka regime which discounts this politically. The regime says to Belarusians: you see? They have introduced high, prohibitive fees. Nobody is waiting for you in Europe, nobody wants you there.

This needs to be changed. I value the fact that the Commissioner mentioned Poland as the country which intends to press for lower visa fees for Belarusians. However this is not a task for Poland, Lithuania and individual countries. It is a task for the entire EU. Should we be unable to solve this, how are we to build a common foreign policy within the EU? I therefore appeal to the Commission to take all the steps necessary to lower visa fees for Belarusians.

  Grażyna Staniszewska (ALDE). - (PL) As early as May 2005 Ukraine withdrew the requirement to obtain visas for citizens of the European Union. However the EU needed as long as three years to take any position on this. I want to say that the final EU reaction was far from clear.

On the one hand, early this year visas became easier to obtain, certain procedures were simplified and visa fees were waived, but only for selected groups of citizens. For most Ukrainians the European Union appears to be an impregnable fortress, opening its doors only for those who can cope patiently with the long and very expensive struggle at consulates of Schengen countries.

For many Ukrainians visas are too expensive. The institutions involved in the visa issue process generally charge twice or even three times more than the set maximum fee. Secondly, the time required for a visa to be issued at many consulates is unpredictable and very long. Thirdly, many consulates require additional documents, not mentioned in the agreement. Even diplomatic passport holders may have problems at border crossings.

The necessary final aim for Ukraine is a clear road map attempting to introduce bilateral visa-free travel, albeit with difficult preconditions, as was the case with Serbia.

  Józef Pinior (PSE). - (PL) Mr President, Commissioner, Europe without borders, the European Union within Schengen, cannot mean the creation of a new wall between the EU and Eastern Europe.

European dreams of a single borderless Europe have materialised within the EU. However, what is happening now on the border between the EU and Ukraine and Belarus is a political scandal of sorts for my generation – the Solidarity generation in Poland, which fought for the unity of Europe.

Today the problems of reaching the European Union for the Ukrainians and Belarusians must be resolved as soon as possible. Commissioner, I appeal to you! We, Europeans in the rich, democratic countries, must do everything we can today so that the EU is open for the civil societies of Belarus and Ukraine.

  Zita Pleštinská (PPE-DE). - (SK) Mr President, the fact that you are chairing today’s debate is highly symbolic and I thank you for that.

In my speeches I mention at every opportunity the request by the leaders of civil society in Ukraine and in the EU to the Member States and EU institutions, and to the Ukrainian Government and Supreme Council, for Europe to give greater consideration to the Ukraine-EU visa issue.

As Ukraine is one of the European Union’s strategic partners, I welcome today’s debate and the information the Commissioner has provided. While I accept that this is a very demanding process, I also think that it is vital to find a solution.

Visa issue involving Belarusian citizens were also examined during Belarus Week in the European Parliament at meetings with Alexander Milinkevich, the winner of the Sakharov Prize. It is our duty to help the people who are the hapless victims of Lukashenko’s regime.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have to adopt as quickly as possible a solution to simplify the visa regime: that will send a positive and constructive signal to the pro-European and pro-democratic forces in Ukraine and Belarus.

  Ewa Tomaszewska (UEN). - (PL) Mr President, the youth of Belarus is often punished by the withdrawal of the right to education for holding beliefs not liked by the authorities. Poland provides higher education places for many of these young people. We must not waste this by imposing an economic blockade on such young people who want to enter our country to study. This economic blockade should be dismantled and the visa fees should be lowered.

  President. − Before I hand over to the Commissioner – and we have a bit of time – I wish to add something. As a frequent traveller to Ukraine I wish to say that a crucial issue in the visa problem, in the entire visa regime, is explaining to the societies of Ukraine and Belarus whether what they have to go through today is a transitional stage. This applies to prices and to procedures. The prices are prohibitive and the procedures humiliating. These people queue for long hours, for dozens of hours. Is this transitional or permanent? The Ukrainians often say that a Schengen wall has been erected, that what has been introduced and greeted with joy by everybody, by us Poles, by the French, for a long time now by the Germans, is in reality just a process of natural isolation, that the queue in front of a consulate, the refusal, the price – all that is merely a signal to their societies, a signal received very negatively in the context of all the aspirations we speak so much about in this Chamber and elsewhere.

The debate is closed. Please forgive me that I have broken the golden rule, that the President does not interfere in such matters, but I simply could not remain silent on this issue.

  Jacques Barrot, Vice-President of the Commission. − (FR) Mr President, I have listened carefully to what you have just said, and it supports a great many speakers who have emphasised the need to facilitate access to the European Union for the citizens of our neighbouring countries.

I believe that many have spoken with a great deal of common sense! The more opportunities there are for people-to-people exchanges, the more likely it is that citizens will influence their own country’s move towards democracy and commitment to European values.

Nevertheless, I must first reply on the subject of Belarus. I have explained why, so far, there have been no plans to enter into negotiations on an agreement on visa facilitation. The political situation may well change, and I should like to add that the European Union is making every effort to make its presence felt in the country, as, a few days ago, a European Commission office was set up in Belarus.

At all events, as I have already said, Belarusian citizens already have the opportunity to travel within the European Union under existing EU legislation. However, I have listened carefully to all sides of the argument, and I cannot say more than I have already said regarding Belarus.

As far as Ukraine is concerned, I should like to say that the situation is much more positive. The Agreement on visa fees for Ukrainian citizens stipulates that the Schengen states will charge EUR 35 for processing visa applications of Ukrainian citizens, and not EUR 60, which is considered to be the average cost of a visa. Therefore, efforts have already been made. I also mentioned that there are some categories of Ukrainian citizens who could benefit from a full waiver of the visa fee.

Nevertheless, Mr President, I am acutely aware of what you have just said. The price is an issue, but, occasionally, so is the way in which these formalities have to be completed: very lengthy procedures that give these citizens the impression that the European Union is a long way off. I have to tell you that, at present, my attention is drawn to the problems faced in particular by the citizens of the Western Balkan States. I am trying to determine ways in which we can also make these procedures easier. I believe that, if we succeed, we will probably also do so in the case of countries such as Ukraine.

That concludes, Mr President, what I wanted to say to Parliament, whilst being fully aware that all the Members’ remarks are justifiable to some extent, but that, as things stand, some progress has already been made. It is true that a lot more remains to be done, but I also feel that each Member State should endeavour to take advantage of the opportunities that are already available. I, for one, shall be making every effort to do so.

  President. − The debate is closed.

18. Organ donation and transplantation: Policy actions at EU level (debate)

  President. − The next item is the report by Adamos Adamou, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, on organ donation and transplantation: Policy actions at EU level (2007/2210(INI)) (A6-0090/2008).

  Adamos Adamou, rapporteur. − (EL) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me first thank the European Commission for its communication and the excellent cooperation we have had together. I should also like to thank all my colleagues, particularly the shadow rapporteurs, for the very difficult work we have done together to reach the compromise amendments which have been unanimously adopted.

The main issues the Commission deals with in its communication and which I have been dealing with as rapporteur are: transplant risks and safety, for instance the transmission of diseases, the organ shortage and illegal organ trafficking. Permit me to talk about each of these in turn.

With regard to quality and safety, when organs are used in therapy diseases risk being transmitted to the recipient. Donor testing is therefore important to minimise the risks to the recipient. Donors must be screened to establish whether or not there is a risk of any disease being transmitted. To establish a standard of donor safety, a minimum set of examinations should be performed. We must point out, however, that there is no consensus today between the Member States on these tests.

The severe shortage of organ donors remains the main challenge facing Member States in organ transplantation. Growing waiting lists are a serious problem. The establishment of an efficient system to identify those who might become organ donors on their death, provided, of course, that all the mandatory consent requirements in Member States have been met, is thus a key element in fighting organ shortage.

Another important option to increase the number of donors is the possible promotion of altruistic donations from living people. Careful consideration is also required of those potential donors who would not normally be considered ideal candidates, known of course, as expanded donors. For example a transplant could be allowed from one HIV-positive patient to other.

Now, with regard to trafficking in organs, Commissioner, everyone knows that organ trafficking takes place. We all know that rich tourists from the West exploit the economic needs of people from the poorest countries. We have all heard that there are price lists of organs, that there is a black market in organs, particularly in countries of the Far East, such as India, Pakistan and China, and that these things are even happening in the enlarged Europe. I therefore endorse Amendment 7 to paragraph 57 by my fellow Members Mrs Brepoels, Mr Liese and Mr Bowis, on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, and it is important to improve the control of cases of organ trafficking so that we may, finally, draw the necessary conclusions.

At the same time, I would like to stress that altruism must constitute the main element of organ donation and transplantation. The economic terminology used in the Commission’s communication is therefore not adequate, in particular from the viewpoint of the principle of non-commercialisation of the human body. This is also the reason why I could not support Amendment 2 to paragraph 38 by Mr Martin and Mr Matsakis. Of course, following my detailed talks with Mr Matsakis, he – as he will explain to you himself – intends to withdraw it and will submit another oral amendment, tomorrow, which I support.

I consider, however, as I have said before, that organs should not be treated as a commodity of the internal market and, consequently, I would not agree with the removal of this addition. Besides, the principle of non-commercialisation of the human body is expressly stated in Article 3(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

Ladies and gentlemen, I do not have any more time because the four minutes are up. I intend to continue in my conclusion, when I speak again following your remarks.

  Androulla Vassiliou, Member of the Commission. − (EL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let me first congratulate Mr Adamou on the excellent report he has prepared on organ donation and transplantation. I am particularly pleased that the report supports the Commission’s view that action on the donation and transplantation of organs must focus on: firstly, improving the quality and safety of organs; secondly, increasing the availability of organs; and thirdly, making transplants safe.

Ensuring high quality and safety standards in human organs is a benefit to everyone. We know that a number of organs are exchanged between EU Member States. At present, there is a lack of common quality and safety standards in the procurement of human organs and, therefore, meeting this need is very important.

It provides not only a comparable safety standard to apply across the EU, but also leads to a feeling of security and solidarity in the transplantation system.

The Commission plans to propose a legislative framework on the basic safety and quality principles in relation to the donation and procurement of human organs.

These requirements will be broad and flexible, to maximise the number of transplantations taking place. After all, this is all about saving lives. We must keep uppermost in our minds the fact that there are 50 000 people on organ waiting lists across Europe at this point.

Increasing organ availability requires raising public awareness of the issue. Citizens need to know that transplantation systems are safe and reliable. Otherwise they will not consent to donation.

We already have some good examples in Member States where the addition of transplant coordinators, for example, has had a positive impact on donation rates. The Commission intends to propose an action plan with 10 priority actions to meet the challenges of organ donation and transplantation in the EU. The Commission recognises the importance of fighting organ trafficking as reflected in the communication on organ donation and transplantation.

I also noted Dr Adamou’s comments and will seriously consider them. His report makes it clear that we should look very carefully at how we intend to respond to the menace of organ trafficking in the EU.

The Commission will monitor the situation in collaboration with our international partners, the Council of Europe and the World Health Organisation. We shall also support Interpol in order to continue with the monitoring of this problem.

Moreover, I believe that by increasing organ availability in the European Union, we shall indirectly fight transplant tourism and trafficking of organs.

In addition, organ trafficking will be included in this year’s Commission report on an EU action plan on trafficking in human beings.

  Edit Bauer, Draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs. − Mr President, organ donation and transplantation is a sensitive and important issue, where good legislation, together with good practice, might save thousands of human lives on a yearly basis. Issues on the fragile line between life and death are really sensitive. It is hard to help with legislation, but it is easy to harm. That is why it is profoundly important to respect good practices in the Member States.

On the other hand, it is vitally necessary to discover all those practices which cause lack of trust and transparency in managing waiting lists or lead to scandalous cases of misused loopholes in legislation.

I would like to point out three topics in the opinion of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs. First, living donors are mainly unrelated. In this regard, legal procedures should minimise the possibility of illicit organ selling. The question of reimbursement of the social costs of donors is still awaiting a suitable solution.

Secondly, in those cases where international cooperation is included in the transplantation process, legislation should ensure rules as clear as those within Member States. Transplantation tourism raises new questions, as the Commissioner mentioned. How should we handle such cases?

Thirdly, international cooperation in detecting cases of organ trafficking should be more organised and more serious, because hidden trafficking and its consequences can destroy the hopes of thousands of patients waiting for life-saving organs. On the other hand, European legislation on trafficking in human beings should also include organ selling and trafficking, even if it is still hidden but becoming an increasing global problem.

I would like to congratulate the rapporteur and also the shadow rapporteurs and thank them for good cooperation.

  Frieda Brepoels, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (NL) Mr President, Commissioner, organ transplants do indeed save human lives in Europe every day. Sadly, a shortage of donors means that thousands of Europeans die every year whilst still on the waiting list. The challenge is how to increase donor numbers safely. As shadow rapporteur for the Group of the European People’s Party and European Democrats I am very happy today to see Parliament wholeheartedly endorsing the Commission's initiative and acknowledging that Europe can play an essential role here.

Organ donation and transplantation is a highly complex and emotive subject, as other speakers have said, and views on it vary widely in the Member States. Whilst working on the report I myself talked to quite a few doctors, patients and organisations. The hearing we held and the study visit to Spain also provided us with interesting insights, and I must thank the rapporteur very sincerely today for having incorporated all our contributions into his report.

Four points. One, we must above all take care to ensure that the directive on quality and safety, put forward by the Commission, is sufficiently flexible and does not create additional administrative burdens or even a decrease in the number of organs available. In our view it must be the doctor who ultimately decides on quality and safety. To guarantee quality and safety we also ask that Member States monitor and evaluate post-transplantation and post-donation results. Since data comparability between Member States is very important here, we might perhaps think about having a common methodology for analysing the data.

Two, we think the most essential factor in recruiting more donors, even more important than legislation, is the way in which the donation system is organised. We would thus like to see hospitals deploying more staff to identify potential donors, but also to counsel and assist the next of kin. In countries that use transplant coordinators of this kind, the number of donors rises.

Three, this also demonstrates how crucially important it is to exchange good practice among Member States. The European Union can easily foster this. It is also important that hospitals publicise the positive results of transplantation and be proactive in their dealings with the media.

Four, we think it is very important to consider living donors as well as post-mortem donors. And we would like to see living donors not being discriminated again, by insurance companies for example.

Lastly, organ donation must remain a strictly non-commercial, altruistic and voluntary process. Any payments made must in our view be only for the expense and inconvenience of donating. The Commission, together with Member States, must be far more proactive in countering the sale and trafficking of organs and transplant tourism. Traceability is very important here and Europol too must monitor things better and identify cases of organ selling and/or trafficking.

I am certain that Parliament, through this report, is sending out a very balanced and firm signal, and I urge the House to vote in favour of the report tomorrow.

  María Sornosa Martínez, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (ES) Mr President, Commissioner, I look forward to the forthcoming proposal for a directive from the Commission which will establish quality and safety standards for the donation and procurement of organs throughout the European Union.

In the interests of transparency in this process, I would like to say that as Socialists we support the measures aimed at protecting donors and ensuring that organ donation is made altruistically and voluntarily, ruling out any payment other than strict compensation for the expense and inconvenience involved in making the donation.

The forthcoming legislative framework should not create an excessive administrative burden for the Member States, nor jeopardise the use of existing good practices.

As for the practical process as such, I would like to point out that a few very stringent quality standards should not increase costs and in particular they should not reduce the number of organs available for transplant. Clearly, measures should not be adopted if they prevent organs from being transplanted, which would currently be regarded as acceptable, because what we are trying to do is to save human beings and ensure that human life is as comfortable as possible for the sick.

Unfortunately, the excellent results obtained from transplants, in terms of increased lifespan and improved quality of life, have increased demand for this form of treatment.

I come from Spain, a country which is a world leader in organ donation and transplantation. If we have managed to achieve this worthy ranking it is doubtless due to the existence of a National Transplant Organisation which coordinates all the teams of professionals in the relevant hospitals, each of which has its own transplant coordinator, a medical professional who coordinates the entire team and the process leading up to the donation.

I hope that the proposed legislation from the European Commission will take this type of model into account since it is proving so successful.

Finally, I would like to emphasise the desirability of including a reference to the need to involve citizens from third countries, with different cultures and religions, in the donation culture, by means of specific awareness measures, campaigns in their native language, cultural mediators etc., and of calling on States to combat trafficking wholeheartedly by adopting criminal liability measures against European citizens who pursue health tourism with a view to obtaining organs in third countries.

It only remains for me to thank the rapporteur, and all the rapporteurs not mentioned individually, because it has been very easy working together and reaching agreement.

  Jules Maaten, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (NL) Mr President, I am trying to put myself in the position of the parents of a three-year-old girl diagnosed with a heart defect, for whom a three-year-old donor heart – not easy to find – was not available in her own country. In another European country one might well be available, but that country was not interested in cooperating with the rest of Europe. In that case I would be demanding action from Europe. And there is good reason why European action is needed. We currently have 400 000 people on a waiting list for organs in Europe and about ten of these will die every day because there is a shortage of donor organs.

Regarding safety and quality criteria, the excellent Adamou report rightly warns against any further bureaucratic burden being imposed by legislation from Brussels. And the proposed legislation – I am glad that the Commissioner has just given it his blessing – certainly must not add to the red tape. If there is one sector that is vulnerable to red tape, it is this one. I was also very happy to hear you say just now that you want to open the way for as many transplants as possible and do not want to restrict the numbers. I think that is an important principle.

We do need guarantees of closer cooperation between Member States. Cross-border cooperation means that the transplantation process is handled by hospitals and doctors who are governed by different legal systems. Last year, former Commissioner for Health Markos Kyprianou argued for the introduction of a European donor card. And Cyprus, as we know, Mr Adamou, Mrs Vassiliou, is a fount of wisdom. This card, whether or not it is combined with the European health insurance card, can ensure that organs which become available are used as efficiently as possible. Eurobarometer surveys show that 81% of Europeans back the use of an organ donor card, but only 12% of them actually carry one. The Adamou report calls for a voluntary European donor card and so I would like to take this opportunity to urge the Commissioner to put forward legislation by the end of the year to introduce a card of this kind to complement national cards.

  Margrete Auken, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DA) Mr President, I would like to thank Mr Adamou for a very good report and excellent cooperation during the preparation of this report up to now. We need more organs – we are certainly in agreement over that. However, it is important that this takes place in a proper manner. Cooperation is good, and I personally believe that proper information is needed, better information, so that people will feel comfortable about being organ donors. As a result, people will know that everything will be done with respect, and this also applies to the next of kin, who are of course facing the most desperate situation of their lives, and people can also be secure in the knowledge that their relatives will be taken good care of. If this makes it is possible for them to discuss the matter with each other, then something good will come of it.

However, under no circumstances should the need for organs lead to the commercialisation of the process. I believe that everyone is very pleased and in agreement that this issue is now to be addressed and we are going to tackle the trafficking that is taking place. It is unacceptable that we have not involved Europol sufficiently, because it is really a criminal matter. Even in places where it is not illegal, it is of course criminal that poor people are being persuaded to sell their kidneys in order to support their families.

Finally, allow me to emphasise how many assurances we will have to give; we will need to be aware of this, as we will be subject to immense pressure. For example, I feel that a formulation such as people are dying ‘as a result of the chronic shortage of organs’ is poisonous. People are dying because they are ill. In addition, we will never have enough organs. There are some people who are fortunate enough to receive an organ and whose lives are saved as a result. Being able to achieve more cases like this is why we have to adopt this report. However, we will never be in a situation where we have enough organs. Even if we abolished all speed limits throughout Europe, it would not be enough.

IN THE CHAIR: MR BIELAN
Vice-President

  Jiří Maštálka, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (CS) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I would like to congratulate, as a physician and a Member of this House, my colleague Mr Adamos Adamou on his excellent work on this report. The issues of organ transplantation and donation can sometimes cause controversy and the reasons are evident: on the one hand, we have to take ethical issues into account, while on the other hand we should not allow medical progress to come to a stop, thereby restricting or hampering our ability to help people.

I welcome the fact that the report is based on the pillars that I value. The first of these is the legal instruments: they have to guarantee that organ donation will continue to be voluntary rather than a commercial activity. It will be good to have standards but these standards must not affect implementation and options in the individual Member States. The second pillar relates to cooperation between the Member States, which is essential, as in many other areas. The third pillar relates to the fact that no measures can be taken without the cooperation of the citizens. I therefore welcome the measures to ensure greater public awareness and transparency. The common goal, which is evident in the report, is to eliminate illegal trafficking at all costs. Mr Adamou’s report certainly paves the way for this.

  Urszula Krupa, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – (PL) Mr President, the noble objectives of the Commission’s Communication on organ donation and transplantation and policy actions at EU level, as well as Mr Adamou’s report, which stresses that organ donation is a gift and that it is important to respect and protect the freedom to donate or not to donate organs for transplantation, are insufficient.

Similarly, the regulations providing for the introduction of a European organ donor card will be insufficient if all the amendments concerning guidance by ethical and moral principles contained in the European Parliament documents are rejected. Lack of moral principles and of their use in legislation leads to loss of our societies’ moral health and to various abuses in all areas of social life, including science and medicine.

In addition to the spread of liberalism and commercialism, vast social differences are a cause of the trade in organs and of other abuses. There are very rich people who can buy anything, including organs for transplantation. There are also those who are destitute. They may donate their organs as a last resort or under duress, and thus reduce their chances for good health and survival.

This state of affairs will not be changed by assurances about equal opportunities and equal access to health services. There is a requirement for real social protection and for statutory protection of human health and life.

  Irena Belohorská (NI). - (SK) Ladies and gentlemen, I, too, would like to congratulate Dr Adamos Adamou on this report, which was adopted unanimously by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety. Not a single Member voted against it; nor did anyone oppose it any of the committees that were asked for their opinion. That this unique level of consensus was achieved is also due to the frequent and long debates on this report organised by the rapporteur, and I would like to thank him for that.

Our task in the area of organ transplantation is twofold. On the one hand, we want to help people for whom transplantation offers the only possibility of staying alive, and on the other hand, it is our duty to prevent organ trafficking, which is one of the most serious criminal acts. We know that trade in organs is at present particularly active in the poorer parts of the world, where organ donation is providing the poor with the only possibility of survival.

I therefore find it shocking that in today’s European Union, based on values, morals and ethics, some people are asking for this trade to be legalised. Since there is a vast difference between the supply of organs – from either live or deceased donors – and the demand for organs, it is important to increase the number of donors.

In the Health Programme 2008-2013 the Commission includes evaluation of post-transplant results among its health safety priorities, which means that grants can be awarded for these purposes. Although I very much welcome the possibility of financing projects from grants, I have a few reservations.

I know that this debate is not about the Health Programme 2008-2013 but I must emphasise the following aspect. As far as the projects concerned, I was surprised at the mathematical discrepancy between the number of projects approved and the number of projects completed: in 2004, 72 projects were approved and 9 were completed; in 2005, 61 projects were approved and 7 were completed; in 2006, 87 projects were approved and not a single one was completed; and in 2007, 6 projects were approved and none was completed. Are there any mechanisms available to verify the effectiveness of the projects cofinanced by the European Union?

  Glenis Willmott (PSE). - Mr President, the use of human organs for transplantation has increased steadily over the past decades. Organ transplantation is now the most cost-effective treatment for end-stage renal failure. For end-stage failure of organs such as the liver, lung and heart, it is the only available treatment.

Transplants are one of the most miraculous achievements of modern medicine, but less than 25% of the UK population are registered organ donors. Last year, around 2 400 people in the UK benefited from an organ transplant, but more than a thousand die every year whilst waiting for such a transplant.

Organ shortage is a common dilemma in all European countries, and there is clearly a need to improve the system supporting organ donation across the EU. Therefore, I warmly welcome this report, and I especially welcome the expanded section on organ trafficking.

A lack of donors has resulted in an exponential growth in transplant tourism to the world’s developing nations. The international black market in organs is attracting people in search of a kidney or other organ, and people living in abject poverty or other vulnerable circumstances are being exploited. They have become a spare parts inventory for the sick. However, when illegal organs transplants are practised, safety is often ignored and the lives of both donor and recipient are put at risk. British newspapers have already exposed several macabre websites aimed at so-called ‘transplant tourists’, including the offer of kidneys from executed prisoners in China.

We should not view this as a distant crime. Several European nations have also become embroiled in the transplant trade, including Moldova, Serbia, Turkey and Russia. Governments across Europe must do more to prevent this shameful crime, so I would like to congratulate Mr Amadou on what is a wide-ranging and thoughtful report.

  Marios Matsakis (ALDE). - Mr President, I wish to congratulate the rapporteur on his truly excellent report.

Allow me to take this opportunity to raise an important but highly controversial issue, which, although not the subject of decision presently, nevertheless needs to be addressed at some stage: this is the concept of presumed consent. Most potential donors’ organs never become available, because the system of obtaining the consent of the donor in life, or of his or her relatives, can never function to such an efficient degree so as to overcome the constraints of narrow time limitations, the sensitive psychosociological manifestations of bereavement and the complex technicalities of organ harvesting and transportation.

The answer to this problem of organ availability is decidedly to presume that all dead people are donors unless this is specifically objected to in time by a close relative or by the donor when alive. I know that this is not easy for legislators to accept, but I hope that this will cause some serious and mature thinking in the future, based on realism and bearing in mind the enormous number of lives that could be saved if such a system were put into effect.

  Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) . – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Adamou, we know that demand for organs outstrips supply. We also know, however, that the only way to increase supply is to secure the principle of non-commercialisation. So there can be no trade in organs, and we cannot permit expense allowances and reimbursement of costs to turn into covert forms of payment.

The problem of organ trafficking is not taken seriously in the European Union. I am pleased to hear from the Commissioner that organ trafficking is to be included at last in the report on trafficking in human beings. However, what happens if a European citizen comes, with an organ, from a third country such as the Philippines? No doctor or hospital will query the origin of the organ. The European citizen will not be required to prove that it did not come from trafficking. That is why we need traceability if we are to eliminate organ trafficking effectively. It is here that the European Union has a big responsibility because we cannot permit a situation where people in China, Ukraine or other countries have to live in fear of an organ mafia.

It is tragic that poverty and desperation should drive people to sell their organs. It is equally tragic, of course, that people should have to die because there are too few organs available for transplants, but we do need to consider both sides of the coin.

  Kathy Sinnott (IND/DEM). - Mr President, to be reprieved from death and disease through the gift of an organ is a wonderful thing, but we have a shortage of organs. Adult stem cells are a promising development, worthy of mention. Many people who would otherwise have needed a transplant are being taken off the list, as their own stem cells are being used to repair their damaged organs. Also, in a research setting, new organs have been made for animals, using their own stem cells. Such replacement organs do not present rejection problems for the recipient.

I would like to thank the rapporteur for supporting the amendments on equality in organ donation for people with disabilities. Research by the Disability Rights Commission suggests that people with disabilities are four times more likely to die from a treatable disease, with organ failure being one of these conditions. We must fight such institutionalised discrimination and ensure fair, free and equitable access to organ donation for all.

I also want to congratulate Mr Derek Rowe and all those at Irish Air Ambulance who, despite receiving no support from the Irish Government, will finally have the first air ambulance operational in Ireland by the end of the year. They have based it on the Cornwall Air Ambulance. The very first mission of the Cornwall Air Ambulance involved a person who had drowned and donated four of their organs – organs that would have been lost without an air ambulance.

  Maciej Marian Giertych (NI). - (PL) Mr President, transplantology is suffering from a shortage of organs. Demand is high and therefore big money is involved. Where there is big money, abuses will be found. Consequently a new kind of crime emerges. There are examples of purchases from poor donors – for a few pennies kidneys can be bought for transplantation. We hear of organs being harvested from executed persons, whose permission has not been sought. We hear of potential donors being kidnapped and killed so that organs can be obtained. There are cases of death being accelerated to harvest organs. This is what I wish to address.

Since transplantology emerged, the definition of death has changed. A criterion of brain death emerged – defined for the first time in 1968 in Boston. It is known as the Harvard Criterion. Since then new criteria of brain death has emerged, each successive one being less restrictive. Cessation of brain activity does not amount to an observation. It is a prognosis. To verify it, the life-support machine is disconnected, and that in itself can cause death. Sometimes the assistance of anaesthetists is enlisted to obtain the organs of the allegedly dead, so that harvesting of a dead body is painless.

What is needed is a stricter, not more liberal, definition of death. Taking of one life to save another is not acceptable.

  Harald Ettl (PSE) . – (DE) Mr President, if we want a joined-up health policy, then the call to the Commission to table a proposal for a directive on organ donation and transplantation is a timely one. The extremely short supply of organs, which persists in some Member States, means that many patients there are on waiting lists for years, and many of them die. If we had just 20-30 dead and live donors per million head of population, the European Union would have a good supply of organs.

Achieving that depends, however, on transplant laws that provide in principle for the removal of organs after death, unless the person concerned has left instructions to the contrary. Only Member States with this type of legislation – and there are currently 11 of them – can hope to resolve the problem fairly at European level. Article 38, or rather the proposed amendment to it, is at odds with such a solution. In Austria, although the principle of organ removal is enshrined in law, an intensive-care specialist with psychological training will also discuss the procedure with the family of the deceased donor, and this system has been very successful. If the relatives oppose the organ removal, then their view will be respected.

Other approaches – such as that taken in Austria’s largest neighbouring country – lead to major difficulties with organ supply and thus turn the whole thing into a European problem. A functional system of obtaining organs depends on having the same set of rules throughout Europe and on arrangements for organ distribution that are transparent and fair and can be supervised at national level. Any approach that fails to put these elements in place will be a capricious waste of time and, at worst, will generate a dubious form of business for poor and mainly non-European countries.

I know what I am talking about because, as Health Minister in Austria, I was responsible for this issue and our experience with it today is positive. The proposal now before this House does not go far enough to resolve the problem at European level. I expect and hope for more from you, Commissioner!

  Johannes Blokland (IND/DEM). - (NL) Mr President, previous speakers have already made the point that organ donation is an emotive subject. It is also a subject which in my view ought largely to be dealt with at Member State level. But a European approach may make sense, chiefly when it comes to quality criteria and information-sharing. We need to take a tough line on illegal organ trafficking. Mr Adamou’s own-initiative report makes a significant contribution here and I thank him for it.

Some members have advocated the introduction of an ‘opting out’ system, but I have grave reservations about that. We cannot force anyone to make a choice about organ donation when the sector itself has not yet weighed the issues clearly and responsibly. I am glad that the resolution now before us makes this point a matter for the Member States.

Lastly, I endorse the amendments tabled by Mrs Sinnot, Messrs Liese and Bowis and others regarding the proven benefits of using adult stem cells.

  Anne Ferreira (PSE). - (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, I should first like to congratulate Mr Adamou on his work.

If one of the objectives of this report is to break down the barriers to organ donation and to ensure the safety of organ transplantation, the first problem clearly concerns self-sufficiency within each Member State and within the European Union. Organ shortage is a problem facing all the Member States to varying degrees. Whilst this situation, which has tragic consequences for people who are waiting for an organ transplant, may be one of the causes of organ trafficking, it is not the only one. It appears that the root cause of trafficking in human organs is their market value.

To remedy this situation, at least within the European Union, organ donation must be guided by three basic principles: it must be unpaid, voluntary and anonymous. If commercialisation of human organs is not possible, then trafficking will be more difficult. In an attempt to resolve this fundamental problem of organ shortage, as highlighted in the report, it is necessary not only to conduct effective public awareness campaigns but also to raise awareness among potential donors. Some Member States are already leading the way on this issue.

It should be noted that, in the case of the donation of blood, which is also in short supply in Europe, several years ago now, we called on every Member State to conduct blood donation campaigns. What was the outcome of this request? Can we build on this experience and extend it, and possibly improve it, to include organ donation?

Nevertheless, I would like to emphasise a couple of points which worry me: firstly, the donor card is not fit for purpose, and, secondly, the issue of the living donor needs to be regulated more effectively. These two points highlight the central role to be played by doctors and surgeons.

Finally, the report refers to the various possibilities of treatment available using adult stem cells. I should also like to mention the opportunities offered by the use of umbilical cord blood stem cells in the treatment of blood cancer, as a substitute for bone marrow transplants. Let us not dismiss this approach. I already mentioned it at your hearing, Commissioner.

  Hélène Goudin (IND/DEM). - (SV) Mr President, the question of organ donation is an ethically sensitive issue and must be guided by national values. Cooperation across national borders can take place in order to ensure quality and safety, but the choice of whether to donate or receive organs must be the choice of the individual or his or her family. This choice often has its roots in a cultural context.

The proposed European donor card is inappropriate, as rules on consent, allocation and organisational structure differ from one Member State to the next. Health is and should remain a national issue. Nevertheless, the Swedish June List is in favour of voluntary exchange of organs and expertise among the existing organisations in Member States.

Parliament’s proposed measures to encourage debate on organ donation, on national transplant hotlines, positive media exposure for organ donation and educating sports stars may possibly be justified, but these initiatives must be decided by the Member States themselves on the basis of the prevailing social climate in the respective country.

  Anna Záborská (PPE-DE). - (SK) I would like to extend my heartfelt congratulations to my fellow Member Mr Adamou. Because of the shortage of organs, some people are quick to use criminal methods. They have turned concern for human beings into lucrative trade in human organs, and children are the group most at risk.

Two weeks ago I made an appeal in Slovakia, and now I am appealing to the European Parliament and the European Commission, for an intensive campaign to increase parents’ awareness of the dangers threatening their children. We must launch a pan-European campaign entitled ‘Do you know where your child is now?’.

This campaign should increase parents’ sense of responsibility for their children. We need to take this issue very seriously and the European Union must adopt measures to tackle the transnational nature of the illegal trade in human organs.

  Gyula Hegyi (PSE). - (HU) An unreasonably large number of people die or suffer because there is no organ available in time for transplantation. But many people do not consider use of their organs after death an ethical problem, if they know that this can be done, but because of inadequate information they do not donate their organs. Naturally everyone must make their own decision, and no one can overrule them or force them. It is important, however, that citizens in our various countries understand that, with different rules in different Member States, if they do not make provision for donating their organs, some countries will permit transplantation while others do not. I welcome the European Parliament’s proposal for a legal representative to decide on the use of organs after death if the deceased person has made no other provision. The illegal trade in organs is a most loathsome crime associated with organ transplants. Robust action must be taken against it, and, especially when those who are termed allies of the west pursue it, covering up these crimes would be a collective shame.

  Siiri Oviir (ALDE). - (ET) Organ transplants must take place quickly. No more than a couple of hours must elapse between removal and transplantation. Therefore public awareness and public opinion play an important role in increasing organ donation.

Organ donation and transplantation are medical procedures, and in order for them to be further developed there must be full public involvement and greater public awareness. The most effective means of increasing public readiness would appear to be improving knowledge of transplant issues among the public and the media. This must be the first step.

Secondly, I would like to emphasise that, given that there is currently no European coordination of organ exchange, making an improvement in that area is very important, specifically with regard to coordination of the system for organ exchange such as it currently exists between the Member States, for example through a European donor card or a European hotline.

  Sylwester Chruszcz (NI). - (PL) Mr President, I see that in general we all agree that organ transplants must not be a commercial activity. Any commercial utilisation of organs is simply unethical and contrary to basic human values. Huge demand for organs for transplantation may lead to pathology or, indeed, crime. All of Europe was recently appalled by those parts of Carla Del Ponte’s book where she spoke of Albanian terrorists who used Serbian citizens from Kosovo for commercial transplantation. This is the issue that the European Parliament and the Member States should address. I believe that the informed consent of the donor must always be a basis for donation and for transplantation of organs. There is a need to secure such a solution which must be the norm in Europe.

  Péter Olajos (PPE-DE). - (HU) Thank you, Mr President. Ladies and gentlemen, perhaps not everyone knows that the first organ transplant in the world was performed in Vienna in 1902 by a person of Hungarian origin, Imre Ulmann. This particular link with the Austrian capital has existed since then, and so strongly that, even though personnel and technical resources are roughly the same, Hungarian lung transplants are still carried out in Vienna. And why not? It costs three times as much and even then the number of patients is even limited. There is no doubt but that transplant coordinators have to be appointed in the intensive care units of European hospitals. The number of these in Hungary is at present precisely zero, while Spain reportedly has 156. As regards heart transplants, my own country has outstanding results, performing well in international comparisons, but we are at the bottom of the list in Europe. The reason is the lack of donors, lack of equipment, air travel, and the human resources required. Hopefully this report will help to address these anomalies since the problem lies not in our hearts but in our minds. Thank you, and I propose that the report be adopted.

  Catherine Stihler (PSE). - Mr President, I should like to thank the rapporteur for his report.

Tonight, there are 700 people in Scotland waiting for an organ transplant: that is 700 families waiting for calls that could guarantee their loved ones’ survival.

The need for consensus on this sensitive subject is essential, and it is a sad day when Member States cannot agree on this. I would like the system of organ donation to be, as Mr Matsakis has said, a system into which everyone has opted in to donate, unless they have requested to opt out. That would help with the supply side, particularly for the young and those from an ethnic minority, where shortages are most acute. Such a system would help save European lives. While I welcome the Commission’s action plan, let us make sure that it is not too little, too late.

  Androula Vassiliou, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, this has been a very interesting and lively debate and no wonder, given the seriousness and importance of this problem.

Now, a lot of issues have been raised. I will try to comment on some of them. Non-commercialisation of organs is a very important issue and I believe, and agree, that organ donation should be done on an altruistic and voluntary basis. That is why, of course, donor cards should be voluntary, and the same applies to the European donor card, which we intend to introduce in our action plan.

Good practices exist in some Member States and these good practices should be shared with other Member States for the benefit of all. The Commission’s directive on quality and safety will, I assure you, be flexible enough not to affect donation whilst ensuring basic requirements throughout the European Union. I also want to confirm that traceability will be included in the directive.

Consent for donation is a particularly sensitive issue, which needs to take into account local and cultural attitudes to donation and transplantation. I wish to point out, on this point, that national authorities are responsible for deciding the legal requirements and practices regarding donation consent in their own Member State and for ensuring that their citizens are aware of their rights in this area.

I would like to say that the use of stem cells from cord blood has proved to be useful for the treatment of some malignant diseases, such as cancer. The Commission supports the development of cord blood banks and the use of this technology.

I also think that it is very important that we raise awareness among European citizens, so that we encourage the increase of both live donations and donations after death, because, in this way, we shall also – as I said in the beginning – indirectly fight trafficking. In order to prevent transplant tourism, I think it is very important that citizens should be made aware of both the dangers regarding the safety and security of organs and the ethical questions that may arise. As we know, in many third countries, very poor and vulnerable people are being exploited for the purpose of organ extraction.

Finally, honourable Members, I would like to thank you once again for providing us with such a constructive report. In particular, I want to stress the fundamental aim of saving lives, whilst recognising the important scientific advances in organ donation.

I therefore look forward to continuing our close and constructive collaboration and presenting the Commission’s proposal to this House later this year.

  Adamos Adamou, rapporteur. − (EL) Mr President, let me thank all those who have spoken on this particularly sensitive subject and allow me to make some comments.

Mr Maaten and others spoke about the European donor card, which we have adopted as an addition to what is provided in Member States. Mr Maaten quoted some correct figures: 80% of citizens surveyed were in favour, but only 12% have a donor card. However, another statistic should give us cause for concern: of those who had a donor card when the time came for them to become donors, 50% did not donate their organs because their families refused. There are thus problems that we cannot be sure will be solved with a European donor card.

As for the point raised by Mr Matsakis about ‘presumed consent’, this is a matter for the Member States. According to my fellow Member who spoke about Scotland, presumed consent solves the problem. It is up to the Member States to decide whether to adopt such a measure. We should not forget the principle of subsidiarity. In this case, we must see which systems have succeeded, so that we can exchange experience and procedures, as in the case of Spain, to which Mrs Sornosa Martínez has referred. Why do we not have in different hospitals coordinators, specialised doctors and nurses, able to recognise potential donors so that transplants can go ahead and we can thus increase the availability of organs? Mrs Auken, who is not here at the moment, has said that we will never be able to fill the shortfall in organ donation. As a doctor and a scientist, my answer is that perhaps I will not live to see the day, or future generations will, but in the decades to come we will be able to make the organ we want from the cells of the individual who needs it, maybe from his skin or from elsewhere.

Commissioner, you spoke about umbilical cord blood cells and about their storage. Now let me point out that we really must not let them fall into the hands of private firms operating for profit. In my country, Cyprus, the Karaiskakio Foundation provides this service free of charge. There are also three private firms charging parents to store umbilical cord blood cells. These cells are also precursor and stem cells; they are very valuable, as you know.

What can I say about the reference made to trade? My fellow Member referred to the report by Carla Del Ponte. I expected to see this report earlier, to be honest. Naturally, it is yet more proof that trafficking is also taking place in the enlarged Europe.

I thank all of you once again. I think that the time has now come for us as European citizens to take action. We must mobilise, coordinate, raise the awareness of those around us and set a good example: we must become organ donors ourselves.

  President. − The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Tuesday, 22 April 2008.

Written statements (Rule 142)

  Slavi Binev (NI), in writing. – (BG) This is to express my deep satisfaction with Mr. Adamou’s report. I support the opinion that to reduce the shortage of organs is the main challenge EU Member States face in terms of organ transplantation.

On 9/04/2008 my colleagues from the ATAKA Party Dimitar Stoyanov and Desislav Chukolov and I submitted a written declaration in support of informed consent for organ, tissue and cell donation in Bulgaria in which we called upon the European Commission to come up with a proposal on the quality and safety of organ donation. The introduction of a European donor card as a supplement to existing national systems will contribute for the rapid identification of donors and thus increase the availability of necessary transplant material. Public awareness about organ donation and transplantation and the introduction of uniform EU legislation and strict criminal prosecution measures against those engaged in organ trafficking, including against medical staff, will serve as safeguards for donation procedures and informed consent.

Once again I congratulate you on your report, sir.

  Titus Corlăţean (PSE), in writing. – (RO) Support for the proposal of a European Parliament resolution on policy actions at the European Union level on organ donation and transplantation.

I request that the European Commission propose a more comprehensive directive that would set quality and safety requirements for the donation and transport of organs in the European Union. This directive would also provide methods of preventing potential abuse.

The new legislative act should supplement and strengthen the Member States’ efforts to improve the present situation, imposing lines of conduct at a European level, by taking into account the progress in medicine.

I insist on Member State involvement, including the Member State I come from, Romania, in educating citizens by presenting the advantages of organ donation and acknowledging the fact that organ donation and transplantation mean lives saved.

I also support the involvement of the European Commission in organizing public debates together with the relevant European non-governmental organizations, in order to identify the best solutions, both as regards the communication campaign and the turning to account of the Member States’ experience and good practice.

The response speed is essential in such cases. Better organization of the medical system at a national level is necessary, as well as making paramedics sensitive to such emergencies

  Neena Gill (PSE), in writing. – This is a crucial report and a real opportunity to save lives. Chronic shortages of organs across Europe are causing 60 000 unnecessary deaths.

Therefore, urgent action is needed:

1. Removal of restrictions in organ donation and increased cooperation across Member States and the number of quality safe organs available for transplantation. What is required is a Commission directive that adds value and sets common EU-wide quality and safety standards which complement existing arrangements in Member States.

2. Encourage Member States to adopt a system of ‘opting out’ rather than ‘opting in’ to organ donation. This would enable greater awareness of shortages, and would allow more people to actively consider their position on the issue.

3. I fully support the emphasis in this report on illegal trafficking of organs. I am especially concerned that it is often the poorest who are targeted for donating organs. We must end this cruel exploitation of poverty and protect the innocent victims who are tricked into losing their organs. This is not just a problem in developing countries but also in eastern Europe. I want to see strong measures put in place through Europol and Interpol to curb this illegal trade.

  Katalin Lévai (PSE), in writing. – (HU) I welcome Mr Adamos Adamou’s report on organ donation and the trade in organs. Even though technical expertise in this area is unfortunately often at very different levels in the Member States, the use of human organs for transplantation has increased dramatically in recent decades. There are around 40 000 people on waiting lists in western Europe, and as a result of this the trade in organs, as a form of livelihood, is flourishing in the poorer areas of eastern European countries.

The European donor card represents a good solution to the legal issues of donation, but more robust measures need to be applied to trafficking and trading in organs. Given that, despite isolated attempts, there is no easy-to-use record system for organs available for transplantation even at national level, it is important to introduce a certificate, similar to the Schengen system, accessible on the Internet, valid throughout the whole Union, supported by medical opinion and a single Union transplantation database. Certified establishments engaged in the legal transplantation of human organs would have this life-giving information available instantly and could set up bipartite agreements, while the poor and vulnerable would be protected from becoming victims of organ trafficking.

The creation of a database is an absolute necessity so that organs available in several countries can be used, and it is therefore vital that the Member States discontinue legislation prohibiting this.

It is also important that organ donation remains strictly ‘non-commercial’ but the conditions under which financial compensation can be offered must be defined.

  Joseph Muscat (PSE), in writing. – (MT) Any lack of or delay in action in the sector of organ donation costs lives that could be saved.

As Europeans we have a lot to learn from one another. Moreover, countries with experience and infrastructure in this sector can help other countries, like Malta, that may not have the critical mass, especially in cases of rare conditions.

Recently the Maltese and Gozitan people were moved by the case of Jamie Zammit. Jamie is having problems finding a donor to save him from a condition known as Fanconi anaemia because in Malta we do not currently have a register of bone marrow donors.

The Maltese Government has now announced that it is going to set up such a register. This is good news. However, in order to set it up, we require the specialised procedure of HLA typing, which does not yet exist in Malta, and we also need long-term training in other countries so that this can be introduced.

I am appealing that, out of European solidarity, Malta is given all the help it needs, particularly until this system is set up in our country, so that we can save as many innocent lives as possible.

  Daciana Octavia Sârbu (PSE), in writing. – (RO) The penury of organs, which has led to the rapid development of mercantilism and tourism in organs, represents an essential health problem the European Union is dealing with. Organ trafficking is caused by a combination of factors such as poverty, corruption and criminality, a reason why the countries of Eastern Europe are the most exposed to this phenomenon. In order to prevent this "transplantation tourism”, the report of the Committee on the Environment requests that organ donation be performed altruistically and voluntary, without becoming a source of profit for the donors. Member States should take action to protect the poorest and more vulnerable donors so that they do not become victims of organ trafficking.

Nevertheless, there are considerable difference between the EU Member States as regards the ways in which they organize donation and transplantation activity, the community of donors and the sources of organ procurement. For instance, the low number of donors in Romania is due to the absence of an efficient system for identifying donors and doctors prepared to coordinate the organization of transplantation. For this reason, the European average for the number of donors is 20, and in Romania, only 0.5. We need adequate technical and logistics infrastructures, as well as psychological and organizational support to reduce the differences between demand and offer.

  Richard Seeber (PPE-DE), in writing. – (DE) Today, almost a thousand patients are registered for transplants in Austria. Unfortunately not all these seriously ill patients will get the transplant that may save them.

Every year some 150 patients die while awaiting a transplant because of the very limited number of available donor organs. Organ shortage is a major challenge facing Europe. That is why we need a directive on the quality and safety of organ donations. Equally, however, we need cooperation between Member States and an exchange of good practice. There are, currently, considerable differences within Europe in the number of organ donations and in the transplant quota. Cooperation among Member States should focus on discovering the most efficient systems, exchanging experience and promoting well-established procedures. Member States must learn from one another.

I am convinced that live donation should always remain complementary to post-mortem donation. Moreover, it is important for donations to remain voluntary and unpaid. Transfers of money between donor and recipient are unacceptable. The Commission and the Member States must take measures to combat transplant tourism and the illegal trade in organs more effectively.

19. The role of volunteering in contributing to economic and social cohesion (debate)

  President. − The next item is the report by Marian Harkin on behalf of the Committee on Regional Development on the role of volunteering in contributing to economic and social cohesion (2007/2149(INI)) (A6-0070/2008).

  Marian Harkin, rapporteur. − Mr President, thank you for the opportunity to say a few words on my report on volunteering and the contribution that volunteering makes to economic and social cohesion.

First of all, I would like to thank all my colleagues on the Committee on Regional Development for their excellent cooperation on this report and, in particular, the shadow rapporteurs. I also want to record my thanks to the Commission officials, the ALDE Group staff and Parliament staff on the Committee on Regional Development for their interest and assistance.

Over 100 million Europeans volunteer – that is an incredible figure! According to the Commission, between one third and half of the EU population are involved in some kind of voluntary activity. In my opinion, we as an institution have a responsibility to recognise, to value and to support voluntary activity at every possible opportunity.

Volunteering is a unique activity in many ways: it is open to all and is freely given; it contributes to social cohesion and to economic cohesion; it puts one of the most important European values – that of solidarity – into action. Whether it is an individual delivering meals on wheels to an elderly neighbour, or the thousands who mobilise in the event of a natural disaster, such as floods or forest fires, volunteers can help build communities and reduce alienation.

Volunteering as an activity spans generations. It is a resource, sometimes latent, residing within communities, organisations and networks. It is an energy within each one of us, but it is only activated when we engage with others. It is, in my opinion, a most valuable form of renewable energy.

There is a strong link between volunteering and active citizenship: involvement in voluntary activities is a tangible expression of participatory democracy. In this Parliament, we represent our citizens and we as politicians engage in representative democracy, but sometimes we do not pay enough attention to the other side of the equation: participatory democracy. This is where citizens, through their activities, participate in the democratic process, and volunteering facilitates this important process.

Moving on to my report, it contains a number of practical suggestions as to how we can add value at European level. The Commission has a role to play in ensuring that Member States adhere to the partnership principle enshrined in the Community strategic guidelines on cohesion and to ensure that we do not continue with the illusion of inclusion of NGOs, voluntary groups etc., as is the current situation in many Member States.

I also believe that a system should be put in place across all European funds, whereby voluntary activity is recognised as a contribution to co-financing projects. If we do this, we show by our actions that we support volunteers.

We should expand the opportunities and programmes already in place to facilitate volunteering among young people and put in place similar opportunities and programmes to facilitate volunteering for older people. And we should, at every possible opportunity, promote intergenerational volunteering.

Another area where the Commission can act is in facilitating a more liberal visa regime, where volunteers from neighbouring countries are involved in EU-sponsored programmes.

Member States can play a significant role by producing regular satellite accounts, so that the value of volunteering and not-for-profit institutions can be measured. The figures for many countries, including the US, Belgium, the Czech Republic and Canada, indicate that not-for-profit institutions account for between 5% and 7% of GDP. Policymakers cannot ignore these figures and must take them into account when formulating policy. Furthermore, for every euro organisations spent on supporting volunteers, they received an average return of between 3% and 8%. Not even the ECB can match that rate of return.

Member States can also support voluntary activity by establishing sustainable volunteering infrastructure to deal with issues such as core funding, insurance cover and VAT exemptions where appropriate.

Finally, one of our tasks in the EU is to make a positive impact on the lives of citizens and to add value at European level. We can do this by supporting volunteers and voluntary activity in a tangible way.

(Applause)

  Danuta Hübner, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, I wish to thank Ms Harkin very much indeed for her report. The report relates to many EU policies and many initiatives, emphasising the strong link between volunteering and active citizenship.

I particularly appreciate your comments on the PEACE programme, where the involvement of volunteering was indeed strong. We will meet here again in May to discuss the report of Ms de Brún, in which, I am convinced, examples of local empowerment, in particular through the voluntary sector and non-governmental organisations, will be strongly present.

With regard to your recommendation on in-kind contribution, let me say that, while Article 56 of the general Regulation on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund already allows for in-kind contribution to EU co-financed projects, the real challenge is the use of this provision. But let me say that, in particular in local initiatives, which are co-financed by the Social Fund, it is quite common for volunteers to provide a noteworthy contribution, while there have been also many activities, especially within the URBAN initiative in Germany, Italy, the UK and Greece, which have supported a wide range of voluntary organisations.

Volunteering can be seen as a strong component of the partnership principle. Many times in this House, I have reiterated the Commission’s full commitment towards the effective implementation of the partnership principle, in particular in the new generation of cohesion policy. We insisted on partnership during the negotiations of new programmes and we have now many positive examples of strong commitment to the partnership. But of course, as you know, we have a great variety of approaches towards partnership and volunteering in our Member States.

I also see the role of your report in preparing the ground for the next own-initiative report on governance and partnership at national, regional and local level, to be presented by Mr Beaupuy.

Let me say a few words on specific policies and initiatives in the area of volunteering in which the Commission has been particularly active. Worth mentioning is the European Voluntary Service and active European citizenship in the EU’s new lifelong learning programme.

My colleague Ján Figeľ is currently preparing a new initiative on voluntary activities of young people, which will incorporate many of the aspirations expressed in your report. Enhancing and promoting trans-European voluntary activities will further reinforce the mobility of our young citizens. In its new initiative, the Commission will seek to ensure a greater interoperability of existing national voluntary schemes.

The White Paper on sport also stresses that voluntary activities in the sport sector strengthen social cohesion and inclusion and promote local democracy and active citizenship. There is also the reference to sport in the Lisbon Treaty, which provides for ‘the promotion of European sporting issues, while taking account of […] its structures based on voluntary activity’.

Here we share the view that we need a more holistic approach to the contribution of volunteering to Europe’s economic and social cohesion. This should certainly take into account the challenge of the ageing European population. In this respect, your suggestion of ‘intergenerational volunteering’ merits further exploration.

In this context, I am happy to tell you that the Commission’s Directorate-General for Education, Training, Culture and Youth is about to launch an assessment of the state of play of volunteering in Europe. This assessment will serve as a source of better knowledge and a solid basis for further initiatives in this field, as no systematic and integrated approach towards volunteering has been developed so far at EU level.

I am convinced that all those you are addressing in the motion for a resolution will be responsive to your call. You can certainly count on the Commission’s support.

Let me also assure you that all other requests that are addressed more specifically to the Commission will be examined, in particular by Commissioners Figeľ and Špidla.

  Tunne Kelam, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – Mr President, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group, I would like first of all to congratulate Ms Harkin on an excellent and timely report. The point is to have better understanding about the potential and role of volunteering, which could be called one of the backbones of civil society. Indeed, volunteering is about citizens’ initiative and so it is directly related to solidarity, the core value of a united Europe. As the rapporteur put it just now, it is one of the most efficient forms of renewable energy.

I think the point of this report is to encourage Member States to recognise the value of volunteering in promoting social and economic cohesion. The state is, of course, not expected to finance volunteering, otherwise it would lose its meaning, but the state is called on to provide incentives for the private sector to support the voluntary sector.

Parliament also addressed the Commission about the delays in the proposed European Charter on Volunteering, which is expected to define better the role of volunteering. A very important part of this report is the call for the promotion of volunteering through education at all levels, beginning with creating opportunities for voluntary activities at an early stage of the education system and also to promote volunteering as part of lifelong learning.

I would like to express my thanks once more for this excellent cooperation. We were able to discuss almost all amendments in a positive and constructive spirit and to make use of the majority of initiatives.

  Catherine Stihler, on behalf of the PSE Group. – Mr President, I welcome Marian Harkin’s report on volunteering and congratulate her on her collaboration with colleagues in its drafting. Over a hundred million EU citizens volunteer, and every one euro spent in supporting them generates a return of between three and eight euros. With 1.2 million volunteers in Scotland – with its population of 5 million – and the voluntary sector amounting to 5% of Scotland’s workforce, we must publicly recognise volunteers’ efforts throughout Scotland and the EU.

The report gives credit to volunteers and focuses on the benefits of volunteering for the economy and social cohesion. It rightly demands that this contribution should appear in national accounts. It states that volunteering contributes about as much to gross domestic product in a wide range of countries as the construction industry or the utilities industry. This means that the not-for-profit sector accounts for 5% to 7% of the GDP in some EU countries.

Volunteering is good for you, your community, your region’s economic development and your national economy. It also helps build the social capital that public policies need to succeed. I urge the European Commission to put in place a plan ‘B’ which would ensure valuing, validating and visibility for volunteers throughout Scotland and the rest of the EU, and I urge colleagues to support the Harkin report.

  Jean Marie Beaupuy, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I, too, should like to join my colleagues in thanking and congratulating Mrs Harkin for having produced this report. The choice of rapporteur is not a random one, as Mrs Harkin has extensive experience in the area of volunteering, and it is therefore only natural that she tabled this report. We have, of course, approved heartily of her being given this report, which she has drafted in a true spirit of consensus, for, as you will have noticed, we have tabled only one amendment, with which she is in agreement. This demonstrates the quality of her report, and I feel that this deserves to be strongly emphasised.

Commissioner Danuta Hübner, you have, to some extent, beaten us to the punch and given answers, right from the beginning of your speech, to questions raised in this report. I should like to thank you in advance, and it is most likely that several of the other speeches made by Members will enable you, later and over the next few days, to provide further answers from the Commission.

I should like to emphasise, in addition to what has already been said and further to what has been written in the report, that if there are 100 million Europeans who dedicate themselves to helping some 500 million Europeans every day, it must not be forgotten that these 100 million Europeans who volunteer receive personal gain from so doing, not in the financial sense but in the sense of personal fulfilment. You all know, we all know, I am certain, of sports teams and cultural and social leaders without whom our non-governmental associations and organisations would not operate. It must be said that these people need this commitment for their personal development.

In an ageing society, in a society where there is an increasing number of young retirees, we also need this individual work-life balance that is achieved through volunteering. Therefore, for economic reasons, but also with a view to the fulfilment of the human values shared by Europe’s citizens – more than 100 million of them – let us make efforts to promote voluntary work in our societies and hope that, in the years to come, there will be well in excess of 100 million European citizens engaged in voluntary activity. Thanks to Marian Harkin, thanks to the Commission, thanks also to the governments and the regional and local authorities that are ready, tomorrow, to show their support, through their actions, for the wishes expressed by the European Parliament.

  Mieczysław Edmund Janowski, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (PL) Mr President, Commissioner, on behalf of the UEN Group I wish to express our huge appreciation to Marian Harkin for tackling this subject. Voluntary activity is voluntary, unpaid and intentional work for others. It transcends family or friendship relationships. Although this is work without material remuneration, a volunteer receives satisfaction of a different kind: he or she fulfils his or her motivation, realises him or herself, and shows solidarity with others. Voluntary activity is highly educational for the youth and very invigorating for the elderly.

In this context the influence of voluntary organisations on the strengthening of local and regional communities should be seen as very positive. I believe it helps to build civil society in which one individual selflessly helps another and is sympathetic towards others without being a threat. The Irish example, which I had the pleasure to learn about, is a good one.

Such understanding of voluntary activity also means that the volunteer, who is often also a benefactor, must not suffer any material penalty when helping others and offering them gifts. I refer here to a case that is well known in Poland, of a baker whose business folded because he was required to pay taxes on bread he gave to poor people.

I also wish to highlight the very fine idea of declaring 2011 European year of volunteering.

  Gisela Kallenbach, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Mr President, I too would like to thank Marian Harkin very much indeed for her balanced and comprehensive report.

It is the product of a shared effort to give greater recognition at European level to the aims, substance and social significance of voluntary work. There are countless voluntary initiatives currently in place in the Member States which make important contributions, not only economically but also socially and in terms of integration. However, the European dimension so necessary for networking is often lacking.

We are already familiar with the European Voluntary Service for young people, and we need similar programmes for all age groups, particularly for the growing numbers of retired people who are active, healthy and experienced. They too could contribute significantly to making the European Community more meaningful, and existing measures under our regional and cohesion policies could be used to make this possible.

We need appropriate framework conditions and definitions that are as clear as possible, in the interests of long-term and short-term development for all the voluntary sector partners. Initial steps have been taken by the Commission and also by the Council. My hope is that both those institutions will take up Parliament’s proposals and suggestions, so that we can make the European Year of Volunteering – jointly proposed for 2011 – a real success.

  Lambert van Nistelrooij (PPE-DE). - (NL) Mr President, volunteers do a great deal, at both local and regional level. Their efforts give social cohesion a very personal face. There is a difference between towns in certain parts of Europe. In the ‘new’ Member States the level of volunteering is still much lower. A lot of work is being done, and Mrs Harkin’s report emphasises positive ideas for supporting volunteers and encouraging action at all levels. The Group of the European People’s Party and European Democrats takes the view that there is no question of volunteers on the one hand and professionals on the other. The two are not mutually exclusive: neither group can function without the help of the other. Both groups, professionals and volunteers, are part of the social model that Europe exemplifies, of civil society, in which the citizen too has an important voice. That is the famous partnership principle.

There is one point I would like to raise following the debate in committee. The new Paragraph 17 deals with whether or not volunteer work should be rewarded with tax incentives. The answer is yes, but the form these take may vary considerably. That is a matter for our individual states to decide when we talk about VAT. My home country of the Netherlands has its own special system: the activities of sports associations are exempt, for example, and other activities such as canteen management are partly exempt, as is third-party sponsorship. So in 2010, when the VAT system comes up for review, it would be good to take this report on board and be able to point to examples of good practice in the Member States which others might usefully emulate.

Lastly, to make the point once more, volunteering deserves our broad support in the work of churches, politics and the rest of society.

  Andrzej Jan Szejna (PSE). - (PL) Mr President, promoting an active and conscious role for citizens in society is one of the main principles held by the European Socialist family. We support involvement in voluntary activities when this is a concrete expression of participatory democracy.

At European level voluntary activity is a practical expression of such European values as solidarity, cohesion and social integration. For many people, except for taking part in elections at various levels, their participation in organisations of this nature is their only experience linked to the democratic process. It is therefore satisfying that more than 20% of EU inhabitants take part in various voluntary activities. Such activities help to reduce economic differences and are a catalyst in the activities of various associations, and they therefore create social capital.

The concept of social capital is increasingly used by organisations such as OECD or the World Bank in the context of local socioeconomic development. The European Union should increase its support for the various forms of participation, in particular in relation to regional planning and local development, utilising EU’s political strategies and European funds.

  Maria Petre (PPE-DE). - (RO) First of all, I would like to congratulate Mrs. Rapporteur for her work and the special involvement in this subject.

I have followed this report closely, since volunteering has a major importance in current society.

The positive effects can be measured in terms of social cohesion, human rights protection, medical-sanitary assistance, promotion and organization of cultural, artistic and educational activities.

The effects are essential for the population and the economy. Yet this activity is underestimated, in my opinion and too unfamiliar to the public.

The consequences are negative for volunteer work since there are insufficient actions of support from the state, even if it can represent a considerable part of a country’s economy.

As a Member of the European Parliament, coming from a former communist country, I can tell you about the very low volunteer participation in my country.

Since the communist regime introduced mandatory unpaid work in order to serve the state, this practice is now associated with that period in the people’s subconscious.

Today, the percentage of volunteers in Romania is much lower than in most Member States. The activity is often unknown to the citizens, the state policy does not encourage it and people’s mentality is also not in favour of this activity.

Citizens should be informed about the positive effects of volunteering. On the other hand, we should avoid the abusive situations that have happened, for instance organizations that have adopted this legal status for making profit.

I support volunteering as an important activity and I would like it to be promoted and supported throughout the European Union, especially in the former communist countries where efforts should be strengthened.

  Stavros Arnaoutakis (PSE). - (EL) Mr President, Commissioner, let me also congratulate the rapporteur on her excellent work, and stress that contributing and volunteering in society are invaluable. At national and local level they are the means by which participatory democracy expresses itself and they allow for the active participation of citizens in the public arena. At European level, volunteering can contribute to the creation of stronger ties between EU citizens.

Furthermore, through the additional human resources it offers to social and economic life, and also through its contribution to the creation of social capital, volunteering contributes importantly to achieving the EU’s goals for economic and social cohesion.

The added value of volunteering should not be underestimated. Particularly today, with the EU facing significant social, economic and environmental challenges, volunteering should not only be encouraged, but also supported by European policies, especially by that of cohesion. Member States and regional authorities ought to try to ensure that voluntary groups and projects can transparently and flexibly have access to adequate, sustainable funding from the Structural Funds.

  James Nicholson (PPE-DE). - Mr President, can I first of all begin by thanking Ms Harkin for all her hard work and this insightful and timely report, which was so well received by the Regional Committee.

I fully support the central theme of the report – that volunteering, through its emphasis on participation and solidarity, strengthens civil society and bonds between the communities. I welcome the report’s stance on the role that Member States should play regarding volunteers. I fully agree with the position that volunteering should be complementary to – and should not be intended to replace – public services.

In this regard, the role that carers play in our societies, in countries all over Europe, comes to mind. Often these dedicated people are forgotten, even though their care of the elderly and the disabled removes a huge burden from state resources.

The report also wisely points out that volunteering can be hugely beneficial for young people, fostering a sense of community and allowing them to develop practical skills which complement their formal education.

Another point advocated by the report is that special efforts should be made to promote volunteering among senior citizens. The involvement of this age group affords communities an opportunity to benefit from their wealth of experience and reinforces their essential place in society.

For me, however, this report has added significance: in my constituency in Northern Ireland we are in the process of rebuilding a society which has been deeply affected by violence and conflict. Although we have now entered a period characterised by peace and greater prosperity, in certain areas of the province the effects of social exclusion, under-development and division are still all too evident.

Ms Harkin’s report specifically acknowledges the positive role volunteering can play in divided societies, and, if we consider the case of Northern Ireland, the whole concept underpinning the peace process packages has been that people work together on a cross-community basis in order to promote understanding and reconciliation. To a great extent these initiatives have had a positive effect.

Therefore I hope that Parliament’s adoption of this report will ensure that the importance of volunteering is acknowledged and that the Commission and Member States will do all in their power to facilitate and encourage this practice.

  Emmanouil Angelakas (PPE-DE). - (EL) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the report by our fellow Member Mrs Harkin on volunteering is a way for the European Parliament to demonstrate its social aspect to European citizens. The report promotes the idea of contribution, which is dealt with comprehensively and objectively on both a theoretical and practical level. Our fellow Member’s work is important; I welcome it and congratulate her warmly.

We in turn have also tried to contribute to her activity. We have among other things brought out the importance of corporate volunteering, the coordination of voluntary initiatives reconciling family with professional life, as well as the creation of rapid action volunteer sections in every region to deal speedily with natural disasters and accidents.

In general terms, volunteering helps among other things to increase GDP. As has been said, volunteering boosts skill acquisition and improves employability of a volunteer. It provides socially and educationally excluded persons and the unemployed with genuine opportunities and encourages immigrants to participate in the local community.

The actions and the activity of volunteers speak for themselves. In my country, Greece, for example, the 2004 Olympic volunteers won us our most significant medal. Both individual and group volunteering are vital in social, economic, environmental and cultural terms. They unify all differences and peculiarities, while promoting them and revealing them in a spirit of concord and common aims.

I congratulate the rapporteur once more. I call on you to support Mrs Harkin’s report and to join us in signing the joint written declaration that we have drawn up with other Members, asking that 2011 should be declared the European Year of Volunteering.

  Zbigniew Zaleski (PPE-DE). - Mr President, voluntary work, apart from its economic aspect, is of great educational value, particularly for young volunteers, be it at home or abroad, in various areas of social, economic and educational life. Voluntary may mean ‘no payment’, but we as European institutions can help intensify it by various means.

Regarding the report, which I consider important in raising our level of consciousness, there is something missing. One group not mentioned here are male and female convents, missionaries who either do voluntary work around the world or organise and promote such work. I would welcome a monetary estimation of their contribution to people’s well-being.

Voluntary work is the product of intrinsic motivation and pure altruism, which are values that cannot be overestimated. This is a report crucial to our way of thinking.

  Ewa Tomaszewska (UEN). - (PL) Mr President, the work of volunteers is not always valued as highly as it should be. The shaping of civic attitudes through voluntary work is not always given due attention.

Local authorities are responsible for organising and delivering social assistance, including feeding the poor. Sometimes a local NGO charity performing voluntary activity has to pay high rent to local government for premises such as kitchens and canteens for the poor and homeless. Moreover, it sometimes does not receive any resources for food or for insuring volunteers. Since the volunteers are not remunerated, they are unable to support the activities of the NGO. In this context I would draw your attention to Paragraph 15 of the report. The demographic situation in Europe highlights the increasing role of the voluntary sector, primarily in helping to care for the elderly. That is why the document presented here is so important. I wish to congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Harkin.

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE-DE). - (PL) Mr President, I wish to draw your attention to two specific forms of voluntary activity.

The first is the transfer of know-how in a highly specialised area. Experienced and educated people transfer their knowledge, skills or perhaps the achievements of their occupational group to others. Those benefiting from such know-how are often in the early stages of their education, of assimilation of knowledge or skills, of facing new challenges, of their own transformation.

The other area of volunteering concerns young people. It teaches life skills and promotes their involvement in civic life. Travel to other countries as part of volunteering, in turn, promotes inter-cultural dialogue and teaches tolerance and respect. This is why local and national authorities and international organisations should do more to support and promote volunteering.

  Rumiana Jeleva (PPE-DE). - (BG) We all agree with the conclusion made in Mrs. Harkin’s excellent report that volunteering can play an important role for the development of local communities, civil society and democracy. That is why volunteering and volunteer organisations need encouragement and support. I would like to note, in this respect, that the establishment of a European database to provide basic information on the various volunteer organisations in the European Union and detail on best practices will provide necessary guidance on how to improve the system of volunteer work. The establishment of a single European database will enable a more effective partnership and cooperation among volunteer organisations and strengthen international volunteer exchange arrangements. This is particularly important for young people and school children. By acquiring experience in volunteer organisations at an early stage, they would perceive participation in volunteer work as a routine contribution to the life of their local communities and to European society.

  Zdzisław Zbigniew Podkański (UEN). - (PL) Mr President, today we are debating Mrs Harkin’s report on volunteering in the European Union. The importance of the role of volunteering in Europe in the future depends partly on us. I wish only to remind everybody that annually millions of EU citizens volunteer, whether directly or indirectly. Voluntary activities take place at local, regional and international level. Wherever they take place, they yield profits several times higher than the outlays. This is why I believe that there is a need for closer and stronger cooperation between Member States and non-profit organisations and for creating effective systems to facilitate cooperation between all voluntary organisations within individual countries and across borders.

Taxes imposed on sponsors for their gifts and the fact that VAT is payable by voluntary organisations on purchases made to achieve their objectives are the principal problems holding back and limiting voluntary activity. I believe that such problems should be resolved as soon as possible.

  Petru Filip (PPE-DE). - (RO) Allow me to express my full appreciation for the relevance of Mrs Harkin's report, by the discussions on the new economic, social, European model and constant efforts to improve the economic and social cohesion at the European Union level.

Taking into consideration the solutions it identifies, I consider the report a text that provides a series of generous and extremely useful principles, able to lead to an increase in European citizens’ quality of life.

I believe, as I did on the occasion of the submission of amendments, it probably would have been better to emphasize more firmly, in the report, the modern concept of volunteering, by explicitly stipulating the conditions without which all voluntary action could be interpreted as a unilateral act.

I would also like to emphasize the role of religions in the achievement of Christian principles related to volunteering.

  Danuta Hübner, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, just two very short points. Let me say that even the best-equipped policies cannot deliver without the strong involvement of all those who feel a co-responsibility, and also the need for commitment and contribution. Volunteering and partnership are the best ways to ensure that involvement.

Let me also assure you that I will share your conclusions with my colleagues in the Commission. I am convinced that the future assessment of the state of play of volunteering in Europe, and the follow-up to it, will take inspiration from the resolution you are going to adopt, and also from the discussion I have had the privilege of sharing with you tonight.

  Marian Harkin, rapporteur. − Mr President, first of all I want to thank everybody for their kind comments and their support in the drafting of this report. I would just like to make one or two final comments.

I appreciate the Commissioner’s reference to in-kind contributions by voluntary groups and, while I recognise that in-kind contributions are applicable in some EU-funded projects, I believe we need to ensure that this becomes the status quo.

I also look forward to Commissioner Figeľ’s communication on youth volunteering and Commissioner Hübner’s commitment to investigating and, I hope, promoting intergenerational volunteering.

I am again calling on the Commission to ensure that the partnership principle is adhered to in all negotiations and consultations in the drafting of EU programmes at national level. This is crucial, because it is a real recognition by the EU that volunteers, NGOs etc. are part of the process, not just some add-on, not just there for the optics, but an integral part of the process.

With regard to the one amendment proposed on possible VAT exemptions, it is a good compromise and I am very happy to support it.

I also want to take this opportunity to call for 2011 to be designated the European Year of Volunteering and ask for the support of Parliament in signing the written declaration which has been proposed by Members from the five largest political groups.

In this call, I am supported by the Committee of the Regions, the Economic and Social Forum, the Portuguese presidency conclusions and very many voluntary groups across the EU.

If the Commission were to designate 2011 the European Year of Volunteers, this would allow the EU institutions, in collaboration with voluntary organisations, to work towards common objectives, as I said earlier, to add value at European level.

Finally in this context, we should encourage the development of civil society and of participative democracy, thereby giving real meaning to the aim of bringing Europe closer to its citizens.

The promotion, support and facilitation of volunteering and voluntary action, accompanied by the growth in social capital, will prove to be an invaluable tool in achieving those objectives.

  President. − The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Tuesday, 22 April 2008.

Written statements (Rule 142)

  Zita Gurmai (PSE) , in writing. – (HU) In Europe more than a hundred million people work as civilian volunteers for the public good and for others. In the United Kingdom 38% of the entire population is involved in voluntary activity and in Poland the figure is 18%.

Voluntary activity cannot be separated from European working life and is seen as a basic tenet of democracy at both local and public level. The voluntary work done by our citizens helps solve social problems and promotes the acquisition of skills and social awareness. Volunteering offers people from different groups of the population the opportunity for integration and inclusion, the elderly can take part in the life of society, invest a lifetime of experience and feel they have a useful role for longer.

The incentives for voluntary work are the same as the basic European values: solidarity and a sense of responsibility. There is increasing recognition within the EU of the usefulness of voluntary activity and voluntary organisations are being more closely involved in decision-making processes.

In recent years voluntary sector has become more ramified. Interest in volunteering is increasing but due recognition is wanting, material rewards are restricted and the infrastructures are lacking. This has to be changed. To give support to voluntary work and enhance social recognition, it is important that a community of purpose is created, with transfer of best practice and experience by the active players – government, business, trade unions and voluntary organisations – working together in dialogue and in partnership.

  Anna Záborská (PPE-DE), in writing. – (SK) I would like to speak on a very personal note. Although I am a member of the board of a large Slovak national association, the Forum for Life, I know that the volunteers who act independently rather than through specialised associations also represent a ray of hope that penetrates the darkness of loneliness and support the fight against temptations of violence and egotism.

What prompts a volunteer to care for others? The first element is the natural heartfelt enthusiasm of humans to help those around them. This is an almost existential principle of creating the human capital that is so in demand for the future of social cohesion in the regions. Volunteers experience happiness that goes beyond their work because they are willing to do their best for others, without expecting any reward. It is not enough just to meet people in financial difficulties: it is also essential to respond to their desire for values and their deepest wishes.

Although the type of help we offer is important, what is even more important is the heart that offers this help. Irrespective of whether we are talking about a micro-project or a huge project, volunteering should always be a practical lesson, especially for young people, since it is an educational contribution to the culture of solidarity and togetherness, of offering one’s time and energy. For me, this is the most important contribution for both present and future generations and their coexistence.

20. Statute of the European Ombudsman (debate)

  President. − The next item is the report by Anneli Jäätteenmäki on behalf of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament amending its Decision 94/262/ECSC, EC, Euratom, of 9 March 1994, on the regulations and general conditions governing the performance of the Ombudsman’s duties (2006/2223(INI)) (A6-0076/2008).

  Anneli Jäätteenmäki, rapporteur. − (FI) Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Diamandouros, ladies and gentlemen, first I wish to thank all parties for their excellent levels of cooperation whilst this report was being produced. It was not easy finding a solution that would satisfy everyone, and I understand that some people are still hoping for some changes, but we have achieved a unanimous result in committee. It seems appropriate to move forward from here.

There were four issues relating to the role of Ombudsman. These were access to documents, the testimonials of officials, information on criminal cases, and cooperation in the field of human rights. There was also a fifth issue in the European Ombudsman’s original proposal, his or her power to intervene, but this was contentious and right at the end of the discussion the Ombudsman said that he wanted to withdraw it.

The most important amendment concerns the obligation of the EU institutions and bodies also to grant the Ombudsman access to classified information and sensitive documents, if deemed necessary for the Ombudsman to do his or her job. Up till now the institutions have had the right to refuse to disclose information. This will now be the subject of objective, and no longer subjective or arbitrary, consideration. This is an important, albeit small, step in the right direction.

The institutions supplying classified information or documents to the Ombudsman must inform the Ombudsman of their classified status. Furthermore, for the rules to be implemented, the Ombudsman may agree with the relevant institutions the operational conditions for access to classified information or other information covered by the obligation of professional secrecy.

The role of the European Ombudsman has become more important over the years for the European Union institutions and the citizens of Europe. With the Lisbon Treaty, the Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the European Union will become legally binding, which will make the job of the Ombudsman even more important. In the future we will need to do more to ensure that the Ombudsman has sufficient resources, that his or her Statute reflects the current times, that he or she obtains the information needed and that officials give him or her the right information.

Under the Charter of Fundamental Rights, every person has the right to have his or her affairs handled impartially, fairly and within a reasonable time by the institutions and bodies of the Union. The resources therefore have to be in place so that citizens do not have to wait years for decisions and can also have confidence in the fact that the Ombudsman will be in possession of all the necessary information and that officials will tell him or her what they know instead of what they want to say. Otherwise there is no rule of law, something we are so fond of talking about, even if the EU is not a state as such. We ourselves should also comply with the rule of law; only then can we expect others to.

  Margot Wallström, vice-president of the Commission. − Mr President, it is now 14 years since this Parliament first adopted the European Ombudsman Statute. Much has happened since then. It is therefore normal and appropriate that the Ombudsman has taken the initiative to modify his statute, and the Commission welcomes that.

The important thing is this. The citizens must have confidence in the Ombudsman’s capacity to conduct thorough and impartial inquiries in alleged cases of maladministration. So the Ombudsman needs clear, concise and efficient rules for his important work.

Right from the beginning, the Commission has followed this initiative very closely, and we have had fruitful discussions with the Ombudsman and Parliament’s rapporteur, Ms Jäätteenmäki. Our respective services have also had a lot of contact and cooperation.

The Commission welcomes the general line of this report, and I want to thank the chairman, Mr Leinen, and all committee members – in particular Ms Jäätteenmäki – for their work.

From the Commission’s side, we will deliver our formal opinion very shortly after Parliament requires us to do so. Today I would like to briefly summarise our main reflections. They have to do with four specific issues.

First, the hearing of witnesses; secondly, access to files; thirdly, OLAF, and fourth, cooperation in the field of human rights. I will say very shortly a few words about each of these points.

First, about the hearing of witnesses. The Commission agrees with Parliament’s amendment on the hearing of witnesses, and the purpose of this provision was to recall that officials give testimony not on a personal basis, but in their official capacity.

We are conscious that the current wording could give the impression that officials might act under instructions and not give authentic and complete evidence. This has never happened, but I agree that it is important to modify the wording to avoid misunderstandings.

Secondly, on access to files, the Commission is in favour of allowing the Ombudsman to consult documents that he needs in the course of his enquiries. The Ombudsman has proposed to lift the secrecy exception for access to a file. The Commission has never used this exception, but it is important that we are very clear.

The treatment of classified information has to be carefully considered. The same goes for privacy of individuals, protection of proceedings and business secrecy. That is why the Commission welcomes Parliament’s amendment that, where these kinds of documents are concerned, the Ombudsman should use rules which are strictly equivalent to those in force in the institution concerned.

With regard to sensitive information, such as data protection and business secrets, the Commission fully shares Parliament’s views. This also goes for documents relating to proceedings in litigation.

This means that the Ombudsman should apply the relevant Community law when dealing with requests from third parties for access to documents obtained by the Ombudsman in the course of his inquiries.

As you know, the relevant Community law – Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – is currently being updated and the Commission will take a decision in just a few weeks time.

For these reasons, the Commission agrees with the aim of the amendments on access to documents, but we think maybe a more precise wording would improve the text even more, and we will come back to that when we present our formal opinion.

The third point, on OLAF: when it comes to the transmission of information on possible criminal activities, the Commission entirely agrees with Parliament that the Ombudsman should be able to notify the European Anti-Fraud Office of any information on matters within its remit and it is not entirely clear that the proposed notion of ‘competent institutional body’ would cover OLAF. A slight rewording could improve the text even more.

Finally, on cooperation in the field of human rights, the current statute has proved to be a good basis for the European Ombudsman to cooperate with national ombudsmen and similar bodies in the Member States.

The Commission fully encourages this practice. It brings the European institutions closer to its citizens. With a tabled amendment, Parliament would like to widen the scope of cooperation to other institutions for the promotion and protection of human and fundamental rights.

According to Articles 302 and 303 of the Treaty, it is the Commission, as representative of the Community, which establishes all appropriate forms of cooperation with international organisations in general and with the Council of Europe in particular. This is why the Commission considers that this proposal goes beyond the mandate given to the Ombudsman by the Treaty.

This being said, the Commission would be open to an alternative wording, and I hope we will be able to strike the right balance between the Ombudsman’s important working contacts and the Treaties that does not impinge on the Commission’s institutional prerogatives.

So these are the Commission’s reflections on the issues raised by Parliament’s amendments, and after the vote tomorrow we will prepare our opinion and start discussions with the Council. This should be done quickly, since we want to facilitate an agreement on the file under the Slovenian presidency.

  Maria Matsouka, draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Petitions. − (EL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the EU is undoubtedly going through a particularly difficult period of crisis in credibility. Is the EU, I wonder, democratically credible? Indeed, for it to be so, it needs the legitimisation of its citizens, and this is becoming increasingly complex as Europe is enlarged. There is always the common foundation on which we built Europe and on which our fellow citizens rely. It is a system of values protecting their fundamental rights.

The need to communicate with European citizens is more pressing than ever. It is meaningful only when the EU receives their messages of concern and manages to convince them that the institutions are endeavouring to meet their expectations. Citizens do not trust us because they do not feel that we are promoting or even extending their rights. Our attempt has got to have a lasting effect, ladies and gentlemen. We must monitor historical developments and the new requirements they give rise to. The European Ombudsman’s primary concern is to ensure the correct operation of the institutional bodies and organisation of the EU, boosting the confidence that citizens need to have in it.

The proposed changes in the rules of procedure revising the Statute of the Ombudsman equip him effectively for this. On behalf of the Committee on Petitions, we support them unreservedly.

Finally, let me congratulate in particular the rapporteur responsible for this issue, Mrs Jäätteenmäki, for her tireless efforts to achieve a universally acceptable report.

  Maria da Assunção Esteves, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (PT) The debate on the changes to the Statute of the Ombudsman in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs was not easy. It was a long and very controversial debate and the question at issue was essentially to decide whether extending the Ombudsman's powers was a rational step. We started from a clear premise, that the role of each institution in a democratic culture must be well defined and there must be no confusion over these roles. The clear definition and rational distribution of roles is the only way to promote legitimacy, effectiveness and accountability of the institutions.

It was for this very reason that the Ombudsman withdrew his proposal for access to the Court of Justice. However, compromises were reached on data protection, access to secret files and cooperation with other institutions on fundamental rights. The Ombudsman will now have access to secret files but will not be allowed to disclose such information to third parties. Data protection will follow European Union data protection rules.

It is clear that the Ombudsman can work with other institutions on the issue of fundamental rights, and it seems to me there can be no other way of proceeding. Cooperation with institutions on the subject of fundamental rights makes explicit an unwritten principle, given that fundamental rights form the foundations and aim of the European Union. However, the compromise reached in what was not an easy debate clarifies what I think must be the inevitable conclusion on this issue: the Ombudsman, as an institution, must always be clear that, when exercising his powers, he must do so in accordance with the criteria of need, appropriateness and proportionality, because these are the criteria of justice.

  Costas Botopoulos, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (EL) Mr President, European Ombudsman, ladies and gentlemen – my dear nocturnal colleagues, perhaps we have delayed a little in debating the improvement to the Statute of the European Ombudsman. However, I think that in the end we are doing so at an appropriate moment, because now that the European Parliament is debating in citizens’ rights general, it is confronted with a new treaty on the operation of the EU and with a Charter of Fundamental Rights containing an article specific about the right of citizens to make complaints to the European Citizens’ Advocate. I think it is therefore the right moment to debate the subject of the confidence of citizens in the EU bodies. Let me remind you that the European Ombudsman is at the service of European citizens to help them combat maladministration. I should like to add that it is high time for the European Parliament itself to show confidence both in its institutions and in the European Ombudsman.

I think that our debate about the changes started at the initiative of the current Ombudsman contained two misunderstandings, which we managed, I believe, to resolve in committee. The first related to the subject of competences. Some people have said that we are giving too many competences to the European Ombudsman, but this is not true. This report attempts to supplement the existing institutional competences of the European Ombudsman so that he can use them appropriately in all the areas which the rapporteur has spoken about.

The second misunderstanding was over the confidentiality of documents. This particular report does not state what documents the public has access to. It refers to the documents which the Ombudsman may see and lays down two clear rules: those documents which are sensitive, according to the regulation, may not be seen by anyone; documents subject to the confidentiality regime must continue to be subject to it. In conclusion, let me say that in the current circumstances it is very important for us to promote this report.

  Andrew Duff, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, this initiative is a timely strengthening of the Statute of the Ombudsman, and a signal of confidence in the way that Mr Diamandouros and his predecessor, Mr Söderman, have exercised their functions. It also reflects a change in the political climate since the inception of the Office of the Ombudsman, especially with respect to increased transparency.

It would be palpably absurd for us as a Parliament to decline to allow the Ombudsman full access to documents on the grounds of secrecy. Public opinion would be bound to treat such a caveat with great cynicism.

I agree with Commissioner Wallström that it would be splendid if we could conclude these long-standing negotiations under the Slovenian presidency, so that we are properly prepared to face voters at the elections in spring 2009. We should be proud of these reforms, which I believe the entire Parliament will feel able to support.

  David Hammerstein, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (ES) Mr President, Mr Diamandouros, the Greens want to strengthen the institution of Ombudsman in order to increase public confidence in the European institutions. How can we do this? By agreeing that the Ombudsman should have full access to all types of documents, including classified documents.

Moreover, we are delighted that the Ombudsman is to be able to hear the testimony of officials of the European institutions who are to be free of the constraint of having always to speak in accordance with the instructions of superiors in their administration. That is important.

It is also important, as mentioned in the Treaty of Lisbon and in this report, for the Ombudsman to have the power to intervene in cases before the Court of Justice, and we endorse the call made by the Ombudsman for greater transparency in general, including in this House, as regards the finances of MEPs.

This is the second time that the European Parliament has proposed improvements to the Statute of the Ombudsman. On the last occasion, the Council blocked those improvements. I am confident that this time the actual powers of the Ombudsman have finally been clarified, and that we have genuinely created a means of increasing the confidence of the man in the street in the European institutions.

  Íñigo Méndez de Vigo (PPE-DE). - (ES) Mr President, some of my fellow Members here are going to say: what is happening today? Have we lost all sense? A Committee on Constitutional Affairs item at ten to eleven at night? What has happened, then? Did Mr Duff strike a blow and relegate Mr Watson to the second row of the Liberal Group? What did we do here in the People’s Party? No, all we did here was comply with the recommendation of the Working Party on Parliamentary Reform, which says that, when there are only a few of us, we should try to meet together, if only to keep warm and not feel alone.

Seriously though, Mr President, I believe that the meeting tonight deals with an important topic. I am very pleased that the Ombudsman is here with us. This is because, as Mrs Wallström, Vice-President of the Commission, so rightly said, after a decade of operation, it is normal and right to stand back and look at what is not working and what could be improved.

This is precisely what the report of Mrs Jäätteenmäki aims to do and I would like to thank her for working so well with us all, and for seeking a consensus which demonstrates that, here in the European institutions, we live in a consensual and not a conflictual democracy. So, congratulations, Mrs Jäätteenmäki.

What we have tried to achieve, Mr President, is something very simple. When the position of Ombudsman was created by the Treaty of Maastricht, we were at an important crossroads between a basically economic Union and an encouragingly political Union. The Ombudsman was a key element in that transition.

Today we want to continue to support the Ombudsman in his work so that he can continue to be a vital player in this rapprochement between the institutions and European citizens.

I am therefore convinced that the reforms proposed – by consensus, I would repeat – by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs will go in that direction. At the next mini-plenary session we will debate the report of Mr Stubbs, who is dealing with another important aspect, transparency in the European institutions. Both reports are leading in the same direction, Mr President, and show that here, even at five to eleven at night, we are concerning ourselves with our citizens.

  Richard Corbett (PSE). - Mr President, the European institutions are unavoidably more distant from citizens than are national or local institutions. That is why we have the principle of subsidiarity, which states that we should not act at European level if national or local action is perfectly adequate.

That is also why we have an institutional system such that when we do act at European level we can offer citizens the guarantee that the institutions operate to the highest degree of openness, democracy and propriety. That is why we have a European Parliament, so that Europe is not just left to government ministers and technocrats, diplomats and bureaucrats. That is why we have the Court of Justice, to ensure the rule of law.

That is also why we have the Ombudsman, so that even those citizens who do not follow our deliberations week in, week out – and there are many of them – can rest assured that we operate to those high standards, and that if there are allegations of maladministration then they will be properly and impartially investigated.

However, as Commissioner Wallström said, citizens must have confidence in the Ombudsman’s capacity to do that. Even if there have not yet been any cases of officials, when questioned by the Ombudsman, having been given instructions from ‘higher-up’ tantamount to censorship, and even if there have not up to now been problems of access to confidential documents, it is important that our citizens see that these things cannot become obstacles, and cannot be used as excuses to hide things from the Ombudsman.

That is why I welcome the initiative the Ombudsman has taken in proposing changes to his statute. My group will be supporting the changes approved by the Constitutional Affairs Committee, and I am sure that Parliament as a whole will endorse them whole-heartedly.

  Dushana Zdravkova (PPE-DE). - (BG) I would like to congratulate the rapporteur Mrs. Jäätteenmäki for that fact that since the Lisbon Treaty and the Charter of Fundamental Rights were signed a new framework on the Ombudsman’s role in modern social relations has been proposed. I am confident that this document will contribute to the more efficient execution of his duty and will make him an actual guarantor of effective protection for European citizens against cases of bad governance on the part of European institutions

Both our discussions and the report focus on the sensitive topic of the Ombudsman’s access to information, including classified information. In my opinion, if the Ombudsman’s work is to be done effectively and if we are to ensure the best possible result in the inquest into objective truth, which is primarily in the public interest, European institutions should have the obligation to provide access to any type of information. At the same time, however, the Ombudsman must be informed of the type of such information, especially in cases where it is confidential. Indeed, it is very important to respect citizens’ privacy, particularly when using classified information. I think that the rapporteur has managed to strike a balance between personal rights and public interest. This provides the Ombudsman with access to the entire information on a given case, so that he or she can rule on it while at the same time there is compliance with all rules which are followed also by those institutions providing such information, and this will ensure both the protection of the information involved and the protection of European citizens’ rights.

Strengthening the Ombudsman’s role as a mediator between the European institutions and the citizens will make a contribution to the development of democracy and reinforce the principles of rule of law. That is why it is very important that he or she is present not only at the European but at the national level as well, especially in countries where democratic principles and supervision are still in the process of being built and where government structures cannot provide effective remedy for their citizens at the national level, yet those citizens are also citizens of the European Union. That is why I would like to stress on the need to improve cooperation between the EU institutions and the Ombudsman. Contacts between the Ombudsman and Committee on Petitions of the European Parliament are particularly important; they need to cooperate in the interest of European citizens. It is also important to develop and implement a more effective system of practical mechanisms for cooperation.

  Metin Kazak (ALDE). - (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs Jäätteenmäki’s report comes at a very important time in the process of European integration: the adoption of the Treaty of Lisbon and the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. The acknowledgement, for the first time, of the right of the citizens of Europe to a good administration constitutes significant progress towards greater transparency and meets the need for the actions and the behaviour of Community bodies to comply not only with the rules in force but also with the expectations of the European taxpayer as regards a responsible, impartial and efficient administration.

The proposed changes would make it possible, during an investigation, to overcome any unwillingness on the part of the Community institutions to cooperate fully in the clarification of the facts. Any possible willingness to gloss over certain aspects of the truth by adopting vague texts whose wording is open to ambiguous interpretation cannot be tolerated. This allows an administration far too much latitude and increases its discretionary powers in a disproportionate and unacceptable manner.

The Ombudsman needs the confidence of the citizens who expect him to intervene judiciously in the protection of their rights. However, he is also duty bound to respect the confidentiality of the information that he receives. For this reason, I congratulate Mrs Jäätteenmäki for having struck an appropriate balance between these two requirements and for having proposed balanced solutions that strengthen the effectiveness of the role of the Ombudsman as a moral authority and improve the transparency of the Community institutions, confirming, in the spirit of the new Charter, the right of every European citizen to good governance and a good administration.

  Margot Wallström, Vice-President of the Commission. − Mr President, I wish to thank the honourable Members for this discussion and their remarks. Many Members have mentioned that this is an issue of competencies and also of confidentiality. Those two issues are linked, and I am sure that these reforms will remove the ambiguities that institutions might, on occasion, have used to hide behind. The reforms will modernise and open up procedures and ensure greater clarity and transparency, which is necessary in these times and in order to meet citizens’ expectations.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank Ms Jäätteenmäki once again for working in an open and constructive way with us, and for informing us on her work. I would also like to thank the Ombudsman himself, because I have had the opportunity to follow his work, and am aware of the level of correctness, seriousness and commitment with which he carries out his tasks. It has really impressed me, and I have great confidence in him.

By this initiative we are also helping the Ombudsman align his statute with what we would expect from the Ombudsman in his examination of cases of maladministration within our institutions.

  Anneli Jäätteenmäki, rapporteur. − (FI) Mr President, I just want to thank everyone for their excellent cooperation and at this final review stage I hope that we will find the right wording so that there is greater confidence as a result of EU acts, that there will be adequate resources in place and that the Ombudsman can be provided with all necessary information. If not, as I said, it will be a bad day for the rule of law and for transparency, although I believe that a common view will be found, because now there are only a few minor changes to make.

  President. − The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Tuesday, 22 April 2008.

21. New Flame shipwreck and its consequences in Algeciras Bay (debate)

  President. − The next item is the Commission statement on the New Flame shipwreck and the pollution in Algeciras Bay.

  Jacques Barrot, Vice-President of the Commission. − (FR) Mr President, I am pleased to be here today to inform you of the Commission statement in connection with the resolution that you are going to adopt on the New Flame shipwreck and its consequences in Algeciras Bay.

This resolution refers to two matters of great importance to European citizens: maritime safety and the protection of the marine environment, that is, the protection of our coastlines, our bays and our beaches. Europe has had to cope with ecological disasters caused by accidents at sea, such as the Erika and the Prestige. The New Flame shipwreck has had serious consequences, but it has not caused a disaster of such magnitude.

Nevertheless, this shipwreck reminded us that maritime transport could be dangerous and that such incidents could still occur despite the numerous measures taken by the European Union over the past few decades. The European Commission has monitored the accident very closely; it has remained vigilant with regard to the application of Community law, and it now wishes to put forward a number of practical proposals aimed at further improving maritime safety.

The Commission has very closely monitored this accident, which occurred in August 2007. The Commission’s services, in particular the Monitoring and Information Centre of the Environment Directorate-General, responsible for civil protection, have been in contact with the Spanish authorities, the ASMAR Sociedad Estatal de Salvamento y Seguridad Maritima and the British authorities.

In response to requests by the Spanish authorities, we have provided, through the European Maritime Safety Agency, EMSA, various satellite images in order to detect any potential oil pollution in Algeciras Bay. In addition, Spain decided to request, through the Monitoring and Information Centre, the mobilisation of one of the EMSA-contracted oil recovery vessels. This pollution response vessel, the Mistra Bay, is still on site, ready to assist on the basis of instructions given by the Spanish authorities.

These two EMSA services, namely the CleanSeaNet satellite-based monitoring system and the oil recovery vessels, were created by European legislation. It is thanks to the support of the European Parliament that EUR 154 million have been allocated to combat pollution for the period 2007-2013. Moreover, EMSA has recently concluded contracts with other oil recovery vessels in order to provide Europe’s coasts with even better protection, and, in the very near future, two new vessels, the Bahia Uno and the Bahia Tres, will be operating out of Algeciras Bay.

In general, the Commission is responsible for ensuring that the existing body of EU legislation in the field of maritime safety and the protection of the marine environment is properly applied. EMSA was established to assist the Commission in enforcing and implementing the existing body of EU legislation. Inspections carried out by the Agency enable an assessment of the steps taken by the Member States to comply with Community law. Where appropriate, the Commission may initiate infringement proceedings against any Member State that fails to transpose Community law correctly.

In the aforementioned fields, several matters are pending, including what is commonly known as the directive on criminal penalties and the directive on environmental liability. The practical application of the provisions of the penal code and the prosecution of polluters nevertheless remain a matter for the individual Member States.

I should like to come back to the matter of the New Flame. The Commission is currently considering a complaint received from the Andalusian Regional Government regarding a possible failure to comply with Community legislation. It should be remembered that the third maritime package, under discussion today, aims to make further improvements in the area of vessel traffic monitoring and the liability of maritime transport operators.

In conclusion, the Commission would point out that the European Union has implemented ambitious policies for maritime safety and for the protection of the marine environment. Accordingly, any Member State affected by an accident has at its disposal, should it so wish, effective tools to combat polluters and pollution. The Commission hopes that the wreck of the New Flame is soon removed from Algeciras Bay. The arrival of the specialist barge Big Foot 1 in late March suggests that further attempts are being planned.

That concludes the information that I wished to give to Parliament.

Mr President, I shall now listen carefully to what Members have to say on this subject.

  Gerardo Galeote, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (ES) Mr President, Commissioner, it is eight months since the shipwreck of the New Flame and there is still a risk of further oil spills, especially oil emanating from the cargo contained in the wreck.

This situation has arisen due to factors which are daily occurrences in that area, failure to manage high-density traffic and massive oil transfer operations between vessels at sea. However, in this particular case, there has also been a chain of errors and abandonment of responsibility, in terms of monitoring of the vessel as well as after the collision.

Therefore, Commissioner, this Parliament would be glad if you could answer the following four questions:

One, do you have any information on the origin and degree of toxicity of the 42 500 tonnes of scrap metal not recovered?

Two, can you tell us whether, following the collision and over these last eight months, there has been recourse to the Community Mechanism for Civil Protection and if so how many times?

Three, do you know of any plans and time schedules to refloat the vessel − to which you referred just now − or of any plans to monitor the risk of contamination being released from its cargo?

Four, the European Commission has opened an inquiry. Is this to establish whether the competent authorities breached the Community rules in force? If so, Mr Barrot, if there has been a breach of Community law, please give this House an undertaking that you will refer those infringements to the Court of Justice of the European Communities, because when all is said and done it is always citizens and the environment who pay.

  Luis Yañez-Barnuevo García, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (ES) Mr President, I should like to think that we are all concerned about protecting the environment and maritime safety, and that is the only reason for dragging the New Flame incident into our debate. I cannot believe that anyone could maintain that this case is even remotely comparable to the Prestige catastrophe.

The spillage from the New Flame has only amounted to 24 tonnes to date, compared with more than 70 000 tonnes from the Prestige. It would be like comparing a scratch to terminal cancer; however, an incident such as this is never a minor matter. We need to reinforce the mechanisms for preventing and managing certain risks on our seas, especially in the Mediterranean.

There is no doubt that the Spanish authorities acted calmly, efficiently and competently, perhaps because they have learnt from the serious chain of errors and stupidities committed by the government at the time of the Prestige disaster. This action on the part of the Spanish Government and the Junta de Andalucía was facilitated by the European Maritime Safety Agency and the services of CleanSeaNet, which provided the Spanish authorities with eleven satellite images and two incident assessment reports, and the Commission response was mentioned by Mr Barrot just now so I will not repeat it.

Nine months after the incident the matter is under control and the British and Spanish authorities, together with the Commission, are acting strictly within the framework of the Forum of Dialogue on Gibraltar.

  Graham Watson, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, the oral question that underlies this debate smacks to me of atavistic resentment of a constitutional nature. This House is at its worst if we allow such sentiment to stain our approach to the politics of the European Union.

I would ask the Commissioner to clarify three points for us, and I hope he will come back at the end of the debate and do that.

First, that the collision and sinking of the New Flame happened not in the Bay of Gibraltar, which the Spanish call the Bay of Algeciras, but on the south-east side of the Rock of Gibraltar, off Europa Point in the Mediterranean Sea.

Second, that the New Flame incident had nothing to do with the bunkering of oil, as the ship was carrying scrap metal.

Third, that there have not been seven oil spills, as claimed in the oral question, but one minor spill during a storm on 9-10 February. Seven hundred and eighty cubic metres of fuel were pumped off the vessel in the month following the incident, none of which was spilt. I would be grateful if the Commissioner would confirm that to the House. If there is oil on the coast, it is more likely to have come from the Sierra Nava, which broke anchor in a storm earlier in the year, ran aground and leaked oil.

Perhaps the Commissioner would also comment on the cooperation between the Gibraltar authorities and the Spanish authorities. I believe that cooperation was exemplary. Gibraltar is in compliance with all its relevant international obligations, and I would invite my Spanish colleagues, particularly from the Partido Popular, to come with me to that part of my constituency, talk to the authorities and take a look at the wreck.

There are indeed legitimate concerns over maritime safety and the danger of pollution, not just at sea, but also of the air and of groundwater, in the busy, heavily-populated industrial area in which Gibraltar and its Spanish hinterland are found. However, let us not allow the party-political devices of a disappointed opposition to colour our European considerations.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (ES) Mr President, I think that this New Flame situation was best summed up by Greenpeace when it planted a banner on the wreck bearing the slogan ‘vertido diplomático’ – diplomatic spillage.

The problem is in fact twofold: there is the ecological problem and then there is the diplomatic problem. However, the latter cannot be used as an excuse for not tackling the former seriously.

For example, the New Flame incident is symptomatic of the chronic oil pollution of the Bay of Algeciras due to the failure of Gibraltar to comply with European legislation and also the excessive permissiveness of the Spanish authorities. In any case, I should like to highlight, or perhaps I should be grateful for, the sudden ecological concern of fellow Members in the Partido Popular. I get the feeling, at any rate, that the interest in the New Flame is not so much to do with the need to tackle the ecological problem as with creating the internal opposition to which we are so accustomed.

To reiterate, I believe that there is a diplomatic problem but the fundamental problem is an ecological one which must be tackled immediately.

  Willy Meyer Pleite, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (ES) Mr President, Commissioner, since August I have taken part in various Parliamentary initiatives and have made various speeches in this plenary. The basic issue − as we all know – is that the area around the Straits is one of the busiest areas in Europe for maritime traffic with more than 100 000 vessels per annum, 30 000 of which anchor in the area between the Bay of Algeciras and Gibraltar.

The underlying problem is that these two ports have no body to coordinate and monitor maritime traffic. That is the basic problem. We are launching a clear and precise initiative so that the two Member States involved in this matter can resolve this lack of coordination as soon as possible. We are talking about two ports with the greatest volume of maritime traffic and it is unacceptable, in this day and age, that there is still no monitoring entity.

We are not just talking about the New Flame, we also had the Sierra Nava and the Samotraki, and these are incidents which obviously threaten maritime safety, the safety of persons and the natural environment.

Therefore, I think that Europe must take the initiative and give the Member States a clear directive. It is unacceptable, in the 21st century, for the vessel still to be in its current condition. Perhaps Spain was wrong to entrust salvage of the vessel to Gibraltar? Perhaps the two administrations should have done it jointly?

I have a substantive matter to put to the Commissioner. I put a question to the Commission – which Mr Dimas answered in March – highlighting an issue which is still not clear, namely what the vessel was carrying in its hold. What type of scrap metal was it carrying? The Commission replied saying that it was carrying 700 tonnes of IFO-380 fuel but we still do not know what type of scrap metal. I think that this is unacceptable.

I call on the Commission to tell us once and for all what type of scrap metal the vessel was carrying.

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE). - (PT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am speaking in this debate because the situation of the New Flame, shipwrecked in Algeciras Bay and Gibraltar in August 2007, has yet to be resolved. As is well known, there were several spillages of fuel and oil from the vessel between August 2007 and February 2008. We all know that the consequences of this kind of accident have no respect for the borders of states and harm both the environment and coastal populations.

I therefore add my voice to those of my Spanish colleagues who are asking for a response to the questions raised about New Flame. These are relevant questions and require an urgent response because this accident not only concerns the Spanish and Gibraltar authorities. It is the kind of accident that has consequences for the environment, maritime safety and the maritime economy, and therefore affects all of us.

We cannot ignore the fact that the collision and sinking of this vessel took place in one of the busiest sea routes in the world and that its cargo has still not been unloaded. The diplomatic quarrel is therefore the least of our worries. However, the issues raised are all the more relevant when we consider that this Parliament has just approved legislation on maritime safety in a package of measures that aims to strengthen European legislation and harmonise it with important international instruments.

It therefore makes sense for us to ask how the relevant resources approved by European legislation are being used, at least those that are already available, and how the necessary cooperation between Member States and the Commission is being coordinated, particularly with regard to the exchange of information, the allocation of responsibilities and the practical measures required to resolve the situation. It is in this context, moreover, that we evaluate the statement that Vice-President Barrot has made to us here and that I understand communicates the Commission's position.

  Francisca Pleguezuelos Aguilar (PSE). - (ES) Mr President, this debate and the answers from the Commissioner have left no doubt that the Spanish and Andalucian authorities are highly sensitive to spillages of pollutants and maritime safety; these are important matters for the Spanish Government both in terms of its response, which was fairly immediate in terms of time and manner, and because it has embarked upon a series of very large-scale actions to resolve the problem and to avoid even worse disasters. We have already talked about this.

Clearly the New Flame incident is not remotely a catastrophe on the scale of the Prestige, but its consequences have occupied and concerned the Spanish Government, the government of my country.

The Spanish Government certainly cannot be accused of inaction, quite the reverse. Right from the time of the incident, Spain has been in contact with the United Kingdom and with Gibraltar and has been seeking information on the vessel and on the collision, and it has offered to collaborate in and coordinate the initiative proposed by my fellow Member, Mr Meyer Pleite.

As the Commissioner said, assistance has been sought from the European Union since August. The ship-owner and his company have been instructed to bear the cost of the damage and the Junta de Andalucía has also made a complaint to Gibraltar for potentially failing to comply with legislation.

It is vital for Spain to have fulfilled its obligations – which it did, and there was no repeat of what happened with the Prestige − but there is also a need for coordination and it is that coordination which was found wanting. Therefore, I believe that Spain’s recourse to the Forum of Dialogue on Gibraltar as a measure which can genuinely enable us to manage such situations and prevent further undesirable incidents should conclude this matter for us all. Everything else is just the apathy which some people felt and want to drag through Parliament again.

  David Hammerstein (Verts/ALE). - (ES) Mr President, as far as the Greens are concerned, it is not a matter of apportioning blame, but of seeking an effective means of remedying a catastrophe such as this, or rather the chronicle of catastrophes which occur daily in the Straits of Gibraltar.

This collision was a grave warning and we should take note. We have asked the Commission to adopt measures to combat the foolhardy and dangerous practice of bunkering which is turning the waters of Gibraltar, Great Britain and Spain into an enormous, lawless, floating petrol station, without supervision or safeguards.

Hundreds of dubious single-hulled vessels sail these seas. Last year there were six thousand fuel transhipments, more than ten thousand of them on the high seas, without the safety measures laid down in the Marpol Convention.

We have told the European Commission that we cannot continue learning from disasters and have asked it to submit a protocol to this House, an effective protocol on maritime transport collaboration in the Straits of Gibraltar, in defence of the environment and common sense. We cannot cope with this sort of catastrophe on top of our everyday disasters.

  Luis de Grandes Pascual (PPE-DE). - (ES) Mr President, I would like to thank Mr Barrot for his answers. Algeciras Bay has become the dumping ground of the Straits of Gibraltar. In addition to unlawful bunkering practices, the continual spillage of pollutants, albeit in small quantities, and accidents involving spillage of cargo are threatening to transform a protected area into a sewer.

The case we are debating in no way threatens relations between Spain and Great Britain, who are discussing their old grievances in a rational manner. In the case of the New Flame – if you will permit me to use the saying – ‘unos por otros, la casa sin barrer’ – ‘a hedge between keeps friendship green’.

It is scandalous that in six long months no competent authority has been capable of taking effective decisions to prevent the vessel sinking and that polluting spillages resulting from the collision have not been prevented.

The wreck is now at the bottom of the sea along with 42 500 tonnes of scrap whose nature and potential for pollution is unknown.

Commissioner, we are working hard on the Erika III package, which the Council is showing little inclination to tailor to Parliament’s demands, to ensure that there is an independent authority to combat maritime pollution, an authority which has the power to take decisions after assessing the scale of an incident.

This New Flame case seems tailor-made to justify the establishment of just such an independent authority, equipped with decision-making powers. Moreover, it is inexcusable to urge the Member States of the European Union to transpose the relevant directives and to ratify the international conventions applicable to this case. It was sad to hear Andalucía being slated over the major disaster of the Prestige; it is a sad Manichaean game which shows little respect for Andalucía. It is a shame that it was people from that region who brought the matter up.

Commissioner, what Andalucía demands is that legitimate bunkering and maritime activities in the Bay of Alegeciras, which generate wealth and employment for the area, should go hand in hand with strict respect for environmental protection.

  Inés Ayala Sender (PSE). - (ES) Mr President, this accident is certainly not comparable to other incidents involving oil tankers, or even container vessels such as the Napoli, on which the IMB still has to take a decision.

On the other hand, we should be very pleased that the Vice-President is taking part in this debate. At the moment the debate is focused essentially on environmental aspects. I think it is important that Mr Barrot has the power to tackle both aspects, the environment and transport, with new instruments.

We settled the diplomatic problems with Gibraltar over safety in the air. I would like to suggest to Mr Barrot that here too we should try to settle, and indeed improve, the diplomatic aspects with Gibraltar over maritime safety. Despite problems, I believe that there are already channels for dialogue which can prove very useful.

I also believe that the Spanish and Andalucian authorities have done everything possible in connection with this type of accident in this critical area of the Mediterranean, and of course we are pleased and gratified to see that they immediately asked the European Union to enforce the instruments available to it.

We firmly believe in the importance of sending out a message of hope to citizens as regards the gloomier aspects, and we should therefore encourage you to reinforce those EMSA mechanisms which proved to be useful precautionary, and then protective, measures for the coastline, to press ahead with this third maritime safety package and, in particular, to improve cooperation between ports, which was perhaps not always as good as it might have been, and certainly to present all those aspects relating to improving the quality of marine fuel, a proposal which was agreed recently by the IMO and will certainly improve the outcome or consequences of this type of incident.

  Jacques Barrot, Vice-President of the Commission. − (FR) Mr President, I will attempt to reply to a few of the questions. I should like to say to Mr Galeote that the Commission has not been notified of any specific toxicity of the scrap metal that the New Flame was carrying on board. We have no grounds for believing that the metal is particularly toxic.

As for the assistance provided through the Community Mechanism for Civil Protection, this was requested by the Spanish authorities immediately after the incident involving the New Flame had occurred, but it has not been requested since. Finally, with regard to the removal of the wreck, I should like to inform Parliament that salvage operations are under way, sea conditions currently allowing them to be carried out safely. These removal operations are expected to take approximately three months.

Moreover, the Commission is considering the complaint received from the Andalusian Government. Any infringements that are found to have taken place will be prosecuted. Mr Watson also asked me a few questions. I should like to say to him that the wreck of the New Flame is, indeed, located in the territorial waters of Gibraltar. The New Flame incident had nothing to do with the bunkering of oil; the British authorities informed the Commission that oil bunkering activities were regulated under existing law and that they did not pose any particular problems. Supply vessels are always double-hulled oil tankers and have all the necessary certificates.

Mr Meyer, the vessel traffic monitoring directive – I shall conclude on this point – promotes cooperation in the area of vessel traffic monitoring, while the SafeSeaNet information system allows for the exchange of information.

Mr Queiró, the Commission believes that the provisions of the directive on criminal penalties for maritime pollution may be applicable in the case of the New Flame, as well as, more generally, to bunkering operations that cause pollution at sea. However, the 2005 directive does not lay down the legislative framework for imposing criminal penalties on persons responsible for maritime pollution.

The practical imposition of penalties in each individual case is not provided for in the directive but under the applicable national law, for instance, following the submission of a complaint or after initiating criminal action. Penalties must be imposed by the national courts as soon as an offence is found to have been committed.

Mr Hammerstein, the open-sea transfer of oil is a very common practice in maritime transport. In principle, this does not pose a problem as long as all precautionary measures are taken. Shipowners have developed a body of best practices for bunkering operations, that is, during the supply of fuel to vessels. For its part, the International Maritime Organisation is preparing to adopt various measures to prevent pollution during the transfer of oil between tankers. The Member States and the Commission have actively supported this approach; we will, however, remain extremely vigilant in this area.

Mr de Grandes Pascual, in 2005, as part of the third package of legislative measures on maritime safety, the Commission tabled a proposal for a directive laying down a minimum set of common rules on civil liability and insurance. This proposal was welcomed by the European Parliament, but, unfortunately, no appropriate action has so far been taken in the Council. This proposal was designed to provide an interim response to the victims of maritime pollution prior to the constantly delayed implementation of the international conventions that are pending. Such conventions either enter into force only after much delay or are not applicable in all the Member States. That leads to situations of unequal treatment for maritime transport operators and for accident victims.

I have not replied to all questions, but I should also like to tell you that the Commission is aware that there is ongoing disagreement over the territorial waters of Gibraltar. It is not our place to get involved in this discussion. We can only call on the parties concerned to strengthen their cooperation and improve the exchange of information. The Tripartite Forum should focus on the issue of cooperation in the field of maritime safety.

Ladies and gentlemen, if you would allow me, I should like to take this opportunity to tell you that, with regard to the Third Maritime Package to prevent pollution, Parliament has really faced up to its responsibilities. Your Committee on Transport has adopted all seven proposals, and I must pay tribute to Parliament, which has provided me with much assistance in this matter. Nevertheless, it is true that, at the last meeting of the Council of Transport Ministers, I did notice that there was some resistance on the part of a number of Member States, several Member States, towards two proposals: on the one hand, the proposal on civil liability, the liability of shipowners, in connection with which, in particular, we have had to introduce a compulsory insurance scheme that is obviously critically important for the future. On the other hand, a further proposal, which supplements this scheme, on the liability of the flag State. The liability of the flag State is essential if we want all European flags to appear on the white list of the Paris Memorandum, demonstrating that they are all quality flags. However, we are not quite there yet. I should like to say that, in order to prevent shipwrecks such as that of the New Flame, it is imperative that we have legislation that is, as we have proposed in the Third Maritime Package, comprehensive and capable of effectively eliminating, at any stage, the risk of accidents at sea and pollution.

In this instance, we have made progress, there is no doubt about it. The Maritime Safety Agency, as I have already demonstrated, has provided assistance. It has recently strengthened its pollution response vessel network; however, nothing can take the place of this Third Maritime Package with regard to which I can only hope that, with, I realise, the full backing of Parliament, the Member States are prepared to face up to their responsibilities. What a dramatic situation we would have on our hands if, tomorrow, an oil spill were to occur in the highly fragile and sensitive waters of the Mediterranean Sea. For this reason, I should like to thank you again for your full support so that this Third Maritime Package may be effectively implemented and so that we may have effective flag State control and clear accountability on the part of shipowners. It is absolutely vital if we want to prevent disasters of this kind.

In any event, thank you for raising this issue, which provides us with an opportunity to highlight once again the absolute necessity of maritime safety.

  Gerardo Galeote (PPE-DE). - (ES) Mr President, a point of order. The Commissioner referred to the waters of Gibraltar. I do not know whether this was an interpreting mistake or a lapse on the part of the Commissioner. I would like him to be clear about this because, as he perfectly well knows, the ownership of those waters is the subject of a dispute between the Kingdom of Spain and the United Kingdom.

I would like him to clarify this, please.

  Jacques Barrot, Vice-President of the Commission. − (FR) Mr President, I did not wish to take a position on this. I simply gave the geographical location of the shipwreck as being Algeciras, Gibraltar. Please do not misunderstand me: I did not wish to settle a dispute that I am, moreover, incapable of settling.

  Graham Watson (ALDE). - Mr President, the Commissioner was absolutely right. This is in the territorial waters of Gibraltar, and it should go on the record that neither the incident nor the sinking of the New Flame was in the Bay of Gibraltar or Algeciras, however you call it. It was off the south-eastern tip of the rock in the Mediterranean Sea, and that should be clear on the record here.

  President. − I have received six motions for resolutions⁽¹⁾ tabled pursuant to Rule 103(2) of the Rule of Procedure.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Thursday, 24 April 2008.

Written statements (Rule 142)

  Kartika Tamara Liotard (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (NL) The matter of the New Flame shipwreck off Gibraltar seems to be centred primarily on the dispute between the United Kingdom and Spain over Gibraltar. It is most important that diplomatic sabre-rattling should not outweigh the threat of an environmental disaster off the Spanish coast. That, after all, is the real problem. Priority must always be given to safeguarding the environment.

Then there is the problem of liability. For the umpteenth time we have here a vessel which sails under a flag of convenience in order to avoid complying with laws and paying dues and then gets into trouble. The EU should be able to act to prevent this flouting of international rules. It has to be crystal-clear who is liable in the event of accidents like this.

(1) see Minutes.

22. Agenda for next sitting: see Minutes

23. Closure of the sitting

(The sitting was closed at 11.40 p.m.)